your great plus grandparents were westerners…without the history that muslms have. WHERE IN THE WORLD did you get this love for Islamic terrorists? Are you actually in Alaska…maybe that accounts for it. Thankfully, the rest of us recognize the problem with Islamic immigration and illegals coming from and thru the southern border. I’m not interested in your hurt feelings. I’m more concerned with what is happening to americans in the lower 48 and Europeans who have stupidly gone the way you suggest.
You DO realize that there was ANOTHER terrorist attack in Barcelona this morning?
That was an appropriate response to your trollish post. Why do you ignore that I have repeatedly listed a number of specific characteristics to consider and take into account in a merit based immigration system?
Why do you ignore that I have expressed my agreement with assigning positive and negative points to desirable and undesirable characteristics of those wishing to migrate into the United States?
We need to take a common sense approach to immigration and select immigrants who will productive and beneficial to the general welfare of the United States and her citizens.
Is it common sense to allow the poverty stricken poorly educated low and unskilled populations of other countries to flood into America? Even if there is no government assistance available to this type of immigrant, they still become a public burden in other self-evident ways. Therefore, it is wise to assign a negative point to this class of immigrant. Is it not?
Is it common sense to allow those with contagious diseases such as chickenpox, tuberculosis, measles, mumps, and sexually transmitted diseases to be introduced into our nation’s population? Of course not, and thus a restriction ought to be placed upon this class of immigrant.
Is it common sense to allow immigrants with mental disorders to be introduced into our country? Of course not, and thus, a negative point must be assigned to this classification.
How about immigrants who are healthy and have a skill to offer, but are destitute and with no visible means of support? Should we not require this type of immigrant to have a job and residence waiting and upon entry place this type of immigrant on a probationary time period?
And how about those wishing to migrate into the United States whose cultural and moral values are in direct conflict with America’s cultural and moral values? Should we not consider the consequences of allowing this group to flood into our country, and restrict their entry to preserve the general welfare of our country?
And let us not forget a group which falls into a very, very dangerous class . . . those who are tied to terrorist groups and whose mission is to bring mayhem and destruction to the United States. Is it really in America’s best interests to open our borders to this type of “immigrant”?
Hopefully the above answers your absurd and trollish question.
Chinese immigrants had just as little in common with us, same to Eastern Europeans.
And the Italians were looked at like this:
That’s the Italians, socialists, anarchists, mafia, that’s how our forebears perceived them, and they were right. They were all of those things. But assimilation of their children hammered it out of them anyway.
> without the history that muslms have. WHERE IN THE WORLD did you get this love for Islamic terrorists?
…Did you ignore this part?;
Caroline… how do you think it is we find terrorists in the first place?
> Thankfully, the rest of us recognize the problem with Islamic immigration and illegals coming from and thru the southern border.
Most don’t come though our southern border; they come on planes. The difference, as the head of our Customs Agency described it, its tens vs 1,000.
Better enforcement at our International ports of entry would make us more secure, and I’m all for it.
So what exactly, Caroline, am I saying that is wrong? Have you just been missing the parts where I say finding bad people is fine? As in yes, we can block those people we’ve identified as terrorist from coming here, or put them in jail, etc.?
Health is fine as a restriction, I already said that. Same to Terrorism.
It’s requiring skills that I question; banning unskilled labor means you ban people like David Tran, a Vietnamese immigrant who came here unskilled, but later founded Huy Fong Foods; the creator of Sriracha sauce.
It would also mean you ban the parents of Sergey Brin, the co-founder of google. Or Jerry Yang, the founder of yahoo, who knew only one word of English when he came here.
You only see people as they are, not as what they can become. You forget that people living in squalor and socialism leaves them destitute, while giving them freedom allows them a chance to affirm what they can truly be. Hence why they came to America.
Economics affirms the optimistic view of humanity in this regard, so does our own history when we absorbed 20 million people in early 20th century. We prospered because of that unskilled immigration flood, so why not allow people today that same opportunity?
You conveniently gloss over the fact that in the early 20th century our immigration policy was designed to reject immigrants which were thought would not be conducive to the general welfare of the United States.
Now, instead of addressing the specific points I made with respect to the need for constructing a merit based immigration system, you decide, once again, to obfuscate and misdirect the conversation and wander off into la la land with red herring deflections.
