Immigration and other things to get banned over
- Thread starter kurczak
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
TheLoneWolf1
Sergeant Knight at Arms
@kurczak I understand now there is no keeping it simple with you so let's see. 
I admit I was too much affected by my personal experiences when answering that. If I would accept the immigrants from war-torn countries or crazy-ass dictatorships I would surely accept those from economically problematic countries, or those looking for temporary employment.
As I think about it, it would have to do with the amount of land my country has and how much is devoted to urban and suburban uses, the residential living space, the capital inversted per worker as well as the size of the country's labor market and its flexibility.
What I said mainly applies to those migrants that can present little info for themselves and their backround. For these cases I would like to know about any any kind of medical illness that may be contaminating or need some kind of special treatment as well as any psycological disorders that would need the help of an expert. I wouldn't accept ofcourse those who would be deemed too dangerous by the above tests. Any kind of expertise low or high would be nice. As far as unskilled labor is concerned it would have to do with the amount of unskilled labor my country's work force already possesses.
I would limit the mandatory stuff to the prerequisites needed for someone to apply for citizenship. I can't treat every immigrant as a guy who just stepped out of prison. They are free to shape their lives just like everyone else.
There are indeed countless areas of possible conflict. The general goal is to absorb these people. So they should be treates as any citizen, the same goes for their children. Now a hypothetical society is sure to have some rules. Those rules may bend for people with different lifestyles but cannot break. Any person can be distinctive as long as he respects the other person's distinctiveness.
There will be a national legal system. Any criminal act will lead to a trial and the appropriate punishment. For the "refuse to take a job" example, the immigrant will have the simple choice of working or starving which is reasonable.
Kinda. I prefer to name it specially designed waiting center or something.
Does it always? I lived and worked - legally
I admit I was too much affected by my personal experiences when answering that
. If I would accept the immigrants from war-torn countries or crazy-ass dictatorships I would surely accept those from economically problematic countries, or those looking for temporary employment.As I think about it, it would have to do with the amount of land my country has and how much is devoted to urban and suburban uses, the residential living space, the capital inversted per worker as well as the size of the country's labor market and its flexibility.
What I said mainly applies to those migrants that can present little info for themselves and their backround. For these cases I would like to know about any any kind of medical illness that may be contaminating or need some kind of special treatment as well as any psycological disorders that would need the help of an expert. I wouldn't accept ofcourse those who would be deemed too dangerous by the above tests. Any kind of expertise low or high would be nice. As far as unskilled labor is concerned it would have to do with the amount of unskilled labor my country's work force already possesses.
I would limit the mandatory stuff to the prerequisites needed for someone to apply for citizenship. I can't treat every immigrant as a guy who just stepped out of prison. They are free to shape their lives just like everyone else.
There are indeed countless areas of possible conflict. The general goal is to absorb these people. So they should be treates as any citizen, the same goes for their children. Now a hypothetical society is sure to have some rules. Those rules may bend for people with different lifestyles but cannot break. Any person can be distinctive as long as he respects the other person's distinctiveness.
There will be a national legal system. Any criminal act will lead to a trial and the appropriate punishment. For the "refuse to take a job" example, the immigrant will have the simple choice of working or starving which is reasonable.
Kinda. I prefer to name it specially designed waiting center or something.
So, my ideal country huh? Alright, let's see here.
1) Does your country accept any migrants at all? Why/ why not?
Of course. Total isolation would probably be more trouble than it's worth. Besides that, I think people should be free to move where they want.
2) Does your country accept all migrants? Why/ why not?
I'd say all legal immigrants. It can turn into a slippery slope if you start allowing people into your country with specific criteria, for example, two different guys from, say, Egypt, want in your country, the other is a member of ISIS, the other is a political activist, both wanted by their own government, which do you allow in, why, and so on.
3) What are the criteria for accepting migrants? Do you distinguish between economic and political migrants and if you do, what constitutes political and what economic migration. How do you tell them apart in everyday practice. What kind of evidence (if any) should the migrant present?
No criteria to begin with. Doesn't matter why they're here, as long as they can assimilate and behave.
