NationStates Jolt Archive

This (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21147174-401,00.html) story got me thinking about if a country should take steps to be more 'tolerant' to immigrants. Personally, I think the immigrants should be the ones worried about offending the native population. Although im sure the vast majority of you will disagree with me.

This (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21147174-401,00.html) story got me thinking about if a country should take steps to be more 'tolerant' to immigrants. Personally, I think the immigrants should be the ones worried about offending the native population. Although im sure the vast majority of you will disagree with me.

I hate that kind of statement. We can't win. If we disagree with you, you get to say you were right about the vast majority of us disagreeing with you. If we agree, we're disagreeing with that statement so it's still right.

Even before reading the story, I'm with you. If you choose to relocate to a country, you should expect to live by the rules of that country. If you find them offensive, don't live there.

If a guy wants to stone his daughter to death for having premarital sex, or throw acid in a girl's face for wearing a skirt that scandalously shows her shins off that's his business. Just so long as he does it only to his communtiy's women. If he does it to women belonging to outside communities then it's going to start a feud with men being shot and blown up on both sides.

Yes, for the most part, as long as no laws need to be changed to do so.

Even before reading the story, I'm with you. If you choose to relocate to a country, you should expect to live by the rules of that country. If you find them offensive, don't live there.

I agree.

This (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21147174-401,00.html) story got me thinking about if a country should take steps to be more 'tolerant' to immigrants. Personally, I think the immigrants should be the ones worried about offending the native population. Although im sure the vast majority of you will disagree with me.

The native communities should be tolerant. But the immigrants who move there should also learn a certain communities' culture and expectations in order to integrate. It's a two way system - neither side should bend over backwards to avoid offending the other. There are some Muslims in Britain who want Sharia law installed in the UK - which isn't going to happen, or at least I hope so. Want Sharia law? Go to a country that incorporates it, don't come here.

For me, imigrants should only be allowed if the country needs them. If they have nothing to offer, refuse them.

Countries are not baby sitters.

In the example given? No, that kind of behavior shouldn't be accepted. However, their assumption that immigrants would want to do those things is rather racist. Still where it will not violate the laws of that nations they might as well accommodate them.

This (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21147174-401,00.html) story got me thinking about if a country should take steps to be more 'tolerant' to immigrants. Personally, I think the immigrants should be the ones worried about offending the native population. Although im sure the vast majority of you will disagree with me.

Fuck that. No one should take steps to avoid "offending" me just because I happen to live in California. Here in CA, we've learned to deal with this by sucking it up and realizing people are their own persons, instead of demanding that they "assimilate" into my apparently superior "culture."

Immigrants should obey the laws, but beyond that they have no obligation to "assimilate."

Let's say I decide to emigrate to Canada. Canada is not the United States, and I shouldn't go there expecting everyone to accomodate my American beliefs and ideas just because I am an immigrant and don't want to change my way of life.

Language accomodation? Yes, I support that because it's not easy to establish yourself if you can't communicate. Beyond that, not really.

Depends on what you mean. They can come here, but nobody better eat my dog. :mad:

Let's say I decide to emigrate to Canada. Canada is not the United States, and I shouldn't go there expecting everyone to accomodate my American beliefs and ideas just because I am an immigrant and don't want to change my way of life.

But Americans do that all the time. Do you really imagine you'd just go, "Shucks, I'm in Canada. Now I support gun control and love socialism!" I wouldn't. If someone there didn't like my "beliefs and ideas," that's just too bad. Assuming Canada is a free country, that is. I guess if I was immigrating to Kazakhstan it might be different.

I AM the Native population, and damn rights you immigrants offended us, but we put up with it and life goes on. Now it's your turn to do the same.

The twon in question has a population of 1300. The immigrant population in this town is less than ten. All speak french.

The xenphobic reactionaries who put together this code of conduct are ignorant in that they do not know many immigranmts, and seem to have no idea of immigrant's expectations and desires.

But if you want to applaud their ignorance, go ahead.

But Americans do that all the time. Do you really imagine you'd just go, "Shucks, I'm in Canada. Now I support gun control and love socialism!" I wouldn't. If someone there didn't like my "beliefs and ideas," that's just too bad. Assuming Canada is a free country, that is. I guess if I was immigrating to Kazakhstan it might be different.

Not a good example. I think a better example would be, since we have no gun control in the US should US immigrants to Canada be allowed to carry them even though Canada has more gun control?

Even before reading the story, I'm with you. If you choose to relocate to a country, you should expect to live by the rules of that country. If you find them offensive, don't live there.The joys of being amoral...

I think it's bullshit.

Immigrants are rarely in a position to choose exactly where they want to live. I wasn't. People are forced to abide by laws & social norms, because they cannot simply create their own, independent societies.

I don't abide by laws or norms of the society I live in. I'll never even consider doing so. I had no part in fashioning these rules & norms, and regardless of what I do, I will have to put up with them, or a near-identical set.

That said, I'm not a trained dog. I don't need laws & standards to refrain from harming others. I don't need to be told not to force my lack of religion on anyone. I don't need to be told not to expect everyone to behave in a manner I agree with.

That some immigrants are incapable of relinquishing the bollocks they were indoctrinate with in the societies that spawned them, isn't really a problem of conforming vs. non-conforming. It's a matter of them having been stripped of their own humanity & their ability to formulate their own morality.

Authoritarianism isn't your friend. It's your master & it makes you do ugly shit to eachother.

Should a country accommodate immigrants?

Only if they enter legally.

My Illegal Alien solution;

1st Illegal Entry: Deported, yet able to apply for legal entry.

2nd Illegal Entry: Deported, no future legal entry allowed.

3rd Illegal Entry: Imprisoned on Death Row.

But Americans do that all the time. Do you really imagine you'd just go, "Shucks, I'm in Canada. Now I support gun control and love socialism!" I wouldn't. If someone there didn't like my "beliefs and ideas," that's just too bad. Assuming Canada is a free country, that is. I guess if I was immigrating to Kazakhstan it might be different.

I'm thinking more along the lines of extreme positions; for example, a person who immigrates to a country and wants to force their beliefs on others. If they keep to themselves, I don't really have a problem but we also shouldn't try to accomodate them if they don't want to assimilate in to the nation's culture.

Not a good example. I think a better example would be, since we have no gun control in the US should US immigrants to Canada be allowed to carry them even though Canada has more gun control?

It depends if you are discussing immigrants accomodating the laws of their new country or the cultural practices of their new country.

The twon in question has a population of 1300. The immigrant population in this town is less than ten. All speak french.

The xenphobic reactionaries who put together this code of conduct are ignorant in that they do not know many immigranmts, and seem to have no idea of immigrant's expectations and desires.

But if you want to applaud their ignorance, go ahead.

Ohhhhh God! I hate when people make shit up to support their point! man that bothers me! Where did you get that information? 10 immigrants? So 10 Muslim immigrants needed this to find each other?

http://herouxville.date.com/muslim-dating/quebec.htm

Somehow I doubt that there are only ten immigrants in Herouxville.

I AM the Native population, and damn rights you immigrants offended us, but we put up with it and life goes on. Now it's your turn to do the same.

Well, in the US, so am I.

Not offended in the least.

Only if they enter legally.

My Illegal Alien solution;

1st Illegal Entry: Deported, yet able to apply for legal entry.

2nd Illegal Entry: Deported, no future legal entry allowed.

3rd Illegal Entry: Imprisoned on Death Row.That's interesting. My illegal alien solution:
Eliminate the concept of illegal immigration.

Well, in the US, so am I.

Not offended in the least.You're a Native American? Which tribe are you from?

It depends if you are discussing immigrants accomodating the laws of their new country or the cultural practices of their new country.