We are here talking about building a merit based immigration policy grounded in common sense which will advance the general welfare of the United States. If you are not interested in contributing in a productive manner to this discussion, have the decency to not post in the thread.
Immigrants were subject to physical and mental exams to ensure they were fit for admittance to the United States.
”Upon arrival at Ellis Island, immigrants were ushered into a room called the Great Hall and paraded before a series of medical officers for physical inspection. Most were allowed to pass by in a matter of seconds, but those whom the doctors deemed physically or mentally deficient were marked with chalk and taken away for additional screening. Questionable candidates were forced to submit to more detailed questioning and medical exams, and any signs of contagious disease, poor physique, feeblemindedness or insanity could see an immigrant denied admittance on the grounds that they were likely to become a ward of the state. In later years, doctors at Ellis Island even devised puzzles and memory tests to ensure that certain immigrants were intelligent enough to find work. New arrivals could also face rejection if they were anarchists, had a criminal record or showed signs of low moral character. Despite the litany of guidelines for new immigrants, the number of people denied entry at Ellis Island was quite low. Of the 12 million people who passed through its doors between 1892 and 1954, only around 2 percent were deemed unfit to become citizens of the United States.”
Today, we have a number of additional categories worthy to consider within a merit based immigration policy, some of which I took the time to list in POST NO. 125.
Why do you find it necessary to constantly obstruct a productive discussion to create a merit based immigration system which advances the general welfare of the United States and her citizens?
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
I’m for a moratorium. this nation is not the catch all pot for any and everyone. WE have been pretty successful with our previous immigration plans. You are coming around…I see your posts… this is not what you were saying early on. Don’t worry. Democrats have placed immigration moratoriums in the past. It’s really okay if a ‘republican’ one does it now.
The POINT of that post you linked to was that when we had that surge of immigration around the turn of the 20th Century was at a time when we had millions of jobs going unfilled, while today, we have more “workers” than we have jobs available. You can deny it, if you wish, but it’s the truth. We need to do two things to correct this imbalance…restrict immigration and create more jobs. If you do the first without doing the second, we are just putting more people on the dole–and making those who ARE working into tax-slaves to support the influx of more people who won’t be able to find work either…unless some unscrupulous employer is willing to pay them below minimum wage under the table and pocket their withheld taxes.
One thing that escapes EVERYONE about this issue is that everyone–EVERYONE–who is here illegally, whether they walked across the border, drove across, rode across, flew in, sailed in or SWAM in and simply overstayed their visa is a CRIMINAL…by definition. They’ve violated our border, our sovereignty and our laws–knowingly so. Nobody has ever been able to explain WHY we shouldn’t arrest them and deport them. I don’t CARE if they’ve been here 24 hours or 24 years. They are STILL here illegally and are therefore, criminals and should be arrested and sent back where they came from.
Dave Even if it’s true (and it’s not), the market handles it. When there’s growth, immigration surges, when there’s a downturn, immigration falls.
Government does not make a better allocator of labor than the market. The Market handles it the best, and if the demand could be met with legal immigration, it would handle it even better.
If it was all legal, immigrants could more accurately judge if there work for them here or not, and since the process would be more transparent, it would be easier to spot terrorists. **Everyone wins. **
The lesson here, is that if you want Free markets to function, QUIT FIDDLING WITH IT.
No one here is arguing against vetting immigrants. We’re discussing the reduction of legal immigration to half its current levels and basing entry on merit, including skill level, education and economic status. Both AS and I oppose basing entry on those three criteria. We both appear to agree with excluding criminals, terrorists and the sick. I think that both of us support withholding welfare benefits for five years as in the proposal discussed in the OP.
That argument is how the left attacks the Constitution and your rights. It’s a bad argument, and a bad plan.
We’re discussing the reduction of legal immigration to half its current levels and basing entry on merit, including skill level, education and economic status. It appears that AS agrees with me opposes basing entry on those three criteria. We both appear to agree with excluding criminals, terrorists and the sick. We also both appear to support withholding welfare benefits for five years as in the proposal discussed in the OP. Clearly we agree with you to a point.
So my question to you earlier (I didn’t see an answer) was whether you would support retaining or increasing legal immigration levels if we ban welfare to immigrants for five years after entry. If not, why not? After all, their drain on the fiscal system appears to be the most common complaint in this thread about immigrants. If so, then it appears you, AS and I are essentially in agreement. What an interesting notion.
And this thread is really about immigration policy and legal immigration. Just saying.