Visa Ban

January 31st, 2017 at 10:54:10 AM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: pew
Basically if you don't have relatives living in the US, a job offer in certain specific types of jobs with an employer willing to navigate and finance all the legal aspects, are married or intend to marry a US citizen, it's impossible to immigrate legally to the US. Aside from that, the only options are to seek asylum or enter as a refugee.

That's exactly as it should be and as it always has been.


I'm not sure it's as it has always been, but it's pretty common for many countries to operate such rules, and not allow just 'anyone' to immigrate. The US also has the Green Card lottery, which allows in 50,000 immigrants per year who pass certain checks, but do not have a job or family in the US.

It's desirable to live in the US for some, but wanting and getting are two different things.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
January 31st, 2017 at 11:44:13 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: TheCesspit
I'm not sure it's as it has always been, but it's pretty common for many countries to operate such rules, and not allow just 'anyone' to immigrate. The US also has the Green Card lottery, which allows in 50,000 immigrants per year who pass certain checks, but do not have a job or family in the US.


Most countries have rules to enter. Many if not most require you to be of high skill or/and invest to open a business. This is smart. Most do not let in people with low skills and little job prospects. This is also smart. If the USA enforced these policies, immigration patterns would wildly shift. Mexican immigration would dry up. Indian doctors would flood in.

It's desirable to live in the US for some, but wanting and getting are two different things.


Yes.

I desire Lori Grenier to leave her husband for me.

Getting that is not a good chance.
The President is a fink.
January 31st, 2017 at 12:00:02 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: kenarman
When we reserve the right to only follow the laws we agree with we can never have agreement among our selves about which actions are justified or not.


How do you get that from what I said?

The other two things to keep in mind are:

1) There's obviously a demand for the labor provided by immigrants. if there wasn't, they'd stop coming. In fact, a great many stopped coming during the very recent great recession. I suggested at the time all the US had to do to stop immigration altogether was to wreck their national economy.

2) When there is a demand for some good or service and you make such good or services illegal, all you accomplish is to drive the whole thing underground. This brings along such amenities as fraud, forgery, murder, smuggling, human trafficking, and a big sector of the economy that goes completely unregulated.

The problem isn't just that unskilled laborers, mostly from Mexico and Central and South America, want to go the US. The other big part is that there is much demand for their services.

So put up a wall. That will solve everything.

Maybe after the wall goes up, and Mexico doesn't pay for it, and the US sets up concentration camps and carries out mass deportations not seen since WWII, and the problem persists, maybe after wasting billions of dollars and inflicting much pain on millions of people, maybe then the US government might decide to look rationally at the problem.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
January 31st, 2017 at 1:46:33 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
Maybe after the wall goes up, and Mexico doesn't pay for it, and the US sets up concentration camps and carries out mass deportations not seen since WWII, and the problem persists, maybe after wasting billions of dollars and inflicting much pain on millions of people, maybe then the US government might decide to look rationally at the problem.


Hopefully it will not come to that.

In 2006, Congress authorized the Secure Fence Act - a multi-billion dollar plan to build hundreds of miles of fencing along the southern border of the United States to stem the flow of undocumented immigrants and provide security from potential terrorism. A total of $1.2 billion was authorized initially, but no additional money was ever authorized.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/432/

I can't find a reference, but the USA found it in our interests to provide equipment for free to Mexico to help scan the inbound Asian shipments into the Pacific ports. The Calfornia ports and the Panama Canal are badly overloaded, and the Mexican ports of Manzanillo and Mazatlan are excellent alternatives as rail lines are operable to Texas. If material can be scanned at the ports and then sealed on rail cars there are less issues when the material reaches the US border.



So instead of President Trump using a story about a Honduran immigrant to generate hysteria about the need for a wall, the US could assist Mexico in guarding it's southern border and ports against human trafficking. If it makes sense for imported goods, it makes sense for people.
Quote: Donald Trump's Republican Convention Speech, | July 21, 2016

Fact checking by Danielle Kurtzleben from NPR.

Nearly 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, ordered deported from our country, are tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens.

The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015.

[The number of families apprehended this fiscal year along the Southwestern border thus far (that is, starting in October 2015) is around 51,000, according to Border Patrol data. That is already over the nearly 40,000 apprehended during fiscal year 2015.