I think we're all talking about the obvious here. If you're from Taiwan you can come here, speak your language, wear your clothes, practice your religion nd all that but you're going to have to give up dog and cat at dinner because we kind of like those animals here. I wouldn't whip out an In N' Out Double Double in India.

Oh, and no suicide bombings or Shaira law. Also, women get to wear bikinis here so if you don't like it don't go demanding that the laws get changed, just don't go to the beach. Sorry.

That's interesting. My illegal alien solution:
Eliminate the concept of illegal immigration.

Pass.

You're a Native American? Which tribe are you from?

No tribe.

I was born here, thus I am a native.

Ohhhhh God! I hate when people make shit up to support their point! man that bothers me! Where did you get that information? 10 immigrants? So 10 Muslim immigrants needed this to find each other?

http://herouxville.date.com/muslim-dating/quebec.htm

Somehow I doubt that there are only ten immigrants in Herouxville.

The number I gave came from the radio show As It Happens, which I believe is rebroadcast in the USA on NPR.

To be honest, it is the only source I know of that has given anything like a number. Most of the articles on the internet incorrectly say Herouxville has no immigrants. But not all. (http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/070129/n012979A.html)

The small town, near Shawinigan in central Quebec, has only one immigrant family and wants more.

That's interesting. My illegal alien solution:
Eliminate the concept of illegal immigration.

What if a country democratically decides that they don't want any immigrants?

Not a good example. I think a better example would be, since we have no gun control in the US should US immigrants to Canada be allowed to carry them even though Canada has more gun control?

That's not a good example at all. That just falls under obeying the law. Not "assimilating" into their "culture" to not "offend" the "natives" with your "beliefs and ideas."

I'm thinking more along the lines of extreme positions; for example, a person who immigrates to a country and wants to force their beliefs on others. If they keep to themselves, I don't really have a problem but we also shouldn't try to accomodate them if they don't want to assimilate in to the nation's culture.

What do you mean by "accomodate?"

Keep in mind that a lot of Jews in america didn't "assimilate" into the "national culture" (whatever that is). But no one seems to have a problem with that.

And people - the good, wholesome "natives" - try to force their beliefs on me all the time. The price of free speech, really. I just learn to deal with it. It's only a problem if they are trying to force their beliefs on me in an illegal manner.

Pass.



No tribe.

I was born here, thus I am a native.

So the children of illegal immigrants born in the USA are therefore native US citizens? Excellent. I am glad that you are clear about your stance on this.

I don't see why the native population should ever change in the slighest to accomodate immigrants.If they do move here and insist on causing trouble deliberately trying to stand out from the rest of society to make a statement, then they have to expect to be disciminated against. If they don't like it then tough, they can leave or not move here in the first place.

So the children of illegal immigrants born in the USA are therefore native US citizens? Excellent. I am glad that you are clear about your stance on this.

Um, I'm pretty sure that is the case, legaly speaking.

My illegal alien solution:
Eliminate the concept of illegal immigration.Seconded.

You're a Native American? Which tribe are you from?Why does it matter whether he was born there or what tribal/social bagggage he's lugging around

Looking at the things they were trying to ban in the article, I have to put up a kind of sideline position.

I think that if you immigrate to a country you should obey the laws (which any of the things in that article would not have been had they actually happened) and you should try and make an attempt to learn one of the languages they speak (here in Canada, either English or French) for your own ease.

Let them believe what they want and have their own societies. There's nothing wrong with an immigrant coming in and still wanting to believe in their homelands religion and making the foods they're used to. It's only when they are breaking the law (i.e. stoning someone in a country that doesn't even have a death sentence any more) that they are abusing their rights and freedoms as members of that country.

In essence, if they want the same respect and rights as any other member of that country, they should be willing to be governed by the same set of laws. They too can vote to change said laws once they're citizens. After all, a young adult can still be charged under laws they had no say in--an adult immigrant isn't any different apart from in the obvious ways (being an adult, for one).

If I go to your house to live, I will follow and respect your rules and your habits and strive to keep them. If you come to live in my house, I expect you to follow and respect my rules and strive to keep them.

Immigrants should strive to fit in. to live by that countries standards and respect the laws and customs of the area their living in.

make a serious attempt to learn the language, forgive any cultural blunders they make on you.

but the Goverment should also realize that fitting in on a grand scale takes time. so they also should forgive any cultural blunders the immigrant makes.

Of course that doesn't mean breaking the law for either side.

What if a country democratically decides that they don't want any immigrants?Then one should seek to undermine the demockeery & the 'laws' it passes.

That's not a good example at all. That just falls under obeying the law. Not "assimilating" into their "culture" to not "offend" the "natives" with your "beliefs and ideas."

But owning a gun and the right to carry one is a huge part of American culture in the South especially. Its why you get stupid sayings like, "You'll only take my gun from my cold, dead fingers." The Wild West and the settlement of the west in history is a part of history that is inseperable from the gun.

Then one should seek to undermine the demockeery & the 'laws' it passes.

So you're in favor of a dictatorship then?

If I go to your house to live, I will follow and respect your rules and your habits and strive to keep them. If you come to live in my house, I expect you to follow and respect my rules and strive to keep them.


That's nice, but our houses are privately owned, and no one should follow my habits just because they happen to coexist in the same nation-state (which is not my personal domain) as me. I mean, well, if they should, it's too bad, cuz they won't - regardless of where they're from.

So, if a country has totalitarian laws and horrible cultural practices, should the immigrant attempt to assimilate or should the host country be more accomodating?

So, if an immigrant comes from a country that has totalitarian laws and horrible cultural practices and (s)he attempts to create a similar situation in the host country, should the immigrant attempt to assimilate or should the host country be more accomodating?

Does anyone else think the poll question is too vague?

The Herouxville regulations say girls and boys can exercise together and people should only be allowed to cover their faces at Halloween.Now if that is not racism I do not know what is.

But owning a gun and the right to carry one is a huge part of American culture in the South especially. Its why you get stupid sayings like, "You'll only take my gun from my cold, dead fingers." The Wild West and the settlement of the west in history is a part of history that is inseperable from the gun.

True, but gun ownership is a matter of law. There's nothing wrong with a Southerner immigrating to Canada and saying "You'll only take my gun from my cold, dead fingers." He can believe that, he can say that, he can watch his gun-culture movies and anything else as long as it's legal. What this thread is on about is cultural, not legal, assimilation. The scenario is one of, "How dare those American immigrants worship guns!" not, "How dare those American immigrants carry guns!"

That's nice, but our houses are privately owned, and no one should follow my habits just because they happen to coexist in the same nation-state (which is not my personal domain) as me. I mean, well, if they should, it's too bad, cuz they won't - regardless of where they're from.

I don't think anybody's asking for that. I've yet to see anybody in this thread ask for people to stop wearing traditional clothes or to stop eating traditional foods - hell I love Indian food. I mean I really, really love Tandoori. But if your custom is incompatible with teh native population's customs than you should give it up. For example eating dogs. I realize that it's somewhat cultrally arbitrary to decide that eating dogs is a no-no but eating cows is okay. In japan they eat horses. But not here and I promise i will refrain from eating big macs in India.

No female circumcision, either. No honor killing. Here that's murder.

So, if a country has totalitarian laws and horrible cultural practices, should the immigrant attempt to assimilate or should the host country be more accomodating?
Then the immigrant should assimilate. The poll question is not subjective.

So, if an immigrant comes from a country that has totalitarian laws and horrible cultural practices and (s)he attempts to create a similar situation in the host country, should the immigrant attempt to assimilate or should the host country be more accomodating?
See above.

True, but gun ownership is a matter of law. There's nothing wrong with a Southerner immigrating to Canada and saying "You'll only take my gun from my cold, dead fingers." He can believe that, he can say that, he can watch his gun-culture movies and anything else as long as it's legal. What this thread is on about is cultural, not legal, assimilation. The scenario is one of, "How dare those American immigrants worship guns!" not, "How dare those American immigrants carry guns!"

