Should there be open immigration

[Lozzy_Ozzy]

They should have to meet certain regulations, such as cultural (you would have to adapt to the host's culture, at least partially, and accept all of their laws) and criminal records, and other regulations. You would also have to have a trial period in which you could be deported, and you would have to be able to support yourself - most countries have enough people to look after already.

 

[Phyr_Negator]

there is already thread with theme, that descended to this topic, why spawn same topics? Create then another 10 -
"should there be open immigration on my street"
"should there be open immigration on my city"
"should there be open immigration on neighboor country"
"should there be open immigration on neighboor house"
it is possible to post here

 

[ComradeDavo]

Whilst I appreciate the praticalities of letting vast numbers of people into soemwhere, idealogically I believe their should be no borders, but then again idealogically I believe their should be one united world.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Voted option 3. Limited immigration is fine, in fact it's a good thing. However, we should only let people in who fled from their own country to avoid death or torture OR who are of use for our country OR who have some sort of connection to the country, through marriage, ancestry or otherwise. If they mess up, becoming career criminals or so, they should be deported. I do believe that it's the responsibility of the immigrant to adapt to the country, not the other way around.

 

[numidian]

Yeah, but isn't saving one's ethnic and racial identity important? Look at the United States. It had millions of European immigrants come over from all the countries of Europe. They all mixed together for the most part. They totally lack any sense of ethnic identity now. They call themselves 'white' now because they don't know what they are. That is not an identity. I dont' know about you, but I think preserving one's ethnic identity IS important because it gives one a sense of community.

 

[downtown]

we dont call ourselves white really. we call ourselves Americans. Being a mixed bag of different cultures, relgions, races, etc hasnt hurt as any. we're still the most powerful country in the world, and if that changes, it wont be because our culture was fragmented

the fact that we let all sorts of people in is exactly what makes america great!

 

[cegman]

there is already thread with theme, that descended to this topic, why spawn same topics? Create then another 10 -
"should there be open immigration on my street"
"should there be open immigration on my city"
"should there be open immigration on neighboor country"
"should there be open immigration on neighboor house"
it is possible to post here

Alright I'll be nice and assume you are using a translation site. I looked at the thread you linked to and it was not on this topic and you looked pretty bad in it. There is a rule against off topic and this topic would be against the rules on that thread.

Well so I don't go off topic. We don't owe people anything. I am not the reason their country is in poor straits, Europe is yea you colonists and communists it's all your fault. Am am Liberal at times but illegal immigration is one thing I am as far right as Pat Robertson.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Whilst I appreciate the praticalities of letting vast numbers of people into soemwhere, idealogically I believe their should be no borders, but then again idealogically I believe their should be one united world.

Agreed. Borders are arbitrary and ridiculous. Nobody should die or live in poverty or under oppression on the basis of lines on a map. I'm sure people would flood into the worlds most prosperous areas, but that would only be as a result of the absurd concentrations of wealth brought about by exploitation on the basis of those borders. Greed on this scale will not last forever.

 

[Phyr_Negator]

cegman be assured, I don't care if my posts gramatically correct or how some random people think about me, in this post everybody talking about same things as in mentioned link. Allowance of immigration and it's +/-

 

[nonconformist]

The "candidate" should prove that he has no criminal record. Then there could be a "trial period" where serious offenses result in deportation. After that period, citizenship.

I must disagree. For example, if it's an immigrant from Zimbabwe, then political resistance would be a crime, which to us is perfectly legitimate.

 

[Adebisi]

Open borders should be the goal. It requires a more flexible job market than we have in Europe today, though, as it's not acceptable to keep immigrants unemployed for several generations. Our current structures are very unfriendly to immigrants.

 

[Phyr_Negator]

Hmm it'll be funny if that zimbabwe immigrant will be some serial murderer but will be gladly accepted in new country. Gangsta paradise - immigrate and you are clean again)

 

[luiz]

I must disagree. For example, if it's an immigrant from Zimbabwe, then political resistance would be a crime, which to us is perfectly legitimate.

In which case the immigrant would classify as a refugee and get in anyway

 

[Ayatollah So]

Oh no, I completely agree with luiz, what is the world coming to

Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, similarly with your right to walk wherever you please. As long as you harm no one, you should have the right to go wherever you want. A country with a big Statue called Liberty, like mine, ought to be the first to acknowledge this (and indeed, you will find some very pro-immigration sentiments engraved at the base of that statue).

 

[amadeus]

Hmm it'll be funny if that zimbabwe immigrant will be some serial murderer but will be gladly accepted in new country. Gangsta paradise - immigrate and you are clean again)

Heck, if he managed to pop off Bob, I'd let him move in with me!

 

[Winner]

Okay, what I think on this topic:

- No immigration from the Islamic countries. The Muslim minorities in Europe are already big enough and problematic, allowing the problem to grow is just plain stupid.

- More immigration from Eastern Europe and Russia, India, Latin America and East Asian countries.

- Increased efforts to assimilate minorities.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Dear Winner

What about a muslim from Russia? and a christian from Syria?

 

[HannibalBarka]

Okay, what I think on this topic:

- No immigration from the Islamic countries. The Muslim minorities in Europe are already big enough and problematic, allowing the problem to grow is just plain stupid.

- More immigration from Eastern Europe and Russia, India, Latin America and East Asian countries.

- Increased efforts to assimilate minorities.

Now mine:

1. No for Winner, he is too racist
2. OK for any one else

 

[Steph]

Immigration should be linked to our capabilities of assimilation:

Only let people come if we can integrate them in our economy or support them. It means:
- Let people come if they have skilled which are wanted. For instance, we lack doctors in France, so let people come, but with a quota (just a bit more than we need. I say a bit more because competition is better).
- Pass a kind of "contract" with new comers. Provide them with the country language teaching, basing laws and customs teaching, for a very low cost (or even free). However, they MUST follow these training course, or are not allowed to come.
- At the end of the training course, they must sign a contract where they recognize they will respect their new country law, or face immediate expulsion. I say law, not custom. They can bring their own custom / religion, but if it conflicts with their new country law, then either they adapt their custom, or they are not welcome.

I'm not agains, accepting refugees, that could not benefit our country immediately, as long as
- They are willing to integrate
- The number we welcome is consistent with what we are able to support. If we don't have money for their welfare, well, it's sad, but we cannot help them. Priority to whose who are already there.

If someone doesn't play by the rule, he should be immediately banned to make room for another refugee who will respect the rules.

 

[bad_ronald]

An elegant solution would be to restrict immigration to people with IQs a standard deviation above the national average (113 for the US at the moment).

There would be many benefits:

• It is one of the most effective ways to ensure that all accepted immigrants will be productive members of the society
• It will create a positive perception of immigrants
• The average immigrant would generate more tax revenue than the average American
• They will raise the average national IQ, and IQ is positively correlated with many beneficial things (please don't confuse this with causation), including: educational achievement, occupational achievement, law abidingness, inside of wedlock child births (regardless of whether you think this is necessary, it is beneficial for a child to have two parents caring for him/her), etc.
• In the way that I've worded it (i.e., "a standard deviation above..."), the law would never have to be rewritten since the requisite IQ would increase as the mean IQ increases

Of course, the IQ test would be given in the native language of the potential immigrant to ensure fairness.

@OP,

No, there should not be open immigration.