Total apprehensions are also on pace to exceed their 2015 total, as well, according to these data. However, that wouldn't be a very high number in the context of recent years; total apprehensions at the border today are far, far lower than they were in the early 2000s. — Danielle Kurtzleben]


They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources.

One such border-crosser was released and made his way to Nebraska. There, he ended the life of an innocent young girl named Sarah Root. She was 21 years-old, and was killed the day after graduating from college with a 4.0 Grade Point Average. Number one in her class. Her killer was then released a second time, and he is now a fugitive from the law. I've met Sarah's beautiful family. But to this Administration, their amazing daughter was just one more American life that wasn't worth protecting. No more.

One more child to sacrifice on the order and on the altar of open borders.

[America does not have "open borders." It has restrictions on immigration and Border Patrol agents who make hundreds of thousands of apprehensions a year. — Danielle Kurtzleben]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Root
January 31st, 2017 at 4:02:31 PM permalink
Face
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3941
Question for AZD,

You and I share many of the same views, and one of those I felt we were in lock step agreement on is this ridiculous notion of security. We've both independently made comments about this issue or that issue, and we both have steadfastly agreed that safety is an illusion and not worth the suppression of freedom and rights. This mostly comes up in gun or shooting-of-the-month threads, but we've also brought it up in other areas, be it climate, general security, and consumer products.

How then do you reconcile your views on that with your views on immigration?

Thanks to AMS and his pic supplied, I've spent the last 24 binging on this airport deal. And sure, while it may be prudent to focus on certain states or regions, it is obvious that a great many decent people are getting f#$%ed over and out. And I use that phrase intentionally, as the things I've seen are no "inconvenience". It's straight f#$%ed over and out.

I could make a gun argument parallel about how a potential threat is the cost of freedom, but I think the casino analogy fits better. They spend untold billions on game protection, all the while not seeing the forest for the trees. Yes, their efforts stop that one card counter, but they cut themselves off at the knees when it comes to the 99.5% majority of regular Joe's conducting routine business. In other words, our efforts at game pro were nothing short of self defeating.

How is this airport / immigration / travel thing not the exact same issue? I could see one believing that there should be no compromise when it comes to attacks on America, but that flies in the face of who I know you are, the guy that's not scared of every fit and jerk, and one who does not sacrifice freedom for illusory safety.

That's not even considering the IMO too-rapid implementation. It strikes me of the SAFEAct, the ACA, where party politics crippled cooperation so one party goes off half cocked, to expected results.

And that's not even considering what amounts to entry based on demographics. That's simply not who we are. I can understand the sentiment of "respect our culture and speak our language" and other such protect/preserve-our-culture-stances, but I don't understand how one can condone outright forbidding all persons of a certain demographic.

Forget the bleeding heart side of it, the "Let's love everyone" vibe. I plain ain't scared of some coward intending terror. And if a rape is being considered, let it be where I can dispense some justice. Perhaps I've gone too far into the "You can't prevent everything, so let's not hamstring ourselves trying", but I would expect you to at least agree that you'd not let fear of terror change who you are as a person.

I said all that to say I don't get it. All I've heard you offer is the correct and obvious answer of "You don't let those of the enemies side into your country", which I understand. But to deny it in a way that is wholly against who we are, a way that severely impacts the lives of completely innocent Americans, their families, their business contacts, seems to be enough of the very thing we rail against to say "Whoa. No, I don't like that."
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
January 31st, 2017 at 4:38:14 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Face
Question for AZD,

You and I share many of the same views, and one of those I felt we were in lock step agreement on is this ridiculous notion of security. We've both independently made comments about this issue or that issue, and we both have steadfastly agreed that safety is an illusion and not worth the suppression of freedom and rights. This mostly comes up in gun or shooting-of-the-month threads, but we've also brought it up in other areas, be it climate, general security, and consumer products.

How then do you reconcile your views on that with your views on immigration?

I could make a gun argument parallel about how a potential threat is the cost of freedom, but I think the casino analogy fits better. They spend untold billions on game protection, all the while not seeing the forest for the trees. Yes, their efforts stop that one card counter, but they cut themselves off at the knees when it comes to the 99.5% majority of regular Joe's conducting routine business. In other words, our efforts at game pro were nothing short of self defeating.

How is this airport / immigration / travel thing not the exact same issue? I could see one believing that there should be no compromise when it comes to attacks on America, but that flies in the face of who I know you are, the guy that's not scared of every fit and jerk, and one who does not sacrifice freedom for illusory safety.

