The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

IMMIGRATION laws: Two viewpoints Options
TheParser
Posted: Friday, February 17, 2017 7:39:01 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 4,244
Neurons: 19,881
Some "liberals" believe in open immigration laws: anyone in the world, especially economic and political refugees, should be able to enter any country of his/her choosing. (Some "conservatives" feel this is the road to national suicide.)

Some "conservatives" believe in strict immigration laws, limiting entry to people who have needed skills and share the nation's cultural values. (Some "liberals" consider such an approach as mean-spirited.)

Yesterday I saw a poster outside a restaurant.

The words support the viewpoint of "liberals."


"If you are more fortunate than others, build a longer table, not a taller fence."
Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, February 17, 2017 7:53:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 795
Neurons: 345,278
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Those are very general viewpoints that don't even touch on the actual topics of debate: legislating immigration.
Orson Burleigh
Posted: Friday, February 17, 2017 8:47:19 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 136
Neurons: 45,292
Location: Annapolis, Maryland, United States
Lotje1000 wrote:
Those are very general viewpoints that don't even touch on the actual topics of debate: legislating immigration.


Please elucidate.
Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, February 17, 2017 8:58:50 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 795
Neurons: 345,278
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Orson Burleigh wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Those are very general viewpoints that don't even touch on the actual topics of debate: legislating immigration.


Please elucidate.


If one is to compare viewpoints, it seems relevant to compare more in depth than just "liberals like immigrants and conservatives don't", especially when the thread is posted in the legal subforum. For instance, a common argument used against liberals is "well you wouldn't let strangers into your house either". This argument mistakenly simplifies the situation and completely ignores the point that liberals don't necessarily oppose the vetting of potential immigrants.

It would be far more useful to compare legal views between, for instance, people who want little vetting (to, I don't know, protect privacy), people who prefer vetting the way it already is, people who want extremer measures where certain groups are completely excluded and people who don't want any immigration at all.

Simply saying "liberals like immigrants and conservatives don't", doesn't actually add any value to a discussion, in my opinion.

Does that answer your question, Orson?
Orson Burleigh
Posted: Friday, February 17, 2017 9:44:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 136
Neurons: 45,292
Location: Annapolis, Maryland, United States
Lotje1000 wrote:
Orson Burleigh wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Those are very general viewpoints that don't even touch on the actual topics of debate: legislating immigration.


Please elucidate.


If one is to compare viewpoints, it seems relevant to compare more in depth than just "liberals like immigrants and conservatives don't", especially when the thread is posted in the legal subforum. For instance, a common argument used against liberals is "well you wouldn't let strangers into your house either". This argument mistakenly simplifies the situation and completely ignores the point that liberals don't necessarily oppose the vetting of potential immigrants.

It would be far more useful to compare legal views between, for instance, people who want little vetting (to, I don't know, protect privacy), people who prefer vetting the way it already is, people who want extremer measures where certain groups are completely excluded and people who don't want any immigration at all.

Simply saying "liberals like immigrants and conservatives don't", doesn't actually add any value to a discussion, in my opinion.

Does that answer your question, Orson?


Yes, you have addressed my request for elucidation. Thank you.

I appreciate your having clearly outlined four major immigration control issues: the appropriate level of vetting and control; the sorts of people who should or should not be excluded; the standards for admission; and the number of people, if any, who should be admitted by any given country.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, February 17, 2017 11:25:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 6,066
Neurons: 36,204
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thank you Lotje and Orson for expanding on the immigration viewpoints.

I find it interesting that the INCORRECT idea insinuated here and in the general public is that Liberals do not want immigrants and refugees vetted. There is no difference between the vetting now done and whatever "extreme" vetting is, in both Canada and the US. I have done the research and posted all the various levels US immigrants have to go through, and yet this incorrect information is still being purported. I went through US vetting myself and even then it was rigorous even for a white person (we are very glad with what is happening now that we decided not to activate the green card and move to the States permanently back then). It is ALL "extreme" vetting. There is nothing more that could be done. Except eliminate all of a certain group/culture/country. Do you really think Obama would have taken any real big risks that could affect children in the US? He had already tightened up immigration, and using common sense so as not to disrupt families, had deported many more Mexicans than before. He targeted those with criminal records, which is how it should be done. He just did it quietly.

As for the caption listed and used to describe Liberal points of view re immigration, I find it an interesting stereotype (used negatively?) that Liberals tend to be more open and kind. Whistle

In fact I did not need to go look for the photo - it is from a Canadian memorial centre for peace sign and I already had it in my photo collection. It may have been in response to the Quebec shooting - I'm only guessing. And that happened because of rising Islamophobia that had been increasing in Quebec because of the rhetoric of leaders the past ten years, but that really increased since T began campaigning in the US and they felt it was now sanctioned by an important leader. The shooter had online expressed his like for T.

I think it is an attitude towards sharing in life and not just an immigration issue. I think it is something to strive for in this life and most Canadians, not all, agree with this POV.

Of course, the fence WAS referring to T's Mexican wall so in that sense it was about immigration but also about discrimination.

But mainly it was about Canadians sharing what we have in our country when we are so fortunate to live here.




