US Presidential Election XII - Page 58 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-06-2016, 05:02 AM   #856
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,487
Local Time: 05:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
Just because you want something to be bullshit doesn't mean it is. It takes a LONG fucking time to become a citizen in the US for some people.
That might be. But that doesn't mean automatically that legal immigration is almost impossible. To me, legal immigration is not the same as becoming a citizen. It is about being able to legally stay in a country (and work) for a long/indefinite time. And yes, even then there will be restrictions (as in needing permits, job, etc.).
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 05:07 AM   #857
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 150,227
Local Time: 02:32 PM
I do love that at the same time as we are trying to make movement of goods as unrestricted as possible, the limitations on human movement are becoming more and more severe.
__________________

__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 06:46 AM   #858
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,039
Local Time: 08:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
i know people who have emigrated to the United States from here that didn't have to wait anywhere near that long, and they didn't have American relatives nor were they rich. they mainly just worked hard, focused on a plan and got good jobs down there.
What LN7 said. There are limits per country, for one thing, and while there are over a million people waiting on the list from Mexico, Canada doesn't even show up in the mid ten thousands of people:

Quote:
Mexico
1,344,429
Philippines
417,511
India
344,208
Vietnam
282,375
China
-
mainland born
260,265
Dominican Republic
207,406
Bangladesh
183,159
Pakistan
131,465
Haiti
119,696
Cuba
115,208
El Salvador
82,045
Jamaica
58,368
Iran
53,306
Korea, South
52,887
Peru
51,772
All Others
851,921
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 08:46 AM   #859
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
Hillary's got the black lung, pop. *cough cough*

Conspiracy !!!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 09:36 AM   #860
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,177
Local Time: 11:32 PM
absolutely it takes a long time and you're right canadians have a definite advantage, i won't deny that and that's not my point here either. dfit00 seems to be saying that it's virtually impossible to immigrate legally to the united states, and provided a "source" that i'm just saying is highly exaggerated at best.
__________________
DaveC is online now  
Old 09-06-2016, 01:31 PM   #861
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,172
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
What LN7 said. There are limits per country, for one thing, and while there are over a million people waiting on the list from Mexico, Canada doesn't even show up in the mid ten thousands of people:
The Canadian numbers are lower than Mexico's for sure but they are nowhere near as low as that number suggests. You are only looking at the wait lists for immigration visas. Most Canadians don't migrate to the US that way. Instead they will arrive on one of a number of available worker/employment visas (whether immigration or non-immigration) and then apply for PR after some time if they are in fact interested in that.

I went through this process some years ago - didn't stay in the US though - and I can tell you that out of the dozens of Canadians I met and socialized with, not a single one came to the US off that immigration wait list you were looking at.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 02:45 PM   #862
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,176
Local Time: 08:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
Conspiracy !!!
No, just random Zoolander references.
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 03:44 PM   #863
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,152
Local Time: 11:32 PM
I actually wrote a post about this immigration topic on another forum recently.

It is very difficult for unskilled, uneducated people with no familial connections to be here legally. Now, we should understand that citizenship is different from legal resident status. Legal resident status is what a green card gets you, what enables you to be here legally. Once you've been a legal resident for five or more years, then you can take the civics/social studies test(the one that probably a troubling percentage of natural citizens couldn't pass) to be a citizen. So far as I can, see the only things that citizenship gives you that you wouldn't already have as a legal resident, are the right to vote in elections, and the right to not be deported if you're convicted of a felony.

The point being that timelines for citizenship would all have to take into consideration the mandatory five year wait(and surely some would wait longer than that) after attaining a green card, which itself can be a years-long process.

Getting a green card not only can take a while, it is expensive. The mandatory fees alone can be in excess of $1000, and that doesn't take into consideration the cost of a medical examination if you need one, and the legal fees if you need a lawyer to help you navigate the process.

And as has been mentioned, you need a sponsor too. Employer or family. This is why green card marriages are a thing, and why such couples have to endure the interviews where someone attempts to verify that you're legit.