I said all that to say I don't get it. All I've heard you offer is the correct and obvious answer of "You don't let those of the enemies side into your country", which I understand. But to deny it in a way that is wholly against who we are, a way that severely impacts the lives of completely innocent Americans, their families, their business contacts, seems to be enough of the very thing we rail against to say "Whoa. No, I don't like that."


Safety is an illusion, but that does not mean you engage in risky behavior just to show "who we are." The fact is "who we are" is not what people who use the phrase "who we are" think we are. We have always had various "blanket" policies on immigration. Many people at Ellis Island got turned away. 1.5 million were deported under Ike. Chinese were not allowed after the transcontinental RR was built, 1800s. Carter stopped Iranian immigration. If you were HIV positive in the 1980s you got turned away from the USA, one of the few countries with that policy.

There absolutely is a cultural problem between the USA and islam. And there is a real threat. Ask someone who lived in Lebanon 1960s-1990 what happens as islam infiltrates a non-islamic society and starts to dominate. Same is now happening in France, Germany, and Sweden. In the USA it has happened in Dearborn.

I realize we should not "treat people as a group" but I am also a grown-up. Some people mean us harm. Some societies mean us harm. As a country we are not obligated to take anyone and everyone who shows up on our doorstep. Countries have immigration laws. Go to Europe and just try to get a work permit. Try to emigrate to Australia over age 45 (IIRC 45, may be off a few years.) Heck, try to work in Mexico, the country that demands we take their people. You will end up on "Locked Up Abroad." Try to enter Kuwait with an Israeli stamp on your Passport. Try to get a tourist visa to Saudi Arabia, period.

At some point, we have to look out for our own is what I am saying I suppose.
The President is a fink.
January 31st, 2017 at 7:27:02 PM permalink
stinkingliberal
Member since: Nov 9, 2016
Threads: 17
Posts: 731
Quote: pew
Basically if you don't have relatives living in the US, a job offer in certain specific types of jobs with an employer willing to navigate and finance all the legal aspects, are married or intend to marry a US citizen, it's impossible to immigrate legally to the US. Aside from that, the only options are to seek asylum or enter as a refugee.

That's exactly as it should be and as it always has been.


Well, that's factually incorrect, as tens of millions of immigrants entered the US in the 19th and early 20th centuries without meeting any of those criteria.

As to what the policy "should" be, that's a subjective concept and open to interpretation. Trumpers think all non-white and/or non-Christian people should be met at the border and shot. Liberals who favor easing the criteria are accused of wanting "open borders" by Trumpers. The fact of the matter is that we should welcome those with skills, reasonable resources, and an entrepreneurial drive. We admitted a significant number of Southeast Asians in the last quarter of the 20th century, probably out of post-Vietnam war era guilt. I remember conservatives screaming that they were going to destroy our country. They settled here, assimilated, and as a group, have been very successful. They have added to, not subtracted from, our society and nation. That has been the case for immigrants to our country throughout our history. Trumpers seem not to comprehend that.
January 31st, 2017 at 7:42:08 PM permalink
stinkingliberal
Member since: Nov 9, 2016
Threads: 17
Posts: 731
Quote: AZDuffman

There absolutely is a cultural problem between the USA and islam. And there is a real threat. Ask someone who lived in Lebanon 1960s-1990 what happens as islam infiltrates a non-islamic society and starts to dominate. Same is now happening in France, Germany, and Sweden. In the USA it has happened in Dearborn.


Face, what the real problem is here is that Islamophobia isn't rational. Just look at the above statement. Islam is "starting to dominate" France???? Germany???? SWEDEN????? And yeah, all those filthy MOOZLEEMS are imposing Sharia law on Dearborn! The workers at McDonald's all have to wear hijabs!

When you're up against fear-based illogic like that, you can't really use rational thought to counter it. An honest, sober assessment of the so-called threat of "radical Islamic terrorism" shows that it's small beer. Yes, the occasional terrorist incident gets big, gory, splashy news coverage, which is why people grossly overestimate domestic terrorism's impact, frequency, and severity. The amount of effort and fretting we expend worrying about it would be better directed toward, say, lowering the incidence of preventable heart disease deaths. Or improving our highways so that fewer people die on them each year. Or increasing anti-smoking awareness programs. All of those would save thousands of lives a year, but they're not as sexy as chest-thumping Muslim-hating. And you can't get an evil jerkass elected on an anti-heart disease platform.