I thought the scenario presented was that immigrants were not to be allowed to stone women or other wise kill women for cultural offences. At least that is what the article was about.

Then one should seek to undermine the demockeery & the 'laws' it passes.
Then one should shoot them. Which would be much easier here in Britain with our gun laws.

That's nice, but our houses are privately owned, and no one should follow my habits just because they happen to coexist in the same nation-state (which is not my personal domain) as me. I mean, well, if they should, it's too bad, cuz they won't - regardless of where they're from.
Not everyone in the world sees a nation as just a loose set of individuals. If the democratic will of the people declares that these people should assimilate then that's the way it goes.

True, but gun ownership is a matter of law. There's nothing wrong with a Southerner immigrating to Canada and saying "You'll only take my gun from my cold, dead fingers." He can believe that, he can say that, he can watch his gun-culture movies and anything else as long as it's legal. What this thread is on about is cultural, not legal, assimilation. The scenario is one of, "How dare those American immigrants worship guns!" not, "How dare those American immigrants carry guns!"

Often times culture and law overlap. After all, cultural norms are often the basis for laws.

Not everyone in the world sees a nation as just a loose set of individuals. If the democratic will of the people declares that these people should assimilate then that's the way it goes.

Well sure, and if the democratic will declares that Stalin should be chosen as Premier, that's how it goes too. I'll still disagree with it.

And with regards to assimilation, that's just impractical. Assimilate how? To whom? To which culture? I hate to bring it up, but a nation is not just some homogenous Pure Culture. Even the relatively non-"multiculturalist" ones.

It depends on what the hell you mean by accomadate.

Often times culture and law overlap. After all, cultural norms are often the basis for laws.

Yes, and one can consider law a subset of "culture." Doesn't really change the fact that demanding people change their beliefs and ideas isn't anything other than an attempt at mind-control. Yes, mind-control! Think like I do, believe like I do!

True, but gun ownership is a matter of law. There's nothing wrong with a Southerner immigrating to Canada and saying "You'll only take my gun from my cold, dead fingers." He can believe that, he can say that, he can watch his gun-culture movies and anything else as long as it's legal. What this thread is on about is cultural, not legal, assimilation. The scenario is one of, "How dare those American immigrants worship guns!" not, "How dare those American immigrants carry guns!"

Yeah, but I think that's the point. I wouldn't expect to be able to own a gun in Canada. You can think cat tastes great, but you can't eat one until you visit your homeland. There are certain cultural traditions that are just not compatible with Western beliefs and we shouldn't be expected to accomodate them.

Then the immigrant should assimilate. The poll question is not subjective.


See above.

Are you being serious?

Bleugh.

This topic again?

What mono-culture shall they be assimilated into pray tell? What is the single culture of say, the United States?

So, if a country has totalitarian laws and horrible cultural practices, should the immigrant attempt to assimilate or should the host country be more accomodating?

So, if an immigrant comes from a country that has totalitarian laws and horrible cultural practices and (s)he attempts to create a similar situation in the host country, should the immigrant attempt to assimilate or should the host country be more accomodating?

Does anyone else think the poll question is too vague?

yes

Yeah, but I think that's the point. I wouldn't expect to be able to own a gun in Canada. You can think cat tastes great, but you can't eat one until you visit your homeland. There are certain cultural traditions that are just not compatible with Western beliefs and we shouldn't be expected to accomodate them.

I think you can legally eat a cat in Canada. I also think Canadians have no right to stop you if they are offended.

I'm an immigrant. I've done my share of changing so I can fit in (I like Cricket...try and find me a German who likes Cricket :p ).

But I expect others to exhibit the same sort of effort. It's not a matter of "foreigners vs natives", it's a matter of common courtesy.

And I'm not even gonna start talking about the article. "Immigrants" don't kill women - nutcases do.

If a guy wants to stone his daughter to death for having premarital sex, or throw acid in a girl's face for wearing a skirt that scandalously shows her shins off that's his business. Just so long as he does it only to his communtiy's women. If he does it to women belonging to outside communities then it's going to start a feud with men being shot and blown up on both sides.

Ok you GOT to be kidding. If guy moves to a country he has to respect the laws of that country. IF he can't, and he this them wrong, then he shouldn't have come. If any lunatic stones his wife or daughter, he better end up on murder one. And I wish my country had death penalty because thats what he deserves.

But Americans do that all the time. Do you really imagine you'd just go, "Shucks, I'm in Canada. Now I support gun control and love socialism!" I wouldn't. If someone there didn't like my "beliefs and ideas," that's just too bad. Assuming Canada is a free country, that is. I guess if I was immigrating to Kazakhstan it might be different.

yeah true. But you don't go getting illigal gun because it would be legal in USA and you don't shoot someone for trasspassing because it was legal back home. You obey thair laws even when you disagree with them.

So you're in favor of a dictatorship then?No. I'm in favour of people not trying to ru(i)n anyone's lives but their own. You govern you, I'll govern me. If you don't try to seize my autonomy, I won't have to defend myself from you. It's really very simple.

Then the immigrant should assimilate. The poll question is not subjective. Why? As long as immigrants aren't harming anyone & aren't trying to force others to conform to them, what is the problem? The only motivation for your argument seems to be to annoy the fuck out of a few people, and even if you're xenophobic as hell, there's easier ways to do that.

Try buying a pint of blood from a butcher & throw it at someone, for example. I guarantee your victim won't be pleased.

Are you being serious?
Yes. Immigration is a choice after all.

Yes. Immigration is a choice after all.

Immigration into one country, forced expulsion out of another. Yeah, it's all in how you look at it I guess.....

I call a do-over. Everyone go back to the country your ancestors came from, or the area if your ancestors are indigenous, or just sit down if those two are the same. We'll define some rules for immigrating to other countries over the next couple years and then start over. How's that? :rolleyes:

As someone said up above, you move to another country, you obey the laws of that country. I would think that killing and maiming women are already covered in Canadian law, but maybe they aren't. The whole issue as it applies to that little town is silly. On the large front, I'm in favor of assimilation. trust me, you won't lose your original culture, not if you care that much about it. But you have to obey the law of your newly-adopted country.

No. I'm in favour of people not trying to ru(i)n anyone's lives but their own. You govern you, I'll govern me. If you don't try to seize my autonomy, I won't have to defend myself from you. It's really very simple.
You must be an Anarchist.

Why? As long as immigrants aren't harming anyone & aren't trying to force others to conform to them, what is the problem? The only motivation for your argument seems to be to annoy the fuck out of a few people, and even if you're xenophobic as hell, there's easier ways to do that.
I don't expect any immigrant to totally assimilate into a new culture, and I don't expect them to totally give up their native culture. I do however expect them to take measures to not offend their new hosts. A good example of this is certain muslims wanting to implement sharia law in the UK. Wouldn't you agree this is unacceptable?

Try buying a pint of blood from a butcher & throw it at someone, for example. I guarantee your victim won't be pleased.
What does that have to do with anything.

I think you can legally eat a cat in Canada. I also think Canadians have no right to stop you if they are offended.

Would you eat a cow in India? Do you accept their right to outlaw it?

Often times culture and law overlap. After all, cultural norms are often the basis for laws.
Any cultural norm the culture feels the need to defend will be a law. The rest don't matter.

If I have a law that prohibits headwear on some specific date (to honour fallen soldiers or something), that does severely impact people who wear turbans. But that's a cultural rule I find important enough to pass a law protecting, and immigrants have to be willing to live with it.

Any cultural norm the culture feels the need to defend will be a law. The rest don't matter.

If I have a law that prohibits headwear on some specific date (to honour fallen soldiers or something), that does severely impact people who wear turbans. But that's a cultural rule I find important enough to pass a law protecting, and immigrants have to be willing to live with it.