4) Should there be any quotas for ethnicity/race/religion/country of origin/region of origin etc? Why/why not?
Nah, das rayciss.
5) What should be the rights of an accepted migrant who is not yet a citizen? Should they have access to (public) health care or welfare benefits? In what extent?
If they don't pay for it, why should they have it? I don't think migrants should have the right to anything if they don't participate in the economy and have just come to be a leech. Then again, the same should go for regular citizens, but that's a whole other matter. Also, just because they don't pay taxes shouldn't be a reason to forbid anyone from migrating, after all, if they don't cost the host anything, there's no problem. Well, so to speak.
6) What should be the responsibilities of an accepted migrant who is not yet a citizen? Should there be any extra responsibilities that citizens don't have?
Learn the language, that would be the most important one.
7) Should an accepted migrant be required to make any lifestyle adjustments? Why/why not? What kinds of adjustments? Try to be as specific as possible.
Absolutely. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. It's simple really, if you want to play ball with us, you're going to play by our rules, otherwise you can go play ball elsewhere.
Not to get into too many details, this means accepting and following the laws of the land, if not assimilating into the host culture, at the very least understand it. For example, the way women are treated in Africa is not the way you treat women in this country, so don't even try. This extends to religion too, you're free to practice any religion you want to as long as your worship stays within the limits of the law. So no sacrificing of virgins etc.
8.) Should the host country be allowed to terminate the permit of stay? For any/all kinds of migrants? Under what circumstances?
Yes, this is what the whole system would depend on. No mercy, break the law once and your ass is exiled, no second chances, blacklisted, unfriended, blocked and reported to Interpol. This all would be made extremely clear prior to them entering the country of course.
And I do mean no mercy. Steal a snickers bar, that's an exile. Rape someone, you bet that's an exile. You don't get to stay in our prisons, we'll make some deal with Nigeria or some other hellhole so we have a place to exile people into.
9) What happens to a person whose application has been denied or whose permit has been terminated? Where do you physically put him? What if the country you decide to send them to refuses to accept them and physically prevents them from entering it at all?
Well, honestly, I don't think a system like that would even work. In my ideal country, you'd have to apply for migration prior to entering the country, it could be done at an embassy closest to you. If your country doesn't have an embassy, well, I'm sure there's a reason for that. Call them I guess.
1) Does your country accept any migrants at all? Why/ why not?
Of course. Total isolation would probably be more trouble than it's worth. Besides that, I think people should be free to move where they want.
2) Does your country accept all migrants? Why/ why not?
I'd say all legal immigrants. It can turn into a slippery slope if you start allowing people into your country with specific criteria, for example, two different guys from, say, Egypt, want in your country, the other is a member of ISIS, the other is a political activist, both wanted by their own government, which do you allow in, why, and so on.
3) What are the criteria for accepting migrants? Do you distinguish between economic and political migrants and if you do, what constitutes political and what economic migration. How do you tell them apart in everyday practice. What kind of evidence (if any) should the migrant present?
No criteria to begin with. Doesn't matter why they're here, as long as they can assimilate and behave.
4) Should there be any quotas for ethnicity/race/religion/country of origin/region of origin etc? Why/why not?
Nah, das rayciss.
5) What should be the rights of an accepted migrant who is not yet a citizen? Should they have access to (public) health care or welfare benefits? In what extent?
If they don't pay for it, why should they have it? I don't think migrants should have the right to anything if they don't participate in the economy and have just come to be a leech. Then again, the same should go for regular citizens, but that's a whole other matter. Also, just because they don't pay taxes shouldn't be a reason to forbid anyone from migrating, after all, if they don't cost the host anything, there's no problem. Well, so to speak.
6) What should be the responsibilities of an accepted migrant who is not yet a citizen? Should there be any extra responsibilities that citizens don't have?
Learn the language, that would be the most important one.
7) Should an accepted migrant be required to make any lifestyle adjustments? Why/why not? What kinds of adjustments? Try to be as specific as possible.
Absolutely. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. It's simple really, if you want to play ball with us, you're going to play by our rules, otherwise you can go play ball elsewhere.
