darkSpyro

"Citizenship" is a social construct that does not exist beyond paper. Borders are artificial. Peaceful migration is a human right.

The fundamental concept beyond anti-immigration laws is that people beyond your culture are less human than you. Barring a serious crime (and even then it's iffy), forcible deportation is a crime against humanity.

That is all

Society as we know it is a social construct. Yes, borders are artificial, but communities agreed that's a thing and now you belong to a nation whether you want it or not.

That said, anti-immigration laws are still pretty bad unless you have a serious overpopulation problem and really can't afford to house more people. Which even then I don't think even any actual small countries have done?

Quote: Bifrost

Society as we know it is a social construct. Yes, borders are artificial, but communities agreed that's a thing and now you belong to a nation whether you want it or not.

A peaceful society usually has no rational reason to bar peaceful immigrants. You have a good point about overpopulation, but I think that doesn't apply to very many countries.

I say "peaceful" instead of "lawful" because I think legal vs illegal immigration is a sick joke.

EDIT: Overpopulation usually has more to do with sustainability than literal numbers, and sustainability is a whole 'nother ballpark. But that's another topic for another day.

Eh. I can see where you’re coming from, but also regulations are helpful in order to establish the rules of a certain country before you decide to live in it. Blatant discrimination is bad, but I don’t know many countries that actually do that.

I mean, yes it would be nice to immigrate to a better country, but yet I do feel we need to have some limitations. I do think that deporting illegal immigrants who have longevity and have benefited society is very wrong, especially if they have a family.

My point is essentially that there are no valid moral reasons to oppose immigration, only logistical reasons to limit it

If a country has no right to control who enters the country because "borders are a social construct", then why does the same logic not apply to your own house?
Out of all of the possible angles you could've approached this from you picked the one that makes the least amount of sense, and is hypocritical on so many levels. Human rights are also social constructs so if this is the basis of your argument you've already contradicted yourself.

There are people that choose not to follow the rules that we have agreed upon in this country, and no of course that doesn't make them "less human", it makes them criminals. You're using very baiting wording. I have a lot of issues with immigration that are reflected in statistics.

Quote: DirtPrincess

If a country has no right to control who enters the country because "borders are a social construct", then why does the same logic not apply to your own house?
Out of all of the possible angles you could've approached this from you picked the one that makes the least amount of sense, and is hypocritical on so many levels. Human rights are also social constructs so if this is the basis of your argument you've already contradicted yourself.

There are people that choose not to follow the rules that we have agreed upon in this country, and no of course that doesn't make them "less human", it makes them criminals. You're using very baiting wording. I have a lot of issues with immigration that are reflected in statistics.

These are valid concerns.


It doesn't apply because equating a country with a home doesn't make much sense because they're so fundamentally different. A country is far more complex and thus it is less directly affected by a unified will, unlike the way a homeowner can do so to their home. A homeowner only has to worry about himself and his family; lawmakers have to worry about far more than that.


I see your point here, but I think "human rights" refers more to the ability of people to live peacefully on an individual basis, whereas "social constructs" govern the ability of people in a society to function as a collective. In this vein, there's a world of difference, which is why I can understand the need to restrict immigration for logistical and economic purposes. From here, I suppose you could argue that using social constructs to protect human rights is a social construct in and of itself, and you would have a point. I never said that social constructs are a bad thing, I'm just saying that they should not be used to interfere with human rights on the basis of immaterial qualities.


On that last bit, I just fundamentally disagree. I think laws should not govern who inherently does or does not belong somewhere, and I see nothing wrong with being a contributing member of a society just because you don't have a piece of paper that says it's okay. In that sense, I would argue that dismissing those people and their lives and their struggles because they're "criminals" definitely dehumanizes them.

I do have one question - in your last point, who exactly is "we?"

of course being completely anti-immigration is retarded since ALL humans are a byproduct of some kind of immigration — that's not a particularly hot take unless you live in KKKtown

Quote: Carmelita Fox

of course being completely anti-immigration is retarded since ALL humans are a byproduct of some kind of immigration — that's not a particularly hot take unless you live in KKKtown

I will admit that this is mostly why I'm so radical. I grew up around people like this and so it's hard for me to distinguish sometimes.


I feel like I should clarify; my opinion is that this standpoint should be where immigration regulation begins, not its final, permanent form.

Are you suggesting that you see absolutely no issue with anyone coming to the US at any given time at all? That's not meant to sound sarcastic or argumentative, it's a sincere question. I just want to know if you think it should be completely unregulated.

Quote: DirtPrincess

Are you suggesting that you see absolutely no issue with anyone coming to the US at any given time at all? That's not meant to sound sarcastic or argumentative, it's a sincere question. I just want to know if you think it should be completely unregulated.

Good heavens, no.

Regulations should involve criminal background checks first and foremost (granted, there are some countries that aren't exactly known for their record-keeping, which must also be taken into account). They should also reflect our current economic status, as well as our political relations with the immigrant's home country (this should not be a convenient excuse to deny immigrants).

I do support merit-based immigration to a certain extent (i.e. people with valuable, marketable skills or education may be given priority). Refugees should always take priority as well. Linguistics as criteria is tricky, but I think as long as they have enough mastery of English to pay taxes and whatnot, they're fine.

I oppose the immigration test because it somewhat forces the idea of an American "identity," which defeats the purpose of America's existence

Let me put it this way: I don't really give a damn if my new Nigerian neighbor knows the national anthem, nor do I care if he speaks Yoruba in public. If I run into him at the polling booth, I'll smile and say hello. If he wants to talk **** about our government, I'll invite him over for a beer and we'll do it together. If anyone tries to attack him and his identity over these things, they're despicable in my eyes.

And let's be honest here, illegal immigration would drastically decrease if we would stop corporations from exploiting immigrants for cheap labor

But why is this in Stuff & Nonsense?

^ This

Quote: sonicbrawler182

But why is this in Stuff & Nonsense?

Idle Chatter doesn't get nearly the amount of attention, it would've quickly died

Quote: Metallo

Quote: sonicbrawler182

But why is this in Stuff & Nonsense?

Idle Chatter doesn't get nearly the amount of attention, it would've quickly died

but do we need this

Yeah, political talk itself is fine, but doesn't everything we talk about have to be depressing, why can't we talk about how adorable seals are instead of talking about rape and fake rape


*And by fake rape, I mean false accusations*

Quote: King-Pen Krazy

Quote: Metallo

Quote: sonicbrawler182

But why is this in Stuff & Nonsense?

Idle Chatter doesn't get nearly the amount of attention, it would've quickly died

but do we need this

Yeah, political talk itself is fine, but doesn't everything we talk about have to be depressing, why can't we talk about how adorable seals are instead of talking about rape and fake rape


*And by fake rape, I mean false accusations*

Lovely idea

Quote: Metallo

Quote: King-Pen Krazy

Quote: Metallo

Idle Chatter doesn't get nearly the amount of attention, it would've quickly died

but do we need this

Yeah, political talk itself is fine, but doesn't everything we talk about have to be depressing, why can't we talk about how adorable seals are instead of talking about rape and fake rape


*And by fake rape, I mean false accusations*

Lovely idea

Alright, I'm done

*leaves room*

.......