Why? That law infringes on the liberties of others, and not just turban wearers.

Would you eat a cow in India? Do you accept their right to outlaw it?
I would eat a cow in India if they didn't outlaw it. Offending people isn't my problem.

My objecting is to immigrants who demand that rules to changed to accomodate them. If India did outlaw the eating of cows, then I have no cause to demand they allow me to eat cows.

I would eat a cow in India if they didn't outlaw it. Offending people isn't my problem.

My objecting is to immigrants who demand that rules to changed to accomodate them. If India did outlaw the eating of cows, then I have no cause to demand they allow me to eat cows.

Not even for the sake of liberty?

You must be an Anarchist.Indeed I must.


I don't expect any immigrant to totally assimilate into a new culture, and I don't expect them to totally give up their native culture. I do however expect them to take measures to not offend their new hosts. A good example of this is certain muslims wanting to implement sharia law in the UK. Wouldn't you agree this is unacceptable? Depends on what point of view we're arguing from. If I shared your idea of democracy, for example, I don't understand why implimenting a 'justice' system based on what's convenient for the authority, as opposed to what's actrally just. I fail to see how it's different from outlawing immigration, to use your example.What does that have to do with anything.You asserted that immigrants should be assimilated, with an air of dread finality. I replied that the only possible motivation I see for making such assertions, must be a desire to annoy. Assuming that's the case, I decided to be friendly & helpful, and point out a far easier (and cheaper) way to annoy people.

Why? That law infringes on the liberties of others, and not just turban wearers.
Sure it does. But the culture values the absence of hats more than it values the freedom to wear them whenever you'd like.

If India did outlaw the eating of cows, then I have no cause to demand they allow me to eat cows.
"It's called freedom. Some of us like it."

I would eat a cow in India if they didn't outlaw it. Offending people isn't my problem.

My objecting is to immigrants who demand that rules to changed to accomodate them. If India did outlaw the eating of cows, then I have no cause to demand they allow me to eat cows.What possible justification can there ever be for a society to take away your right to live as you please, when you're harming no one?

In the case of your cow, how can it be justified to ban you from raising cattle for your own dinner table?

Immigration into one country, forced expulsion out of another. Yeah, it's all in how you look at it I guess.....
If they're forcibly expelled then the least they can do is show gratitude that their new host has allowed them to stay there. They could do that by not causing trouble. Why should a nation have to change their ways because of people who've been forcibly expelled from other countries? How is that expulsion their problem?

Here's a more realistic example (though any example should work to illustrate the concept).

Children are forbidden to bring weapons to school. But Sikh children are required to carry their ceremonial daggers everywhere.

If the rule persists, the Sikh children will be unable to attend school without abandoning their religious doctrine.

I'm okay with that. If the rule is important enough to have, then it's important enough to apply to everyone. Otherwise, it's an invitation to game the system.

Sure it does. But the culture values the absence of hats more than it values the freedom to wear them whenever you'd like.

Agreed, but that doesn't make it right. You asserted that immigrants have to live with it, but I don't see why they shouldn't seek to redress the issue.

Here's a more realistic example (though any example should work to illustrate the concept).

Children are forbidden to bring weapons to school. But Sikh children are required to carry their ceremonial daggers everywhere.

If the rule persists, the Sikh children will be unable to attend school without abandoning their religious doctrine.

I'm okay with that. If the rule is important enough to have, then it's important enough to apply to everyone. Otherwise, it's an invitation to game the system.

I'm not sure I get the problem if Sikhs push for the rescinding of the rule if it applie to everyone, aka all kids can bring weapons to school. Not that I want weapons in schools.

Depends on what point of view we're arguing from. If I shared your idea of democracy, for example, I don't understand why implimenting a 'justice' system based on what's convenient for the authority, as opposed to what's actrally just. I fail to see how it's different from outlawing immigration, to use your example.
It seems your idea of democracy is not what the people want, but what you want.

You asserted that immigrants should be assimilated, with an air of dread finality.
It was not my intention to reply in such a manner.

I replied that the only possible motivation I see for making such assertions, must be a desire to annoy. Assuming that's the case, I decided to be friendly & helpful, and point out a far easier (and cheaper) way to annoy people.
Cute.

I'm okay with that. If the rule is important enough to have, then it's important enough to apply to everyone. Otherwise, it's an invitation to game the system.Eh? Here's another example: until fairly recently, people were allowed to kill women dressed in certain ways in Britain, after dark. So if the rule was important enough to have, why isn't it now?

If Sikh kids need ornamental knives & those knives can't actually do more damage than biting can, then why the fuck not have an exception to the rule? Rules, laws & norms are neither sacret nor immutable. They're tools to achieve a goal. If they fail to acomplish that goal in a satisfying manner, they're discarded. It's no fucking different from finding out that a hammer isn't terribly useful for unscrewing stuff.

It seems your idea of democracy is not what the people want, but what you want. Nope. On the contrary. But it does seem your idea of democracy, is a tool for forcing people to do what you want. You're the one arguing for conformity, after all.

The way I see it, people don't have the right to dictate eachother's way of life, beyond not harming eachother. That you're a couple of million of people with a beurocracy, beating a handful of misfits into submission, doesn't make it any more right than if I take a baseball bat to your face if you refuse to become a vegan like myself. There's no pracitcal difference.It was not my intention to reply in such a manner. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. Still your thing about Sharia.. If it's acceptable that a democracy can fuck with your personal life, then why isn't it acceptable that the democracy can elect to use Sharia to do it? Beyond the name, I don't see any difference.Cute.Calm down mate, I was just trying to inject a bit of humour into this thread. Wasn't intended as an insult.

This (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21147174-401,00.html) story got me thinking about if a country should take steps to be more 'tolerant' to immigrants. Personally, I think the immigrants should be the ones worried about offending the native population. Although im sure the vast majority of you will disagree with me.


I think there should be mutual respect between both parties. I see it like they are a guest in our house. We should see to it that they are comfortable, but they should make sure to respect our rules and objects.

Nope. On the contrary. But it does seem your idea of democracy, is a tool for forcing people to do what you want. You're the one arguing for conformity, after all.

The way I see it, people don't have the right to dictate eachother's way of life, beyond not harming eachother. That you're a couple of million of people with a beurocracy, beating a handful of misfits into submission, doesn't make it any more right than if I take a baseball bat to your face if you refuse to become a vegan like myself. There's no pracitcal difference.I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.
We're arguing in circles. If a populace decides to outlaw immigration, then whats wrong with that? If it was decided democratically, and not by a group of politicians, then whats the problem? But of course we get into problems with tyrany of the majority and whatnot, but thats for another thread.

(and for the record, I agree with you about being left to do what you want as long as you don't harm anyone else; my original question about outlawing immigration by democracy was hypothetical)

Still your thing about Sharia.. If it's acceptable that a democracy can fuck with your personal life, then why isn't it acceptable that the democracy can elect to use Sharia to do it? Beyond the name, I don't see any difference.
Applies to my above statement. But thats not the case. A minority is wanting to implement sharia law, not a majority.

We're arguing in circles. If a populace decides to outlaw immigration, then whats wrong with that? If it was decided democratically, and not by a group of politicians, then whats the problem? But of course we get into problems with tyrany of the majority and whatnot, but thats for another thread. The problem is that it creates the current situation, where people can't live where they please, can't create a place for themselves, but by virtue of being alive, have to live somewhere.
In other words, it takes away people's right to live their own lives. Granted, it's in a roundabout way, but it's still the end result.Applies to my above statement. But thats not the case. A minority is wanting to implement sharia law, not a majority.Well, they can howl or buzz all they like in a repressive demockery. As long as they're not a majority, they don't get to ruin people's lives. I'm not attempting to Goodwin myself or anything of the sort, but in practice it's no different from neo-Nazis. They can whine, they can preach & they can pull their fucking hair out. They just can't expect anyone to pay attention.

