Immigration and other things to get banned over

[kurczak]

So, the recent EU migrant "crisis" got me in a couple of debates where it turned out nobody had any idea what should be done or if anything should be done at all. Including yours truly

What's the Taleworld's take?

In your ideal world, where you get to decide make all relevant national and international law:

1) Does your country accept any migrants at all? Why/ why not?

2) Does your country accept all migrants? Why/ why not?

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?

4) Should there be any quotas for ethnicity/race/religion/country of origin/region of origin etc? Why/why not?

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?

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?

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.

8.) Should the host country be allowed to terminate the permit of stay? For any/all kinds of migrants? Under what circumstances?

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?

 

[Austupaio]

Oh, what an interesting thread. I'll be sure to read along with this and perhaps post my own thoughts later.

 

[Cyborg Eastern European]

Things to get banned over!? Should we get that Swedish guy in here? 

 

[AreJohn]

Things to get banned over!? Should we get that Swedish guy in here? 

This thread needs Wismar! 

Best thing to do is have a humanitarian crusade from a group not tied to any nation to secure libia and syria and help the populace and give the migrants something to go back to.

 

[kurczak]

Best thing to do is have a humanitarian crusade from a group not tied to any nation to secure libia and syria and help the populace and give the migrants something to go back to.

Just to clarify - the thread should ideally not be about the current spike in migration from Middle East and Africa to EU. It should be more about general and abstract policy on (im)migration. Let's say for the sake of the argument the hypothetical host country is powerless with regard to what goes on in the countries of origin. The (attempted) migration is a given and the country can only react within its territory (including the territorial waters if not landlocked).

 

[AreJohn]

Best thing to do is have a humanitarian crusade from a group not tied to any nation to secure libia and syria and help the populace and give the migrants something to go back to.

Just to clarify - the thread should ideally not be about the current spike in migration from Middle East and Africa to EU. It should be more about general and abstract policy on (im)migration. Let's say for the sake of the argument the hypothetical host country is powerless with regard to what goes on in the countries of origin. The (attempted) migration is a given and the country can only react within its territory (including the territorial waters if not landlocked).

Okay, in that case then just keep it low, or none at all, for the sake of preventing the violence and chaos that the USA is going through, mass immigration never ends well for either party.

Oh and to prevent individual breeds of human from going extinct.

 

[TheLoneWolf1]

Very interesting thread. As a Greek I have witnessed my whole life the problems that come with immigration (mainly illegal) and I am tempted to answer. I will try to keep it simple though.

1) For a person to leave his life/home, take or leave his family behind and embark on a journey which may be quite dangerous, it means that his life was really bad. So I would accept migrants with the hope of giving them a better life.

2) Ideally the country should accept all those migrants we can properly absorb.

3) A migrant would have to go through both medical and psycological examinations in order for us to determine that he can be safely inducted in our society or to see to any special needs. Other criteria would be some kind of work expertice I guess. Now any other kind of backround info could be usefull as well but not so much for practical reasons.

4) There should be such quotas since with different ethnicity/race/religion/country of origin/region comes different culture, with different culture comes different lifystyle and maybe special needs that should be in some way accommodated.

5) That really goes with answer #2. If you are really able to absorb them, which means give them a home, food and a place to work, then comes health care etc.

6) Respect to be respected I guess.

7) Well it depends. If a difference to our lifestyles could cause unrest or collisions I guess that respective compromises will be made where it is needed. For instance if a Chinese man migrated to my country and started killing dogs for a dog meat festival, he would surely be in trouble.

8 ) And do what? Throw all migrants to the sea?  No if you choose to take up responsibility for these people then you need to deal with any kind of circumstances.

9) You need to have a proper place to house such cases of migrants and see to their needs until a solution is found.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

What's the Taleworld's take?

I'm not sure TW as a company have an official stance on the subject of immigration but I am always happy to interpret their wishes and act upon them in an official capacity.

If you want an answer from a TW employee, however, it would be best to PM somebody directly.

 

[kurczak]

Very interesting thread. As a Greek I have witnessed my whole life the problems that come with immigration (mainly illegal) and I am tempted to answer. I will try to keep it simple though.

Thanks, but it would be great if you didn't keep it simple

1) For a person to leave his life/home, take or leave his family behind and embark on a journey which may be quite dangerous, it means that his life was really bad. So I would accept migrants with the hope of giving them a better life.

