The Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Kizmet, Jun 26, 2017.

  1. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    To a very high degree, that's what is happening. You'd need to define "American" though. I believe this should include everyone who is law abiding and gainfully employed. Not everyone has the same linguistic skills; this constraint aside, wast majority of immigrants learn English out of simple self-interest. If some are stuck in ghettos, it's not solely their doing.
    On "rate": I HATE to sound like smug Canadian, but can't just jet this slide. Currently, rate of immigration to US is about a million a year; most current Canadian quota is about 300,000. This means that per capita, Canadian rate is about 300% of US rate. I refuse to believe American economy is any less able to "absorb" newcomers than four metropolitan areas of Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and Calgary that get most of Canadian immigrants.

    Yeah, food. Also, Apple Computers, Google, helicopter, and TV technology. Just from the top of my head.

    I haven't met one immigrant who feels that he/she has it easier on the job market than the locals. It's just illogical. Of course, tweaks can and should be done. Things like enforcing minimum wage and letting tech workers change employers could help remove the worst abuses to both immigrants and other workers.

    You do NOT "throw the borders open" to anyone. What a vile, persistent lie! Asylum cases are adjudicated in asylum courts. Refugees are screened by the UN and local agencies, their identities and fingerprints recorded. In 2016, U.S. settled 12,500 Syrian refugees. in Canada, Trudeau ran and won on admitting 25,000 and eventually admitted around 40,000. Of course, Germany admitted a million migrants most of whom didn't go through a UN camp; THAT's what you compare the US situation with.
  2. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    I'm not republican, and I don't oppose investing in education. I know my position is not popular, but that doesn't mean I can't have it. I'm happy with the world being divided into 200 or so countries. Make yours the best it can be and we'll make ours the best it can be. Those assistant professors should go back home and teach CS in their own countries. As far as America accepting people from other countries goes, just send them elsewhere. We've been lectured about how immigrants are always a boon for economic growth and how diversity is a strength, just distribute people who don't like their current country to one of the other 200 or so out there just not here anymore.

    We could present it as a Christmas gift. Merry Christmas Friends! Here’s to your economic health and to a more vibrant culture. We’ll see you on the moon!
  3. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I'm pretty sure none of you ever really hates to sound like that....
  4. jhp

    jhp Member

    I welcome all legal immigrants, refugees or asylum seekers as long they are of benefit to the United States.

    I find it abhorrent that Ukraine has taken so few poor immigrants. Have they taken any?
    She is significantly closer to Syria, has plenty of space and should the undocumented people want to keep in contact with their families back home, they can just travel back easily.
    They will love it there! Who can forget Lanzheron beach?
  5. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Yeah, because it is totally reasonable for the UN to settle refugees from one country at war in another country at war. You know, one of the dangers of playing dumb is that you may just look dumb.

    PS. Provided that Ukraine is stable enough, I would not necessarily oppose resettling a limited number of refugees (ie., 12K Syrians US accepted last year) there. Knowing my compatriots though, it'll probably not be a very popular position.

    PSS. Obviously, right now Ukraine is a big net donor of immigrants. A few immigrants from our part: Igor Sikorski, Isaac Azimov, Mila Kunis, Wlad Klitschko.
  6. jhp

    jhp Member

    Why do you think that is?
  7. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Snapshot view

    Here is a list of the number of refugees that are taken in by the Ukraine, along with surrounding nations. The United States is thrown into the mix for perspective.