That's nice, but our houses are privately owned, and no one should follow my habits just because they happen to coexist in the same nation-state (which is not my personal domain) as me. I mean, well, if they should, it's too bad, cuz they won't - regardless of where they're from.

and the Goverment "governs" the county/nation.
The Government is made up of the People.

so the people coming to live within the country should follow the laws and customs of the people.

I'm not sure I get the problem if Sikhs push for the rescinding of the rule if it applie to everyone, aka all kids can bring weapons to school. Not that I want weapons in schools.
If they work within the system to change the rule for everyone, I wouldn't object.

This (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21147174-401,00.html) story got me thinking about if a country should take steps to be more 'tolerant' to immigrants. Personally, I think the immigrants should be the ones worried about offending the native population. Although im sure the vast majority of you will disagree with me.

Well, European settlers weren't particularly nice to the native inhabitants of North America. Why break the tradition?

In the case of your cow, how can it be justified to ban you from raising cattle for your own dinner table?
How can it be justified to ban me from raising slaves to serve me at my own dinner table?

They're just drawing a moral line in a different place. Why is mine better than theirs?

Eh? Here's another example: until fairly recently, people were allowed to kill women dressed in certain ways in Britain, after dark. So if the rule was important enough to have, why isn't it now?
The culture's values changed.
If Sikh kids need ornamental knives & those knives can't actually do more damage than biting can, then why the fuck not have an exception to the rule? Rules, laws & norms are neither sacret nor immutable. They're tools to achieve a goal. If they fail to acomplish that goal in a satisfying manner, they're discarded. It's no fucking different from finding out that a hammer isn't terribly useful for unscrewing stuff.
Because rules can't have exceptions and still be rules. Rules must be universal.

And anyway, those Sikh knives are effective weapons.

How can it be justified to ban me from raising slaves to serve me at my own dinner table?Because you're violating the autonomy of the slaves.They're just drawing a moral line in a different place. Why is mine better than theirs?Because they seek the impose theirs on others, whereas yours doesn't extend beyond yourself. After all, you're neither demanding they eat cows, nor raise cows for you to eat - right?

Personally I don't consume cows, but as long as yourt cow-sumption isn't to my detriment, it's none of my business. That I find your eating habits revolting isn't your problem.Because rules can't have exceptions and still be rules. Rules must be universal.Why?And anyway, those Sikh knives are effective weapons.Right.. 3½" of steel with a dull point & no edge to speak of, is indeed a super lethal weapon in the hands of a kid. Mate.. A chair is more dangerous than the knives those kids run around with under their clothes. And ammusingly, neither one is intended as a weapon.

Because you're violating the autonomy of the slaves.

Because they seek the impose theirs on others, whereas yours doesn't extend beyond yourself. After all, you're neither demanding they eat cows, nor raise cows for you to eat - right?
And I'm not violating the autonomy of the cows?

You're imposing your own cultural bias on the discussion by presupposing a difference in kind between the cows and the slaves.

And I'm not violating the autonomy of the cows?Are you suggesting they're autonomous? If so, it should be relatively easy for you to prove. Just teach a cow to use a laptop & have it confirm or deny your claim on here.You're imposing your own cultural bias on the discussion by presupposing a difference in kind between the cows and the slaves.Or maybe, just maybe, you're being ridiculous.

I'd like to weigh in ... From personal experience, assimilation takes on many guises. I am a 2nd generation Australian, however I have a Macedonian background, from both my grandparents on both sides of the family. One side is a case and point in assimilation; they adapt to the local "culture" (the one that the Liberal party would deem acceptable anyhow.) Another side clings to the old traditions and customs which could be considered archaic nowadays.

They both worked hard in their respective jobs, paid taxes on time and never committed crimes that would be culturally unacceptable to Australians (but would be acceptable back home, per se.) Who is the more "assimilated?" From my point of view, neither. From the government's and the general populaces' point of view it should be neither as well.

So the children of illegal immigrants born in the USA are therefore native US citizens? Excellent. I am glad that you are clear about your stance on this.

Hehehehehehehee :D

I AM the Native population, and damn rights you immigrants offended us, but we put up with it and life goes on. Now it's your turn to do the same.

Winnah!

and the Goverment "governs" the county/nation.
The Government is made up of the People.

so the people coming to live within the country should follow the laws and customs of the people.

Your second statement doesn't follow from the first.

Customs be damned. I'm going to have my own customs that differ from yours, and no government is going to change that.

The twon in question has a population of 1300. The immigrant population in this town is less than ten. All speak french.

The xenphobic reactionaries who put together this code of conduct are ignorant in that they do not know many immigranmts, and seem to have no idea of immigrant's expectations and desires.

But if you want to applaud their ignorance, go ahead.

So how about the Netherlands, or France, where laws that differ only in the sophistication of their language have been and are being passed to try and deal with what they perceive to be a crises arising from the fact that Europe has been accepting all kinds of immigrants from around the world and not trying to integrate them into the local culture. By over-indulging cultural relativism and saying "people from away are totally free to carry on whatever way of life they like when they come here," the Netherlands-- for instance-- has ended up with citizens who don't see themselves as Dutch, and therefore have no respect for Dutch culture, and went so far as to murder another Dutch citizen for being, what should we call it, impious towards a religion not even his own? If you claim to have a national 'way of life,' and you value it at all, then I think you're entirely within reason to require outsiders to make some normative subscription to that way of life in order to fit in and not end up attacking the society of the state that has opened its door. Put another way, I don't care how much you like the colour yellow, if *my* house is painted blue and you want to crash on my couch, you're going to have to learn to like blue. Because if you start wrecking my place with ugly yellow wallpaper, I'm going to be pretty eager to show you the door. If you want to come live in a liberal democracy, facist theocratic views are not going to serve you. That's not being 'xenophobic,' or 'racist,' or 'ignorant,' that's saying "we value our way of life and in order to *come here* you must respect our way of life."

Furthermore, the town in question isn't trying to 'discriminate' against Muslims, or Sikhs, or Orthodox Jews, or anyone else. The legislation sets out to clearly state that their community as one where men and women are equal, and where the rule of law (ie. no murder, no assault) overrides the convenient 'but my religion says this is okay' rationale that some people use to defend actions that *have* no other defense. Freedom of religion is in the Charter, and we like that just fine, but that doesn't mean that 'anything goes,' and the law that the town passed doesn't "presume" that all or even any of its immigrant citizens practice the behaviours proscribed. It's a statement of principle, made because in the current geopolitical climate they wanted to clarify their position *before* they had any problems. If anything, they set out to pre-empt any potential 'I didn't know I couldn't do that' arguments that might have been tried by someone in the future.

If a guy wants to stone his daughter to death for having premarital sex, or throw acid in a girl's face for wearing a skirt that scandalously shows her shins off that's his business.
And the women get no say in that?

We should accommodate immigrants and help them to become successful, but we should never compromise individual liberties.

Curtail immigration, clamp down HARD on standards, start profiling new immigrants. Those that are illegal, arrest, detain, deport.

Those that are illegal and have committed crimes, convict, imprison, deport with a warning that if they come back or are caught within our borders, life imprisonment and no parole.

Fine businesses that employ illegals.

Illegal immigrants with children? Tough. Deport them. They are illegal hence they have no rights under our law hence they don't get to stay.

You want to come here? No problem. Do it legally.

And for anyone that wants to throw the "racist" tag at me, get this straight.

You're legally in this country? You have a valid visa? You're a permanent resident? Fine, have a great time and welcome.

You're here illegally? You're under arrest.