In general, people are terrible at estimating risk, grossly overestimating some kinds while vastly underestimating others. That's why we have scholarly research and statistics, to show us what we should really be worried about. The hideous wave of MOOZLEEM terrorists, which according to AZD has already swamped Europe (and Dearborn!!!), is not one of those things--the threat is illusory. (And this is where somebody posts a link to a Breitbart story about a MOOZLEEM terrorist blowing up a Burger King or something, thereby "proving" that every single Muslim is a deadly threat.)
January 31st, 2017 at 9:04:25 PM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Quote: AZDuffman
Try to get a tourist visa to Saudi Arabia, period.


It's a fascinating double standard, how much easier it is for a Saudi to visit America than for an American to visit Saudi Arabia. They'll literally burn you at the stake for distributing a Bible.

One of Bill Clinton's greatest failings as a President was not being tougher on Saudi Arabia. Obama was even worse. All these politicians of both parties are spineless politically correct cowards for not holding Saudi Arabia responsible for the simple fact that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis.

Which brings us to the biggest politically correct coward of them all: Donald Trump. Donald Trump's entire campaign is premised on the lie that he's not a politically correct coward. Except when it comes to Saudi Arabia. He won't add the 9/11 financiers to his list of 7 countries.

Trump's hands are tied because he owns 8 companies inside Saudi Arabia. If he has to chose between protecting America from terrorists or lining his pocket with money from Saudi Arabia he'll always chose the money.

Quote: Washington Post
In August 2015, as Trump’s presidential campaign began to take flight, Trump registered eight separate companies with names such as THC Jeddah Hotel and DT Jeddah Technical Services, financial-disclosure filings show. Their names followed a pattern set by Trump companies connected to hotel deals in foreign cities: in this case, Jiddah, the second-biggest city in Saudi Arabia.

Four of those companies, in which Trump was named president or director, remained active at the time of Trump’s May financial filing. The disclosures do not provide more detail for the companies, and Trump representatives did not respond to requests for comment.

On Aug. 21, the same day Trump created four of the Jiddah companies, he told a rally crowd in Alabama: “Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.”


Is it politically incorrect to mention that Trump does business with the Saudi Royal family? Ya know the family that personally paid money to Osama Bin Laden after a 1995 terrorist attack in Riyadh killed 5 Americans. Prince Nayef, the father of the current crown prince, Muhammad bin Nayef, and his brother Prince Sultan, then-defense minister and father of Prince Bandar were financiers of Bin Laden's. Prince Mutaib bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, a former minister in the Saudi government, and member of the Saudi royal family, reportedly lives in a floor-through Trump Tower apartment. Other former Trump property tenants include Prince Nawaf bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, a Saudi royal family member who owned a 10,500 sq. foot (975 sq. meter) condo at the Heritage at Trump Place that went on sale this year for $48.5 million.

The Americans who foolishly voted for Trump are in denial: they were conned by a charlatan.

January 31st, 2017 at 9:52:27 PM permalink
stinkingliberal
Member since: Nov 9, 2016
Threads: 17
Posts: 731
Quote: reno
It's a fascinating double standard, how much easier it is for a Saudi to visit America than for an American to visit Saudi Arabia. They'll literally burn you at the stake for distributing a Bible.

One of Bill Clinton's greatest failings as a President was not being tougher on Saudi Arabia. Obama was even worse. All these politicians of both parties are spineless politically correct cowards for not holding Saudi Arabia responsible for the simple fact that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis.


I comprehend what you're saying, but how exactly and under what international law do we "hold a nation responsible" for the actions of fifteen of its citizens? What, demand reparations? Are we in turn willing to pay reparations every time an American commits a crime in a foreign country?

Also, why is it a "double standard" when two countries have different immigration/visitation policies? They are just as entitled to have specific policies as we are. And those policies don't have to even resemble ours. They are a sovereign nation.

It's not "political correctness" to differentiate between a government of a country and the citizens of that country. I know that the conservative dialogue has been that Saudi Arabia is a hotbed of terrorists and that the 9/11 attacks were state-sanctioned, but that has no evidence to support it and is up there with the tinfoil-hat theories.