TBH, Europeans tend to have a different outlook on this. Quite frankly, most Europeans (can I say "native Europeans" or is that racist?
) wish to keep their countries primarily, well, European. Look at the French vote recently, for example - and I am not defending or advocating for the Front Nationale, but we have to be realstic as to what the popular support for them means. I accept America is different because of its history and that. But, at a time of high unemployment in the West in general, surely it is sensible to return to the old precept that charity, after all, begins at home? Actually, I would be prepared to make the argument that permissive immigration systems
encourage racism, rather than the opposite.
I do agree that charity beginning at home is not a bad concept in and of itself. But I also think that as a society we should work to help each other through more organized means as well. I don't think it has to be one way or the other.
I've never been to Europe, do not personally know anyone from there (I know some people who've visited there, but they don't talk European politics much with me), and just think back to whatever I've learned about Europe's political actions from school and news reports. So I can't comment on that much. I just know they're having a lot of struggles right now, but from what I've heard about those struggles, I think those problems run too deep to think tightening immigration will be a big way to solve the issues going on.
Also curious as to your reasoning as to how permissive immigration laws will encourage racism. I think I know what you might be getting at with that, but I want to be clear regardless.
Its interesting that Japan, still to this day, in spite of all their troubles, one of the most highly developed and advanced economies on the planet, has a very, very restrictive immigration system - and they never make any apologies for it either, and neither should they in my view. In fact, to be bluntly honest, they find the American and European idea of letting in large numbers of foreigners to do the jobs their natives can already do, absurd and laughable.
Except the difference is, many of the immigrants that come to the U.S. are doing jobs those born and raised here DON'T want to do. Most Americans look down their noses at fast food jobs, or jobs out in the field picking foods, or working at local department stores. The reasons why vary-those jobs aren't glamorous enough for them, or they don't pay enough, or whatever, but the fact is, when I hear people talk about looking for work, they always talk about how they don't want to go work at those kinds of jobs.
So when immigrants come here, those are the sorts of jobs they find open, and naturally they're going to take them (because, again, otherwise they'd be seen as lazy immigrants if they didn't work). Americans need to stop bitching about jobs being stolen away from them that they clearly didn't want to do in the first place.
And again, having never been to Japan and having practically no experience with that country, I cannot comment on how that system works out for them. Like I've said elsewhere, I don't disagree with fixing whatever is wrong with our current immigration process, and in order to protect our nation and the people who come here from those who have harmful intents, we need safety measures. That's just logical thinking.
But some of the ideas people come up with just don't seem like they do much to solve the problems, rather, they only take care of the symptoms.
I only vaguely recall that debate, but as for unemployment assistance and the like, I certainly don't have a problem with the state providing this - indeed, I have availed of it myself. But what I and most conservatives resent is the way the system grants welfare to those who treat welfare as basically a lifestyle choice. That was, I assume, the only point I was trying to make.
It wasn't you so much, it was just overall general sentiment from some. And I don't argue that that is a problem, especially since it does wind up hurting those who actually need assistance and have to jump through hoops and fill out insane amounts of paperwork to prove they need it.
But I think we could be able to think of ways to stop people from taking advantage of the system without presuming most people are doing just that. And sometimes, even if they didn't intend to say such a thing, that's how some of the welfare discussion here has come off, like most people on it don't really need it, or something. I'm willing to admit some of that could've been misinterpreted on our end, too. Sometimes people's messages don't always come across crystal clear.
In my seven years here, I can only recall a single poster who put up blatant homophobic comments, and that person was banned. Indeed, I was one of the people that reported that person's posts. I personally am in favour of gay marriage on libertarian grounds, but I do not accept, indeed, cannot accept that people who are against gay marriage are prima facie homophobes, simply on the basis of the fact that they disagree with gay marriage. Actually, the American left's tactics on the issue, I find, quite franky, abominable at times, the way they are so eager to slur people who come to the issue with different conclusions to them with the 'homophobe' epithet.
Then what are we supposed to call people who think that way? I agree that not every anti-gay marriage argument is automatically homophobic in nature-as has been noted before, there are some people who just don't support marriage across the board, regardless of the orientation of everyone involved, and then there are gay people out there as well who don't support gay marriage for their own variety of reasons.
But for those who don't fall into either of those groups, who oppose it and give reasons from religion being against it to "supporting traditional marriage" and such, it's hard to not presume there is a homophobic intent behind those arguments. Those arguments can be and have been knocked down repeatedly because they're illogical.
And one's language doesn't have to be blatant for it to come across homophobic. I also remember many, MANY debates on this topic over the years where people didn't come right out and say blatant anti-gay things, but they couched their views in religious language or talk of keeping marriage as it should be and all that sort of thing. That's just as offensive as anything else.
Hooray
. Proof there will always be common ground somewhere.
The most accomplished Americans have been immigrants (like, say, Einstein). Immigration isnt in our blood, it is our blood. Yes, give us your huddled masses, but also give us your best and brightest and most ambitious. While an enormous amount of American talent is homegrown, we all benefit when people arrive with a purpose and ambition.
Exactly.