(P.S I would LOVE to see the US mirror image Mexican immigration laws. Might make a few illegals stop and think twice)

So how about the Netherlands, or France, where laws that differ only in the sophistication of their language have been and are being passed to try and deal with what they perceive to be a crises arising from the fact that Europe has been accepting all kinds of immigrants from around the world and not trying to integrate them into the local culture. By over-indulging cultural relativism and saying "people from away are totally free to carry on whatever way of life they like when they come here," the Netherlands-- for instance-- has ended up with citizens who don't see themselves as Dutch, and therefore have no respect for Dutch culture, and went so far as to murder another Dutch citizen for being, what should we call it, impious towards a religion not even his own? If you claim to have a national 'way of life,' and you value it at all, then I think you're entirely within reason to require outsiders to make some normative subscription to that way of life in order to fit in and not end up attacking the society of the state that has opened its door. Put another way, I don't care how much you like the colour yellow, if *my* house is painted blue and you want to crash on my couch, you're going to have to learn to like blue. Because if you start wrecking my place with ugly yellow wallpaper, I'm going to be pretty eager to show you the door. If you want to come live in a liberal democracy, facist theocratic views are not going to serve you. That's not being 'xenophobic,' or 'racist,' or 'ignorant,' that's saying "we value our way of life and in order to *come here* you must respect our way of life."

Furthermore, the town in question isn't trying to 'discriminate' against Muslims, or Sikhs, or Orthodox Jews, or anyone else. The legislation sets out to clearly state that their community as one where men and women are equal, and where the rule of law (ie. no murder, no assault) overrides the convenient 'but my religion says this is okay' rationale that some people use to defend actions that *have* no other defense. Freedom of religion is in the Charter, and we like that just fine, but that doesn't mean that 'anything goes,' and the law that the town passed doesn't "presume" that all or even any of its immigrant citizens practice the behaviours proscribed. It's a statement of principle, made because in the current geopolitical climate they wanted to clarify their position *before* they had any problems. If anything, they set out to pre-empt any potential 'I didn't know I couldn't do that' arguments that might have been tried by someone in the future.

:)

accomodate? i don't think anyone within the borders of any nation ought rightfully to be treated any different then anyone else in that country on any basis other then their own actual individual actions.

and a free country with closed borders is an oxymoron.

it is not a 'right' but WRONG, for any nation to close its borders to any unarmed civilian. ever. period.

=^^=
.../\...

it is not a 'right' but WRONG, for any nation to close its borders to any unarmed civilian. ever. period.

Garbage.

Every nation has a sovereign right to decide who enters and who doesn't.

End of discussion.

Umm as a philosopical question that is quite profound.

Who owns a country and by what rights? Are these rights greater than the rights of others? Why?

Umm interresting.

Garbage.

Every nation has a sovereign right to decide who enters and who doesn't.

End of discussion.

Another word for garbage is rubbish! What rights? Confirmed by who?

There defiantly should be an "other" option

While I agree it is best for immigrants to work towards integration into a society, I defiantly respect any society that makes the effort to accommodate that integration as much as possible

Those that are illegal and have committed crimes, convict, imprison, deport with a warning that if they come back or are caught within our borders, life imprisonment and no parole.
So... you're going to force them to stay in your country. Indefinitely. And you're going to pay for every aspect of their healthcare, housing and amenities. Uh... oooooookkaaaay?

Yes. Immigration is a choice after all.

Not always. Immigration is often a case of refugees trying to find a home anywhere that they will be accepted.

Would you eat a cow in India? Do you accept their right to outlaw it?

I don't eat mammals, but the discussion with Llewdor was interesing. Odd to see him arguing for community rights to trump individual rights.

and the Goverment "governs" the county/nation.
The Government is made up of the People.

so the people coming to live within the country should follow the laws and customs of the people.

The laws should be followed unless they are despotic laws. The customs should be optional, but also should be questioned if they infringe on anyone's liberties. Canada, for example, has a long standing legal and cultural tradition of fucking over its aboriginal population. Should immigrants to Canada embrace this, or seek to redress it?

...Netherlands...over-indulging cultural relativism...murder...ugly yellow wallpaper...

Furthermore, the town in question isn't trying to 'discriminate' against Muslims, or Sikhs, or Orthodox Jews, or anyone else. The legislation sets out to clearly state that their community as one where men and women are equal, and where the rule of law (ie. no murder, no assault) overrides the convenient 'but my religion says this is okay' rationale that some people use to defend actions that *have* no other defense. Freedom of religion is in the Charter, and we like that just fine, but that doesn't mean that 'anything goes,' and the It's a statement of principle, made because in the current geopolitical climate they wanted to clarify their position *before* they had any problems. If anything, they set out to pre-empt any potential 'I didn't know I couldn't do that' arguments that might have been tried by someone in the future.

I was not discussing the Netherlands, overzealous cultural relativism, murder, or your favourite colour. So I'm not going to discuss the first paragraph, though it was a nice rant.

The town is not trying to discriminate against a specific race or religion. In that you are correct. So then we must ask ourselves to whom this set of standards is addressed. If, as you say, it is not limited to one group of immigrants, then it must therefore be addressed to all immigrants. Even refugees who are fleeing religious persecution for being lesbians. Even libertarians who come to Canada after making it rich enough in their home country to buy their kids a better life. Even social activists fleeing death squads back home. All of them.

It is ignorant because the people who demand this set of standards refuse to distinguish between some immigrants and another and treat them as a homogeneous group. This would not be so bad if it was not directly stated that this group needs to be reminded that they are not allowed to be barbaric here. In essence, it treats all immigrants as people who are so stupid and evil that they need to be told how to behave in public.

You see, that's the problem: the law that the town passed does presume that all immigrants practice the behaviours proscribed.

So, this is to pre-empt any potential immigrant from using ignorance of Canadian law or religious freedom to excuse criminal behaviour? The rule of law you trumpet in your post already guarantees protection from this. So then what's the point?

EDIT: 1500th post. Aimbot.

No one should have any obligation beyond following the laws.

Why does the poll only have two black-and-white options?

Why does the poll only have two black-and-white options?

Umm is it because the OP only thinks in black and white terms?

Those folks at herouxville are scared shitless over a big bag of nothing. Their city ordinance is stupid and illegal to boot. First the stupidity:

1. About not stoning women: already covered in many laws.
2. About beheading: already illegal as 1 above.
3. About wearing something that covers your face: I can guarantee that every single townsfolk of Herouxville is guilty of covering their faces. It gets cold in the winter here. A scarf and toque is a sensible thing to wear. Obviously they meant a muslim veil but since they cannot discriminate, we get an ordinance that's unenforcable.

Hell our own prime minister siad that was a stupid thing to do.

Then the illegality:
Many rulings by the courts (all the way to the superme court) said that freedom of religion trumps laws and that we must accomodate the religious sensibilities of everyone. That's why Sikh kids can carry ceremonial daggers to school but must be properly secured. That's why muslim and jews get a few more paid days for their religious celebrations.

Now you might not like it. And some of these accomodations are frankly downright wrong but that's the law. If you don't like the law, you have to get rid of the Canadian Charter of rights. Good luck with that.

The immigrants are well within the law to push for religious accomodations but that's because the law gives them that. We might want to change the law and that, my friends, is the real debate. In Canada anyways.

Those folks at herouxville are scared shitless over a big bag of nothing. Their city ordinance is stupid and illegal to boot. First the stupidity:

1. About not stoning women: already covered in many laws.
2. About beheading: already illegal as 1 above.
3. About wearing something that covers your face: I can guarantee that every single townsfolk of Herouxville is guilty of covering their faces. It gets cold in the winter here. A scarf and toque is a sensible thing to wear. Obviously they meant a muslim veil but since they cannot discriminate, we get an ordinance that's unenforcable.

Hell our own prime minister siad that was a stupid thing to do.

