But you claim to be the mind reader! It was proven that people are lying about asylum just so they can come to this country.
So by you saying, "They are not lying!", you are attempting to read the minds of all the illegals!
-
Features
Washington Man Accused of Hurling Molotov Cocktails at ICE Detention Center Killed by Police
- Thread starter Half-Life
- Start date
But you claim to be the mind reader! It was proven that people are lying about asylum just so they can come to this country.
So by you saying, "They are not lying!", you are attempting to read the minds of all the illegals!
Now we're getting somewhere! What, in your opinion, is a reasonable reason for keeping some immigrants out?
ruby sparks
Contributor
In all seriousness, have you forgotten to take your medication today?
ruby sparks
Contributor
Yes, we are. You've stopped attributing to me views I don't have and things I haven't said.
National social and economic self-interest would be a big one, or would be two big ones, if you like.
Derec
Contributor
They have access to that much credit at least. That means some collateral such as land or houses. If you own land you are not truly poor.
As I said, it's an investment. The young men sent to Europe are expected to send a lot of money they make (whether through benefits or work) back to the old country. If successful these families can make a multiple of the initial investment and the whole family gets rich.
That's why these guys enter those risks. Not because they are true "asylum seekers". They still fraudulently apply for asylum though, because that's the easiest way to get to stay.
Asylum fraud is real.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I don't doubt it.
But I don't think you should make blanket statements about people's reasons for trying to migrate and essentially call migration a scam. That's going too far, imo.
Please elaborate the word salad.
Derec
Contributor
I differentiate between regulated, legal migration and demanding to be let into the country just because you show up at the border (US) or are floating in a dinghy off the coast of Libya (EU).
ruby sparks
Contributor
I gave you two reasons. I could elaborate, but I would have thought that national social and ecomomic self-interest are terms that would be understood by most people. I mean, they are partly the basis for most regulated immigration and residency rules. They are also arguably not enough ingredients for a salad.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Yes. Though that said, I would not say that just because one is not through a legal channel, that the persons arriving should all automatically be denied entry or sent back.
Also, am I wrong in saying that a lot of people enter USA via legal crossings at the Mexican border?
What do you mean by that? They show up at the border and say, "I have national social and economic self-interest!" and you send them back?
Derec
Contributor
She meant EU's (or US's) "national social and economic self interest", but to answer your question, mass migrants are much more likely to say something like this when they show up at the border:
ruby sparks
Contributor
You're kidding, right?
ruby sparks
Contributor
Do you remember the film, 'Antz', when the ants realised there were many more of them than the grasshoppers?
From these guys pov, and it's arguably at least partly valid, you're just a lucky bastard with no overarching moral right to have what you have instead of them, other than that your lot can put up enough barbed wire fences and watchtowers or guards or the equivalent at the edges of your territory.
Just hope that they don't all simultaneously get their act together, in their many millions.
ruby sparks
Contributor
And do you know how they did it? Or at least partly how they did it, ever since they could build enough boats that would get them a fair ways? Google exploitation or colonialism. And don't even try to exclude the USA, just because they had a late start. And certainly do not mention Native North Americans either. Or slavery.
That's how it works derec. It's a big part of why we're in the 1st world.
Derec
Contributor
So that justifies destroying European/Western civilization through unrestricted mass migration? Because you seem to think they are right to demand entry ("open or die") for millions of mass migrants just because there are more of them.
ruby sparks
Contributor
To the best of my knowledge, immigrants are a net benefit, in terms of taxation and economics, in the UK at least. I even read that the average foreign immigrant is actually less likely to be on benefits than the average indigenous resident, oddly enough.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I'm pretty sure I've already answered that one with a no.
If you want to have a ding-dong with one of those 'LEFTIES' who say such things (if there are any, or if there are more than a very small minority) you might be better off discussing with one of them rather than not reading what I'm saying.
Derec
Contributor
I am not saying end all immigration, but that immigration should be regulated and legal.
And taxation and economics is not the entire picture. UK (or EU or US) are not benefited by letting in Islamists who demand Sharia Law for example. Or rape girls like Pakistani migrants have done in Rotterham for years because authorities did not want to appear "racist". Or rape/murder native European girls like a lot of especially Afghan mass migrants have done in Germany in recent years.
Again, yes to immigration but it should be sane. Which means
- restrict numbers to what the needs of host countries are. Just because 100,000s of mass migrants show up at the border or float off the coast of Africa does not mean you have to take them in.
- select people
- to exclude extremists and criminals (the Afghan Hussein Khavari who murdered a young German woman also severely injured a young woman in Greece but Germany let him in as a "refugee" anyway).
- based on the needs of the host country. Modern economy has little need for unskilled labor and so letting in mass quantities of people with 6th grade education and no language skills is not productive.
- based on willingness to integrate and not create parallel societies in host countries. For example, if an applicant refuses to shake hands with a person of the opposite sex that shows unwillingness to integrate into a Western society. That also includes willingness to learn the language. To get back to US and Latin American migrants, too many spend 20-30 years in US and never bother to learn English.
- it should be easy and quick to deport people in the country illegally or people who commit serious crimes and/or get radicalized while in country. There should not be so many appeals given that the whole process drags on for years.
Derec
Contributor
And then you reversed yourself by saying they have a moral right to demand entry ("open or die") because they are like ants in the movie Antz or something.