    From least to most (per 1000 people):
    0.07 Ukraine (least number of refugees taken)

    0.12 Romania
    0.14 Belarus
    0.15 Slovakia
    0.41 Poland
    0.41 Georgia
    0.42 Hungary
    0.75 Greece
    0.84 United States
    1.53 Bulgaria
    2.20 Russia (most number of refugees taken)
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2017
  8. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Oh, so you need it spelled out for yah? Here it is: organized refugees are relocated to safe countries. Ukraine, and I can't believe it needs saying, is NOT a safe country. Observe:
    United Nations News Centre - Conflict in Ukraine enters fourth year &#39with no end in sight&#39 &#8211 UN report

    I WISH we were Poland, and could take in Poland-level numbers. But we're not. Incidentally, Russia takes a lot of people because there is a fair number of conflicts in neighbour countries (in many of which the Kremlin has its bloody hands). Since you guys care about American citizens: what about Quinn Lucas Schansman, murdered by Russian military along with other MH17 passengers?
  9. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Because we're a poor country that kicked the habit of making the Communist Party second-biggest faction in the Parliament only in 2014, and only cleaned up the streets littered with Lenin statues last year. Give us a break, we're learning.
  10. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    You sure can, and also can be mocked for it. It's a free country.
    One effect of stopping immigration would be Waterloo ON finally having a shot at being the new Silicon Valley. Major companies will flee along with the workforce. Remaining American engineers... well, most likely they'll follow the companies. Finally, Ontario will have enough money for universal childcare!
  11. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    1. It's more dangerous in Chicago than in Iraq.
    (a) Ukraine has a murder rate of 4.3 per capita.
    (b) Chicago has a murder rate of 18 per capita.

    2. But refugees are still sent to Chicago.

    3. Therefore refugees should be sent to Ukraine where it is much safer for them.
  12. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    2010* statistics? Are you for real? This is too dumb even for a Saushkino troll.

    *for reference: the war in Ukraine started in 2014. I provided the link to a story about it. Murder rate me again cites is from 2010, Carl!
  13. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Stanislav, yes, the dead American are real. However, your suggestion that American deaths are less relevant than Ukrainian deaths - simply because the dead Americans are from Chicago's crime war - is ludicrous.

    Stanislav, your nation has enough unsolved problems. If your ideas are meaningful and effective (as you claim), then seek to implement them in your nation, instead of telling Americans how to write and implement United States immigration policies. Your nation desperately needs your help. Return to the Ukraine and implement your ideas.
  14. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Um, all he suggested is that you can't tell that a war starting in 2014 might render obsolete any value of public safety statistics from 2010. If you're saying you can't understand that, you're either being exceptionally dense or exceptionally dishonest.
  15. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Fake News

    So the choice is to either agree or be labeled as dishonest?
    That's classic Fake News.​
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2017
  16. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member Staff Member

    Did nobody get my comment?
  17. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    The choice is clear. Either you deliberately misunderstand a simple argument, expressed by two different posters, or you're legitimately not getting it. In either case, it's remarkable.
  18. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    That's not what anyone said.

    I suggest you take a deep breath and either step away from this discussion or return when you can engage civilly.

    You're embarrassing yourself and it is painful to watch.
  19. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    There is no pain or embarrassment at this end.

    The deep breathes are exceptionally tasty. Try it.

    Neuhaus, are you suggesting that it was not civil when SteveFoerster wrote, "You're either dense or dishonest"?

    Neuhaus, here is what was written: "You're either dense or dishonest."

    But they are just words. Sticks and stones will...
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 30, 2017
  20. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    I'll take one stab at it.
    You made your fallacious argument. I pointed out one thing egregiously wrong with it: that it gauged Ukraine's safety based on 2010 murder numbers, hence not taking into account a war that started in 2014 (still ongoing). You know, the thing I referred to in the very post. This renders your statistic meaningless. You failed to grasp it. Can you give a reason for it, except denceness or attempt at manipulation? I'll wait.

    Meanwhile, here's my stab at an explanation:
    Funny how a thing that's based on how British Stalin-loving left wingers behaved gets adopted by modern Putin-loving right wingers in US.

    On Ukraine and refugees: you know what, when stability returns, it SHOULD accept more refugees. Refugee protection under the UN convention is a government function, and we didn't do these well enough. We could specialize in post-Sovied regions; one or two hundred thousand Kyrgyz or Uzbek refugees would fit just fine. Same for persecuted folk in Russia. Language test for full citizenship, of course.

Share This Page