Then the illegality:
Many rulings by the courts (all the way to the superme court) said that freedom of religion trumps laws and that we must accomodate the religious sensibilities of everyone. That's why Sikh kids can carry ceremonial daggers to school but must be properly secured. That's why muslim and jews get a few more paid days for their religious celebrations.

Now you might not like it. And some of these accomodations are frankly downright wrong but that's the law. If you don't like the law, you have to get rid of the Canadian Charter of rights. Good luck with that.

The immigrants are well within the law to push for religious accomodations but that's because the law gives them that. We might want to change the law and that, my friends, is the real debate. In Canada anyways.

Wow what are you sayin?

Say you're not saying, Blame Canada!

Umm are you?

Freedom of religion, guaranteed by the Charter, does not trump all laws if the infringement can be justified under section 1.

What is odd, is that sexual discrimination is not subject to section 1...nor are language rights. So we can infringe (possibly) on religious freedom, freedom of speech, the right to be free of cruel and unsual punishment...but under no circumstances can we can infringe on sexual equailty.

Wow what are you sayin?

Say you're not saying, Blame Canada!

Umm are you?

sort of. We dug this hole and we got only ourselves to blame for being stuck in it.

Freedom of religion, guaranteed by the Charter, does not trump all laws if the infringement can be justified under section 1.

What is odd, is that sexual discrimination is not subject to section 1...nor are language rights. So we can infringe (possibly) on religious freedom, freedom of speech, the right to be free of cruel and unsual punishment...but under no circumstances can we can infringe on sexual equailty.

ain't that grand?

But it seems that it takes a lot to justify it under section 1. I always thought that knives being banned in school is a no-brainer but then the SC gone and said that it wasn't so. So it takes a lot to justify.

Unless you're speaking in english in Quebec. Then your ass is fair game. We gotta protect the french tongue afterall.

This (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21147174-401,00.html) story got me thinking about if a country should take steps to be more 'tolerant' to immigrants. Personally, I think the immigrants should be the ones worried about offending the native population. Although im sure the vast majority of you will disagree with me.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

ain't that grand?

But it seems that it takes a lot to justify it under section 1. I always thought that knives being banned in school is a no-brainer but then the SC gone and said that it wasn't so. So it takes a lot to justify.

Unless you're speaking in english in Quebec. Then your ass is fair game. We gotta protect the french tongue afterall.

Well, French tongues can be rather nice, so... :D

Yes, we tend to interpret the Charter rights very broadly, compared to the US, but narrow application via section 1 which has no real equivalent in the US Constitution. Charter rulings can be very...odd.

Are you suggesting they're autonomous? If so, it should be relatively easy for you to prove. Just teach a cow to use a laptop & have it confirm or deny your claim on here.

Or maybe, just maybe, you're being ridiculous.
And you're demonstrating a staggering ignorance of hinduism.

Those cows ARE PEOPLE. According to Hinduism, they have as much right to live as you do. You just showing up and deciding that cows are food is analogous to me showing up and deciding that Mormons are food.

What if a country democratically decides that they don't want any immigrants?I can't see this being justified.

Why does it matter whether he was born there or what tribal/social bagggage he's lugging aroundHe said he was the native population.

Garbage.

Every nation has a sovereign right to decide who enters and who doesn't.

End of discussion.False. No nation has the sovereign right to put limits on freedom of movement simply because the person being limited isn't from that nation.

Ok, so... this stone-throwing, person-burning, acid-throwing thing is okay only if I do it right? I mean, I'm not an immigrant...

No, because the immigrants came to the country, the country didn't come to the immigrants.

I can't see this being justified.
That's only a matter of opinion. If a democratically elected government decides to prevent people from coming in, it's irrelevant wether anybody else sees it as unjustified.

False. No nation has the sovereign right to put limits on freedom of movement simply because the person being limited isn't from that nation.
Thankfully neither domestic or international law sees it that way.

My country was founded on immigrants. Each one that made this country what it is, put in his or her fair share and claimed this country as their own. They didn't fly the Irish flag, Italian flag, or heaven forbid the British flag. No!! They were proud to be new Americans. They flew the Stars and stripes...Old glory. They didn't look down on us for being capitalistac and enjoying our freedoms...they wanted them too. Now people come and demand it. They take for granted what the immigrants from the pasthave given them.:upyours:

This (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21147174-401,00.html) story got me thinking about if a country should take steps to be more 'tolerant' to immigrants. Personally, I think the immigrants should be the ones worried about offending the native population. Although im sure the vast majority of you will disagree with me.

No

That's only a matter of opinion. If a democratically elected government decides to prevent people from coming in, it's irrelevant wether anybody else sees it as unjustified.

That's only your opinion. Therefore it's irrelevant.

Great line of reasoning we got going here.

Interesting

Another word for garbage is rubbish! What rights? Confirmed by who?

Our law.

Our rights as a sovereign nation.

We have the right to say who stays and who goes.

We have the right to deport whomever we please as an undesirable alien or an unwanted immigrant.

Our law. Nations have sovereign rights.

False. No nation has the sovereign right to put limits on freedom of movement simply because the person being limited isn't from that nation.

Yes, we do, and we will, and we will continue to do so.

And please, if you are going to hide behind the US Constitution, please don't...the hypocrisy and the US bashing I have seen on this forum is sickening enough without seeing some hypocrite use the same nations laws as a crutch for their argument.

A convicted murderer who wants a visa will be refused.

A rapist who wants to enter this nation will be deported at the airport.A drug smuggler and illegal alien will be arrested, charged and convicted and imprisoned and then deported.

(Thats our law..unfortunately, my version of said law isn't permitted. It involves said drug smuggler, a wall, a firing squad and an unmarked grave)

You have no right to enter any nation and not conform with their laws on immigration and entry.

Their nation.
Their laws.
Obey them or stay home.

End of discussion.

Interesting



Our law.

Our rights as a sovereign nation.

We have the right to say who stays and who goes.

We have the right to deport whomever we please as an undesirable alien or an unwanted immigrant.

Our law. Nations have sovereign rights.



Yes, we do, and we will, and we will continue to do so.

And please, if you are going to hide behind the US Constitution, please don't...the hypocrisy and the US bashing I have seen on this forum is sickening enough without seeing some hypocrite use the same nations laws as a crutch for their argument.

A convicted murderer who wants a visa will be refused.

A rapist who wants to enter this nation will be deported at the airport.A drug smuggler and illegal alien will be arrested, charged and convicted and imprisoned and then deported.

(Thats our law..unfortunately, my version of said law isn't permitted. It involves said drug smuggler, a wall, a firing squad and an unmarked grave)

You have no right to enter any nation and not conform with their laws on immigration and entry.

Their nation.
Their laws.
Obey them or stay home.

End of discussion.

You speak of rights, yet these are moral deliberations. Surely people have the right to make their own laws, yet there nonetheless exist restrictions on this right. A law that infringes on the human rights of the individual may justly be broken, no matter how this law came about. For, simple majority support can never make just an unjust law.

So..we do we have here.

You speak of rights, yet these are moral deliberations.

I speak of the law.Deal with it.

Surely people have the right to make their own laws, yet there nonetheless exist restrictions on this right.

A right is also a responsibility.

A law that infringes on the human rights of the individual may justly be broken, no matter how this law came about. For, simple majority support can never make just an unjust law.

Okay...you want no restrictions on immigrants?

Sure,no problem at ALL...you can have Bilal Skaf and his brothers, you can have Ivan Milat, you can have Martin Bryant too.

When do you want them sent to your country?

dupe.

That's only a matter of opinion. If a democratically elected government decides to prevent people from coming in, it's irrelevant wether anybody else sees it as unjustified.Why is it irrelevant if a democratically elected government does it? Would it be justified for a dictatorship to do it?

Thankfully neither domestic or international law sees it that way.Thankfully borders are opening moreso than they are closing.