A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. Albert Einstein
Hope123
Posted: Friday, February 17, 2017 1:34:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 6,066
Neurons: 36,204
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Too late to change it now, but it just dawned on me that if it had just been legalities, it belonged in this sub forum but I really should not have responded here to a Liberal/Conservative discussion that belongs in Politics. And sorry, Romany, I did respond as if it is just a two groups thing when we have been trying to get away from that, although I did say it was more about sharing than being divisive.

I don't think we have any lawyers interested in posting on the forum who would be able to expand on immigration laws. The little bit I read was pages and pages long of legalese and that only touched the surface.

I shall see if I can find the thread with all the layers of scrutiny they go through, but I don't remember the title.

A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. Albert Einstein
Hope123
Posted: Friday, February 17, 2017 2:53:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 6,066
Neurons: 36,204
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
So back to topic of immigration laws and levels of vetting.

Found my post re layers immigrants go through and then add on more screening for refugees. Sometimes a two-year process.

Copied from thread - http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst161302p2_And--then--there-s-this-view--.aspx

Quote Listening: "Ultimately, I just want my kids (and yours) to grow up safe and sound and know a happy and kind world."

That's what we all want and why we are afraid of what is happening right now with the way he does things and the people he has as advisers.

Listening, I remember posting similar info before the election on a thread discussing Canada and the US vetting process with, I believe, you and FD? If it was you, I guess you didn't believe it was adequate. But I will post the protocol again.

It will be extremely interesting when Trump finally brings in how he will vet these refugees more extremely. I/we shall all be watching very closely what all this fuss is about because here is what is happening now. These do not sound like requests to me. Edited - Maybe you can explain more so we can understand your fears. Do you really think Obama wouldn't make sure the very best was in place for his beloved girls or for the children the likes of which he cried over? And with what he tried to do about limiting guns that repeat?

::::

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html?_r=0

Refugees Entering the U.S. Already
Face a Rigorous Vetting Process
By HAEYOUN PARK and LARRY BUCHANAN JAN. 29, 2017

President Trump has suspended entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, and he has barred Syrian refugees indefinitely. The current screening process for all refugees involves many layers of security checks before entry into the country, and Syrians were subject to an additional layer of checks. Sometimes, the process, shown below, takes up to two years.

1. Registration with the United Nations.
2. Interview with the United Nations.
3. Refugee status granted by the United Nations.
4. Referral for resettlement in the United States.
The United Nations decides if the person fits the definition of a refugee and whether to refer the person to the United States or to another country for resettlement. Only the most vulnerable are referred, accounting for less than than 1 percent of refugees worldwide. Some people spend years waiting in refugee camps.

5. Interview with State Department contractors.

6. First background check.
7. Higher-level background check for some.
8. Another background check.
The refugee’s name is run through law enforcement and intelligence databases for terrorist or criminal history. Some go through a higher-level clearance before they can continue. A third background check was introduced in 2008 for Iraqis but has since been expanded to all refugees ages 14 to 65.

9. First fingerprint screening; photo taken.
10. Second fingerprint screening.
11. Third fingerprint screening.
The refugee’s fingerprints are screened against F.B.I. and Homeland Security databases, which contain watch list information and past immigration encounters, including if the refugee previously applied for a visa at a United States embassy. Fingerprints are also checked against those collected by the Defense Department during operations in Iraq.

12. Case reviewed at United States immigration headquarters.
13. Some cases referred for additional review.
Syrian applicants must undergo these two additional steps. Each is reviewed by a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services refugee specialist. Cases with “national security indicators” are given to the Homeland Security Department’s fraud detection unit.

14. Extensive, in-person interview with Homeland Security officer.
Most of the interviews with Syrians have been done in Jordan and Turkey.

15. Homeland Security approval is required.
16. Screening for contagious diseases.
17. Cultural orientation class.
18. Matched with an American resettlement agency.
19. Multi-agency security check before leaving for the United States.

Because of the long amount of time between the initial screening and departure, officials conduct a final check before the refugee leaves for the United States.

20. Final security check at an American airport.

:::::::

Obama already tightened up the vetting process. Here's another link from November 2015.

http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/


A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. Albert Einstein
Romany
Posted: Saturday, February 18, 2017 6:10:41 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 12,034
Neurons: 36,538
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom


Sheech! Can we PLEASE define, once more, how a Forum works?

All the different sub-fora have been devised so that people with a love of English or passion to learn, can go to discuss other matters.

This is the LEGAL forum. People who have interest in the Law, the Judiciary, or Legal process are free to come here, to use as much of that legal language most of us find difficult to follow to their heart's content, and to discuss legal procedures.

Just as the Grammar thread is to talk about Grammar, the Vocab. thread to discuss Vocabulary etc.

These incessant incursions of a very divisive political stance into every thread EXCEPT the Political thread brings in friction and unnecessary personal ideologies in a very sneaky way that most learners do not recognise.

It's disgraceful to use our learners as sounding-boards, and the threads as a cohesive method of distributing a political stance which is currently extremely problematic.Shame on you

So: as others have said: Some people favour immigration, some don't. That's the purpose of a democracy: individual thought.

Now; what are the legal implications of these different stances? If one has no idea then what the hell is the purpose of using the Legal thread?Brick wall

It makes no sense whatsoever.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.