Does it always? I lived and worked - legally - in the UK for two years. I never intended to stay, but I was still a migrant. I know a couple of Czechs and Slovaks who did stay, some have even become citizens since and I can guarantee that none of our lives were "really bad". I'm pretty sure those who stayed would have had just as successful careers over here. They just like the cosmopolitan, big world vibe that the UK provides. Not all immigration is from war-torn countries or some crazy-ass dictatorships.

2) Ideally the country should accept all those migrants we can properly absorb.

Ok, but how do you calculate that? I don't want an exact number, since we are talking a hypothetical country, but what are the variables in the equation?

3) A migrant would have to go through both medical and psycological examinations in order for us to determine that he can be safely inducted in our society or to see to any special needs. Other criteria would be some kind of work expertice I guess. Now any other kind of backround info could be usefull as well but not so much for practical reasons.

What does it mean to be able to be safely induced into a society? What kind of things are the exams looking to filter out? Like, just ebola carriers and psychotic mass murderers or something more?
Does it mean you wouldn't accept unskilled labor? Just doctors and stuff?

6) Respect to be respected I guess.

Sure that's sounds nice and agreeable. But I was thinking more along the lines, for example, of whether a migrant should be required to not be unemployed for more than <insert a period of time> or whether it is acceptable to limit their freedom of movement to certain parts of the country, or whether there should be any mandatory periodic checks which they have to attend etc.

7) Well it depends. If a difference to our lifestyles could cause unrest or collisions I guess that respective compromises will be made where it is needed. For instance if a Chinese man migrated to my country and started killing dogs for a dog meat festival, he would surely be in trouble.

Ok, so eating dogs is a no. Any other animals? How about clothing rules? Whether it's too much (burqas and niqabs) or too little (probably not realistic if the host country is in the 1st world in this day and age, but very applicable for migration between, uhm, less developed countries). Polygamy? How about education? Should the immigrant children be required to attend the exact same curriculum as native children? What about military service? Should they be allowed, required or banned from it? And i'm pretty sure there's more  potential areas of conflict.

8 ) And do what? Throw all migrants to the sea?  No if you choose to take up responsibility for these people then you need to deal with any kind of circumstances.

So you take in a migrant and they start preaching a violent revolution. Or you take them in for as long as they can keep a job. Then they lose it and openly, demonstrably refuse to get another one. Or later you find out they lied in the application and were granted the permit under a false pretense. That's not a problem? You let them stay? Is there really no breach of conduct that would lead to expelling them?

9) You need to have a proper place to house such cases of migrants and see to their needs until a solution is found.

So you keep them in some ghetto in the docks for an indefinite period of time or what do you mean by that?

______

I'm not sure TW as a company have an official stance on the subject of immigration but I am always happy to interpret their wishes and act upon them in an official capacity.

Hehe, yeah that would be great if you did

 

[Weaver]

kurczak, what about your own take on the subject though?
I have a feeling you are one of those immigrants who just viscerally hate other immigrants.

 

[Swissky]

Things to get banned over!? Should we get that Swedish guy in here? 

You mean we can ban masterborn12 by dragging him in here and sacrificing him to our Pharaoh, The God of Sail and the God of Green Stuff That Grows on Rocks and Alike? If we're lucky we'll summon the Great Ulf of the Brew.

 

[kurczak]

kurczak, what about your own take on the subject though?
I have a feeling you are one of those immigrants who just viscerally hate other immigrants.

True, as Jan Pawel Sartrowicz said - hell is other immigrants.

Seriously though, I don't have an opinion on this I could really back up. The general gist is that I would make it pretty easy (easier than it is now in Europe) to get in, but way more strict when it comes to terms of staying and much easier to kick the unruly ones out regardless of what's waiting for them back home. It doesn't make much sense for me to distinguish between political and economic migration. I don't really care what made you leave your country, you get a chance to prove yourself here. But don't **** it up, because you only get the one.

Other than that, I have wildly assimilationist views. I don't see any benefit in turning a unicultural country into a multicultural one. Maybe if done carefully, it can work, but why even go there when there's only risks and no benefits. Man is a herd animal and most people work better in groups with shared experience that they can identify with. That doesn't mean everybody has to be exactly the same. I consider the American melting pot more or less a success. But the mosaic of cultures stuff some people push is bull**** imo. It's just apartheid with a positive spin on it.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Okay, in that case then just keep it low, or none at all, for the sake of preventing the violence and chaos that the USA is going through, mass immigration never ends well for either party.