Yes, we do, and we will, and we will continue to do so. Nope. There may be a right to restrict immigration, but it's certainly not sovereign.

Their nation.
Their laws.
Obey them or stay home.Who are "they"?

End of discussion.Weren't you the one who was complaining about how the Australian government wouldn't let your fiance immigrate without going through a cumbersome process first?

Weren't you the one who was complaining about how the Australian government wouldn't let your fiance immigrate without going through a cumbersome process first?
No, that was GreaterPacificNations.


Okay...you want no restrictions on immigrants?

Sure,no problem at ALL...you can have Bilal Skaf and his brothers, you can have Ivan Milat, you can have Martin Bryant too.

When do you want them sent to your country?
I hadn't realised they wanted to go to a prison in a different country...

Yes, we do, and we will, and we will continue to do so.

And please, if you are going to hide behind the US Constitution, please don't...the hypocrisy and the US bashing I have seen on this forum is sickening enough without seeing some hypocrite use the same nations laws as a crutch for their argument.

A convicted murderer who wants a visa will be refused.

A rapist who wants to enter this nation will be deported at the airport.A drug smuggler and illegal alien will be arrested, charged and convicted and imprisoned and then deported.

(Thats our law..unfortunately, my version of said law isn't permitted. It involves said drug smuggler, a wall, a firing squad and an unmarked grave)

You have no right to enter any nation and not conform with their laws on immigration and entry.
So all illegal immigrants = murders, rapists and drug smugglers?

Oh dear.

So..we do we have here.

I speak of the law.Deal with it.

A right is also a responsibility.

Okay...you want no restrictions on immigrants? Sure, you can have Bilal Skaf and his brothers, you can have Ivan Milat, you can have David Bryant.

When do you want them sent to your country?

:)

You speak of the right of a souvern people to make laws, thereby claiming that the law is right. Moreover, you state that harsh measures against illegal immigrants are just because they break the law. However, it may well be that the laws that turn these immigrants into illegal immigrants are indeed unjust.
As for bringing criminals into my country, there are just laws for dealing with criminals, but this should not mean we should criminalize immigrants.

In Soviet Russia, Immigrants accomodate you!

This (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21147174-401,00.html) story got me thinking about if a country should take steps to be more 'tolerant' to immigrants. Personally, I think the immigrants should be the ones worried about offending the native population. Although im sure the vast majority of you will disagree with me.

You have an ardent supporter here.

Immigrants arrive at our doorstep due to our superiority. Why should we dilute this in the pursuit of accomodating an economic expediant?

What I find astounding is this notion that there is some form of hetrogeneous "culture" in almost any of the nations that tend to get immigrated to. Take the US for example. Should an immigrant adopt a texan accent and attitudes? Louisiana cajun? New York Jew? join the Mafia? Mowhawk, Navajo, Hawaiian, or Inuit cultures?

Really, the last option should be the only one deemed to be truly an adoption of traditional north american values. Everyone else here is already descended of immigrants - albeit some have just been here longer! But if you want to go back to the first US immigrants, then how about insist that they adopt the Puritan way of life!

Fact is - there are already tolerances and differences between all of the cultures that have already assembled in the US. Same for most other countries. Suddenly deciding that you can't manage to deal with one more community is pretty darn silly. As long as a person is willing to learn the language and obey the laws of the land then there should be no issues. Those are the only requests need be made of immigrants. The fact that they may try to influence the laws notwithstanding. Hell, everyone else tries to do the same thing according to their personal beliefs too! Why be suprised that new immigrants will try as well?

What I find astounding is this notion that there is some form of hetrogeneous "culture" in almost any of the nations that tend to get immigrated to. Take the US for example. Should an immigrant adopt a texan accent and attitudes? Louisiana cajun? New York Jew? join the Mafia? Mowhawk, Navajo, Hawaiian, or Inuit cultures?

Really, the last option should be the only one deemed to be truly an adoption of traditional north american values. Everyone else here is already descended of immigrants - albeit some have just been here longer! But if you want to go back to the first US immigrants, then how about insist that they adopt the Puritan way of life!

Fact is - there are already tolerances and differences between all of the cultures that have already assembled in the US. Same for most other countries. Suddenly deciding that you can't manage to deal with one more community is pretty darn silly. As long as a person is willing to learn the language and obey the laws of the land then there should be no issues. Those are the only requests need be made of immigrants. The fact that they may try to influence the laws notwithstanding. Hell, everyone else tries to do the same thing according to their personal beliefs too! Why be suprised that new immigrants will try as well?

Firstly, it's homogenous.

Secondly, if that were not the most tedious and over-used argument ever, I might be more concerned. Do extant cultural differences and diversities justify greater diversity by proxy? No.

Our law.

Our rights as a sovereign nation.

We have the right to say who stays and who goes.

We have the right to deport whomever we please as an undesirable alien or an unwanted immigrant.

Our law. Nations have sovereign rights.


Yes, we do, and we will, and we will continue to do so.

And please, if you are going to hide behind the US Constitution, please don't...the hypocrisy and the US bashing I have seen on this forum is sickening enough without seeing some hypocrite use the same nations laws as a crutch for their argument.

A convicted murderer who wants a visa will be refused.

A rapist who wants to enter this nation will be deported at the airport.A drug smuggler and illegal alien will be arrested, charged and convicted and imprisoned and then deported.

(Thats our law..unfortunately, my version of said law isn't permitted. It involves said drug smuggler, a wall, a firing squad and an unmarked grave)

You have no right to enter any nation and not conform with their laws on immigration and entry.

Their nation.
Their laws.
Obey them or stay home.

End of discussion.

Heh I love that end of discusion when it sooo blantantly isn't.

Many thanks for attempting to answer my questions but you just didn't manage it.

Lets have another bash.

By what right is a country owned?

Which right takes precedent, and why?

Firstly, it's homogenous.

Secondly, if that were not the most tedious and over-used argument ever, I might be more concerned. Do extant cultural differences and diversities justify greater diversity by proxy? No.Greater diversity is the default position, and should only not be pursued in a small minority of cases.

Greater diversity is the default position, and should only not be pursued in a small minority of cases.

Why?

Diversity inevitably induces fractious fighting, discord and tension.

Why?

Diversity inevitably induces fractious fighting, discord and tension.
A homogenous culture is a stagnant culture.
A stagnant culture is a dying culture.
A dying culture is an irrelevant culture.

Although I believe that immigrants should assimilate into their new home's culture and society, I do believe that we as Democratic people have a duty to arm asylum seekers and provide them with the tools and training to go back to their homelands and overthrow their repressive regimes and instill the democratic values that they learned in their new homes.

I also do not think that any nation should harbor nasty people like dictators and terrorists.

Although I believe that immigrants should assimilate into their new home's culture and society, I do believe that we as Democratic people have a duty to arm asylum seekers and provide them with the tools and training to go back to their homelands and overthrow their repressive regimes and instill the democratic values that they learned in their new homes.

I also do not think that any nation should harbor nasty people like dictators and terrorists.

Open borders it really is the only way. My question has still not been answered BTW.

By what right is a country owned?

Open borders it really is the only way. My question has still not been answered BTW.

By what right is a country owned?

A country is owned by a government. A government is owned by the people with the power. The norm these days is for a government to be owned by the citizens. Other modes exists such as a monarchial system or an oligarchial system.

Okay....

You speak of the right of a souvern people to make laws, thereby claiming that the law is right.

It is.

Moreover, you state that harsh measures against illegal immigrants are just because they break the law.

Hence the word "illegal"

However, it may well be that the laws that turn these immigrants into illegal immigrants are indeed unjust.

We like our laws the way they are.The laws of this nation have the support of its people.What part of this dont you understand?

As for bringing criminals into my country, there are just laws for dealing with criminals, but this should not mean we should criminalize immigrants.

Tell that to Mexico.