Look, there's an argument to be made that the legal immigration system has to be difficult and restrictive because if we made it really easy to be legal, there would be more people in the world from poor countries who would want to come here than we would have the resources to accommodate.

I think that there is some truth to that argument. My problem is that politicians aren't honest about the reality of the whole thing. Conservatives who are against amnesty always say, 'but we like legal immigration, our arms are open'. Politicians of all stripes like to pretend that our immigration system is still in line with this:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

But it's not. The reality is for decades now the system has been designed to make it more difficult for the poor and uneducated to come here, and easier for the educated, skilled, and connected to come here.

I just wish politicians would be honest about that, about the fact that it's actually not so easy for the types of immigrants who come here illegally to be here legally. And also that we would do what we can to make it easier without opening the gates to such an extent that the number of incoming immigrants would exceed our ability to accommodate them.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 05:49 PM   #864
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,865
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Very well said, namkcuR
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 06:22 PM   #865
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
Very well said, namkcuR

I second


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 08:09 PM   #866
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,174
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Hypothetically speaking...

Let's say the third party share of the vote stays about the same as what we've seen in polling, ending up being around 10-15% of the electorate and preventing Trump or Clinton from reaching 50% of the popular vote.

Are the Clinton backers from the primaries seriously going to suggest if she loses that she was the Democrats' best shot? Or that she would have been a stronger choice than Bernie or Biden?

And I'm not bringing this up to open a can of worms or compare her to other candidates, but when you have a nominee as historically unlikable as Trump, and who would have to win the election with under 50% of the vote, it's clear that the argument can't be made that he's some truly strong candidate.

In fact, FiveThirtyEight argued today that two separate models of the economy would give the Democrat or Republican a slight edge depending on the model. In other words, Trump is trailing a generic Republican that would be slightly leading or barely behind at this point (for example, a Marco Rubio that wins the primaries would surely be leading Clinton in the polls right now given what we saw earlier in the year).

So, taking all of that into consideration, you're looking at a very flawed candidate in Hillary Clinton. And no, I'm not referring to her stances, personable issues, etc. I'm talking about her electability which is clearly terrible if she's been losing ground for the last month to Donald Trump of all people in spite of her built-in demographic and financial advantage.

So, maybe, just maybe, next time when some condescending assholes act like they know a thing or two about who has the best chance of beating the Republican nominee despite all the polling saying otherwise, we can call them out on their bullshit without even a need for a discussion. If Hillary Clinton somehow loses to Donald fucking Trump, every single one of her primary voters owes the rest of America a big apology.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 08:25 PM   #867
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 55,146
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Shit! I should have voted for Bernie afterall!
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 08:30 PM   #868
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,174
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Well, you get what you knew at the time of purchase. Clinton had unfavorables then and she has high unfavorables now. Why did people expect something to change the second she became the nominee?

But no, she's our best hope because she's the most famous! That's the same reason Republicans are stuck with The Donald.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 08:46 PM   #869
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,341
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Hypothetically speaking...

Let's say the third party share of the vote stays about the same as what we've seen in polling, ending up being around 10-15% of the electorate and preventing Trump or Clinton from reaching 50% of the popular vote.

Are the Clinton backers from the primaries seriously going to suggest if she loses that she was the Democrats' best shot? Or that she would have been a stronger choice than Bernie or Biden?

Bernie? Yes
Biden? Probably not, but he wasn't ready at the time.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-06-2016, 08:49 PM   #870
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,174
Local Time: 10:32 PM
So, the American people hearing the word "Socialist" bandied about would have sunk his numbers lower than Clinton's? Really? Clinton's numbers were garbage during the primaries and they're garbage now, why would you not think Sanders would have been able to keep up his? It's not like Clinton is really getting attacked by a major ad blitz or anything - people just don't like her.

Biden's choice had nothing to do with being ready. He didn't have a prayer once Bernie became a big thing and polling proved that time and again which is why he admitted he didn't join the race in the first place.

Now, the sad part is that Clinton supporters all would have been way better off with Biden. You'd have somebody in the same range politically with hardly any of the baggage. But they weren't willing to compromise on the dream of electing the first female President because it was her turn.
__________________

__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com