Not to get into too many details, this means accepting and following the laws of the land, if not assimilating into the host culture, at the very least understand it. For example, the way women are treated in Africa is not the way you treat women in this country, so don't even try. This extends to religion too, you're free to practice any religion you want to as long as your worship stays within the limits of the law. So no sacrificing of virgins etc.
8.) Should the host country be allowed to terminate the permit of stay? For any/all kinds of migrants? Under what circumstances?
Yes, this is what the whole system would depend on. No mercy, break the law once and your ass is exiled, no second chances, blacklisted, unfriended, blocked and reported to Interpol. This all would be made extremely clear prior to them entering the country of course.
And I do mean no mercy. Steal a snickers bar, that's an exile. Rape someone, you bet that's an exile. You don't get to stay in our prisons, we'll make some deal with Nigeria or some other hellhole so we have a place to exile people into.
9) What happens to a person whose application has been denied or whose permit has been terminated? Where do you physically put him? What if the country you decide to send them to refuses to accept them and physically prevents them from entering it at all?
Well, honestly, I don't think a system like that would even work. In my ideal country, you'd have to apply for migration prior to entering the country, it could be done at an embassy closest to you. If your country doesn't have an embassy, well, I'm sure there's a reason for that. Call them I guess.
Flin Flon said:
Yeah, the how is super important here and forcing it too hard can do more harm than good. (That's wht she said) Again, I don't have a step by step plan. Not trying to bait people into arguments and then go "lol no you are wrong and i am right"
You know itWeaver said:I bet you are extremely proud of that joke.
pentagathus
Baron
I would accept no immigrants because people are annoying and I want to drive as many away from my island paradise country as I can anyway.
PinCussion
Comrade Temuzu said:
I wouldn't t kick someone out just because of a snack bar though. Robbery, murder and other grave crimes on the other hand.
pentagathus said:
Pentagathus is blatanly joking.
PinCussion
jacobhinds said:
True, but still.
pentagathus
Baron
I wholeheartedly agree with the above post, although I was joking I do still uphold the view that you are an idiot.
PinCussion
......................seriously
pentagathus
Baron
Nah I don't actually remember when or why I called you an idiot. But judged on this thread....
@mcwiggum I'd rather do away with the monarchy, less tourists that way. Tourists are like terrorists but worse.
@mcwiggum I'd rather do away with the monarchy, less tourists that way. Tourists are like terrorists but worse.
From an anthropological perspective, we are pretty much all migrants.
Though that may sound like a smug and useless perspective, it may well be nothing more than a smug and useless perspective.
Still, as an anthropologist, I am probably genetically-coded to provide such insights to such a thread.
Me personally, I have nothing against immigrants at all, as long as they do a reasonable effort to assimilate, contribute productively, not parasitize their 'host' society and not engage in crime or promote xenophobia or racism. I tend to suspect that most do follow those ethics, but that a few "bad apples" can seemingly spoil the whole bunch. Meaning, if even 1% of a distinctly visible immigrant group commits heinous acts and it comes under scrutiny, it can very quickly create a spurious sense that "they" are all bad. Its a shame when that happens as for one thing it isn't true, and for another its promoting stupidity. Still, I don't think anyone who migrates has an inherent "right" to do so and not expect to be subject to some scrutiny.
Though that may sound like a smug and useless perspective, it may well be nothing more than a smug and useless perspective.
Still, as an anthropologist, I am probably genetically-coded to provide such insights to such a thread.
Me personally, I have nothing against immigrants at all, as long as they do a reasonable effort to assimilate, contribute productively, not parasitize their 'host' society and not engage in crime or promote xenophobia or racism. I tend to suspect that most do follow those ethics, but that a few "bad apples" can seemingly spoil the whole bunch. Meaning, if even 1% of a distinctly visible immigrant group commits heinous acts and it comes under scrutiny, it can very quickly create a spurious sense that "they" are all bad. Its a shame when that happens as for one thing it isn't true, and for another its promoting stupidity. Still, I don't think anyone who migrates has an inherent "right" to do so and not expect to be subject to some scrutiny.