Migrants are unusually well integrated in most of America. Say what you want about the country but inter-ethnic tension caused by migrants has been pretty low over the last century.

Oh and to prevent individual breeds of human from going extinct.

Spoiler

1) Does your country accept any migrants at all? Why/ why not?
Yes, because completely shutting your borders to migrants while allowing people to leave for other countries is hypocritical.

2) Does your country accept all migrants? Why/ why not?
Potentially, but the process is to be concluded in advance in the home country (preferably an embassy) where background checks, citizenship etc. can be made.

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?
An independent body is to decide which regions/ethnicities/countries qualify for political asylum. Everybody else counts as an economic migrant and is subject to the system proposed above.

4) Should there be any quotas for ethnicity/race/religion/country of origin/region of origin etc? Why/why not?
No, because those are nearly impossible to enforce.

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?
Emergency healthcare is provided for non-citizens but little else. Non-citizens are also subject to being deported without trial if circumstances demand it.

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?
None that I can imagine.

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.
Anybody who hasn't learned (at least one of) the official language(s) before arriving is required to sign up and pay for language lessons.

8.) Should the host country be allowed to terminate the permit of stay? For any/all kinds of migrants? Under what circumstances?
Political migrants: not unless they break a serious law like murder or fraud, Economic migrants: not if they're citizens and have not committed a serious crime.

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?
The former won't happen due to 2), the latter sees them placed in temporary detention until an agreement can be made with the home country. If a serious crime has been committed (terrorism, fraud, high-profile murder), they are imprisoned indefinitely.

 

[Flin Flon]

Other than that, I have wildly assimilationist views. I don't see any benefit in turning a unicultural country into a multicultural one. Maybe if done carefully, it can work, but why even go there when there's only risks and no benefits. Man is a herd animal and most people work better in groups with shared experience that they can identify with. That doesn't mean everybody has to be exactly the same. I consider the American melting pot more or less a success. But the mosaic of cultures stuff some people push is bull**** imo. It's just apartheid with a positive spin on it.

I think that putting assimilationist policies to practice will get you the exact opposite effects of what you intended. Gaps between natives and immigrants, xenophobia and probably even oppression to some degree. I believe that that is the main reason why multiculturalism is favored over assimilationism.

 

[Weaver]

True, as Jan Pawel Sartrowicz said - hell is other immigrants.

I bet you are extremely proud of that joke.

I think that putting assimilationist policies to practice will get you the exact opposite effects of what you intended. Gaps between natives and immigrants, xenophobia and probably even oppression to some degree. I believe that that is the main reason why multiculturalism is favored over assimilationism.

As far as I understand, assimilation actually helps to close the cultural gap and tame xenophobia, while multiculturalism only provokes those. What makes you think it is the other way around?

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Most countries that try to enforce assimilationism do it in a heavy-handed way that alienates anyone who actively resists it. Multiculturalism works better in the sprawling cities that Western Europe doesn't have many of, where the whole urban mess is going to be heterogeneous whether the state likes it or not.

 

[Mage246]

Okay, in that case then just keep it low, or none at all, for the sake of preventing the violence and chaos that the USA is going through, mass immigration never ends well for either party.

Migrants are unusually well integrated in most of America. Say what you want about the country but inter-ethnic tension caused by migrants has been pretty low over the last century.

Yeah, I guess the foreign press must be really sensationalizing the crap out of recent events. It's considered highly unusual over here. There's certainly no "violence and chaos", outside of a few very isolated incidents (in Ferguson and Baltimore). Even the rioting in those incidents would be considered minor.

 

[Austupaio]

Besides the chaos and tension is between local whites and blacks, and it's a little late to call them immigrants.

Even if you did want to go back several generations to say we're immigrants, the blacks didn't have much choice in the immigration process.

I've heard of no tension at all with actual immigrants, even the Mexican thing is a just a fact of life now. There are crap tons of illegal Mexicans, welcome to America.

 

[Mage246]

Parts of my family are far more recent immigrants to the US than African Americans. 

 

[Flin Flon]

As far as I understand, assimilation actually helps to close the cultural gap...

Ideally, yes. But what Jacob said.

and tame xenophobia...

In the Netherlands, the most xenophobic party gets 80% of its support from a province that has the lowest ethnic diversity. I believe the same occurrence happens in the UK. Same with Texas, I think. (some one confirm). With that, we can conclude that areas with a richer ethnic/cultural diversity are less xenophobic.