Immigration?

[??????????]

Shoot 'em on sight as they are crossing the border.

[Lunar]

I suppose you favor the wall then, heh.

[classical liberal]

Shoot 'em on sight as they are crossing the border.

you mean illegals right?

[??????????]

Shoot 'em on sight as they are crossing the border.

you mean illegals right?

Certainly. Or legalize slavery for illegals. Either way it's a win win situation.

[classical liberal]

Shoot 'em on sight as they are crossing the border.

you mean illegals right?

Certainly. Or legalize slavery for illegals. Either way it's a win win situation.

You know, technically slavery for illegals isn't against any law.  Amendment 14 Section 1 specifically says that the protections guarantied by the constitution are only guarantied to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States".  Amendment 13 is one such protection and since illegals are not "born or naturalized in the United States", they are not protected from "involuntary servitude".

Similarly, foeti are not yet "born or naturalized in the united states" and therefore are not guarantied "the rights to life, liberty and property".  Thus from a strict-constructionist viewpoint, abortion bans are unconstitutional as they extend rights not guarantied by the constitution, they are a power that was "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States," and as such "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".  The constitution requires the government to preotect the rights of those "born or naturalized" while the protection of all other persons is "reserved to the states".

[Vasall des Midas]

In my heart of hearts, I consider all and any restrictions on people's movements as heinous and illegal. Remove all borders whatsoever!
Okay, okay, I know, not practicable, dangerous, not going to happen anyway...Still, as little immigration restictions as possible.

[English]

I went for Option 4. Reduce immigration from 'bad' countries. I have nothing against educated immigrants coming to work in Britain, however I am opposed to non-english speakers with no skills. What can they offer?

[Platypus]

My proposal for immigration policy in Australia:

1. Drastically increase immigration of skilled workers and young families under 35, from countries in the first world

2. Encourage immigration from 'lower' countries like India, but only in young families under 35 again.

3. Fill UN appointed refugee quota

4. Give asylum seekers at least temporary Residence Visas

5. Allow false asylum seekers with jobs and families based in Australia to stay

6. Deport false asylum seekers without jobs or families

I think that basically fits my view. Australia can sustain another 30 million people, and to be truly competitive on the world stage we need another 10 million in the next twenty year, something that will not happen at current brith and immigration rates.

[English]

Well, the UK is overpopulated in my opinion. We also have enough unskilled labour of our own without importing it from abroad!
I believe the UK should have a point system regarding immigration. Having family in Britain, speaking English & having a degree, skills etc. should earn the most points. Those who cannot speak English and have no qualifications should get no points. People with criminal records should be barred entry completely.

Regarding Asylum, I believe we should grant asylum to those in need, however they should be required to leave when their country of origin is declared safe. There should be no option of being able to stay indefinately.

Also I would relax the laws on immigration on US/Canadian/Australian & NZ citizens. I have no problems whatsoever with a New Zealander coming to live in Britain.

[Platypus]

If you think the UK is chockablock, there is always room for another pommie down here to bag whenever we cream you in cricket.

(how many americans can interpret that? )

[NewFreedom]

People with criminal records should be barred entry completely.

Would put some other law there, as there are, unfortunately, countries that give you a criminal record for saying "the gouvernment sux"
But all else makes sense, immigration beyond what a country can support helps noone.

[English]

If you think the UK is chockablock, there is always room for another pommie down here to bag whenever we cream you in cricket.

(how many americans can interpret that? )

No Thanks! There's too many creepy crawlies & poisonous stuff in Oz! The spiders in England are big enough, I don't think I could cope with Tarantulas!

[NewFreedom]

(how many americans can interpret that? )

Don't know... I kmow one german at least can not

[??????????]

I went for Option 4. Reduce immigration from 'bad' countries. I have nothing against educated immigrants coming to work in Britain, however I am opposed to non-english speakers with no skills. What can they offer?

Most Mexicans do not fit that category. (The ones coming into the US)

[Platypus]

If you think the UK is chockablock, there is always room for another pommie down here to bag whenever we cream you in cricket.

(how many americans can interpret that? )

No Thanks! There's too many creepy crawlies & poisonous stuff in Oz! The spiders in England are big enough, I don't think I could cope with Tarantulas!

Turantulas are from the Amazon

I've lived here, in Melbourne, my whole life, and only once have I seen a large spider in this city.

In Sydney they have FunnelWebs though.

[KEmperor]

Shoot 'em on sight as they are crossing the border.

you mean illegals right?

Certainly. Or legalize slavery for illegals. Either way it's a win win situation.

You know, technically slavery for illegals isn't against any law.  Amendment 14 Section 1 specifically says that the protections guarantied by the constitution are only guarantied to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States".  Amendment 13 is one such protection and since illegals are not "born or naturalized in the United States", they are not protected from "involuntary servitude".

Similarly, foeti are not yet "born or naturalized in the united states" and therefore are not guarantied "the rights to life, liberty and property".  Thus from a strict-constructionist viewpoint, abortion bans are unconstitutional as they extend rights not guarantied by the constitution, they are a power that was "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States," and as such "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".  The constitution requires the government to preotect the rights of those "born or naturalized" while the protection of all other persons is "reserved to the states".

Well, you are wrong there.  The 13th amendment doesn't say people can't be enslaved, it says that slavery shall not exist in the United States.  And US citizens are bound by that, meaning that they cannot institute a system of slavery in the United States.

[Platypus]

What if a non-citizen had a slave who was also a non-citizen?

[KEmperor]

What if a non-citizen had a slave who was also a non-citizen?

I would assume the same logic would apply.  Foreign nationals are obligated to observe the laws of their host countries.

[12th Doctor]

Increase imigration overall, but make sure that we maintain standards for who we bring in.

America is the land of oppertunity.  My ancestors were all imigrants and they came with not a penny to their names.  Why deny others the oppertunity?  It's good for the economy as well.

[English]

There is no reason why the US should refuse immigrants. It is after all a nation of immigrants. The same goes for Canada, Australia and NZ. Immigration in Europe is more contentious. It's heavily populated already and has been monocultural for centuries. This makes it harder for the resident population and the immigrants to integrate.

[Vasall des Midas]

There is no reason why the US should refuse immigrants. It is after all a nation of immigrants. The same goes for Canada, Australia and NZ. Immigration in Europe is more contentious. It's heavily populated already and has been monocultural for centuries. This makes it harder for the resident population and the immigrants to integrate.

Europe monocultural? No way.

[English]

Until the 1950's, England was very monocultural. OK, it was historically a mix of different Europeans, Danes, Germans, French etc. but it was virtually 100% white.
Now some cities such as Leicester are 40% visable minority.

[Vasall des Midas]

Until the 1950's, England was very monocultural. OK, it was historically a mix of different Europeans, Danes, Germans, French etc. but it was virtually 100% white.
Now some cities such as Leicester are 40% visable minority.

I thought the English don't consider England a part of Europe?
Anyways, even before South Asians etc from the 50s on, there was Italian and Eastern European (mostly Jewish) mass immigration to Britain in the 19th century. Not to forget Irish and Highland Scots - not exactly monocultural!

[English]

Hmm, there were small numbers of Italian & Irish immigrants yes, but it hardly compares to the composition of the UK now does it? In any case, I am in favour of multiculturalism.

[Vasall des Midas]

Hmm, there were small numbers of Italian & Irish immigrants yes, but it hardly compares to the composition of the UK now does it? In any case, I am in favour of multiculturalism.

Aye it does.