How much external immigration do you want in your country?

[bryant.coleman]

Immigration is one of the hot topics these days. People are divided on the negatives and benefits of immigration. So tell me what do you think on the issue of immigration. More precisely the following points:

1. How much?
2. From where?
3. How qualified?
4. From which ethnic groups?
5. Special preference for persecuted ethnic groups?

[1714897263]

1714897263

[1714897263]

1714897263

[1714897263]

1714897263

[1714897263]

1714897263

[1714897263]

1714897263

[pedrog]

1. Many women
2. From Romania
3. College
4. Caucasian
5. Don't care.

[Wilikon]

Immigration is one of the hot topics these days. People are divided on the negatives and benefits of immigration. So tell me what do you think on the issue of immigration. More precisely the following points:

1. How much?
2. From where?
3. How qualified?
4. From which ethnic groups?
5. Special preference for persecuted ethnic groups?

1. No limit for LEGAL immigration. If you are in a country illegally do not abuse and game the "free social services".
2. Anywhere
3. Street smarts and quick on your feet people are also well qualified for me, not just people with a degree in philosophy
4. Pammie Lee ethnic group
5. everyone has been persecuted by someone sometime.

[black_swan]

1. No limit
2. From anywhere
3. Doesn't matter
4. Doesn't matter
5. No

[bryant.coleman]

1. Many women
2. From Romania
3. College
4. Caucasian
5. Don't care.

lol... be realistic.

1. Immigration from Eastern Europe is 55% to 60% female.
2. Romania might be the last source for Caucasian immigration
3. Quite difficult
4. Quite difficult, Refer #2
5. Good.

[beetcoin]

what is external immigration? you mean just.. regular immigration?

[Mike Christ]

1. Any, what an amazing thing that would be.
2. Venus, or perhaps some distant planet I've never even heard of before.
3. If they could find their way here, they'd probably be smarter than any of us.
4. Anyone but those goddamned martians.
5. They can do whatever they want in D.C. for all I care.

[hilariousandco]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

While Immigration is great and a vital part of most economies, you can't just say to everybody in the world that they can come and live in your country.

[Mike Christ]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

While Immigration is great and a vital part of most economies, you can't just say to everybody in the world that they can come and live in your country.

Why not?

[hilariousandco]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

While Immigration is great and a vital part of most economies, you can't just say to everybody in the world that they can come and live in your country.

Why not?

Seriously? So billions of people can emigrate to a tiny island and the infrastructure and services wont buckle and will continue to work fine?

[Mike Christ]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

While Immigration is great and a vital part of most economies, you can't just say to everybody in the world that they can come and live in your country.

Why not?

Seriously? So billions of people can emigrate to a tiny island and the infrastructure and services wont buckle and will continue to work fine?

If your nation starts to buckle, why would anyone want to live there?  Is this the island of free blow jobs?

[hilariousandco]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

While Immigration is great and a vital part of most economies, you can't just say to everybody in the world that they can come and live in your country.

Why not?

Seriously? So billions of people can emigrate to a tiny island and the infrastructure and services wont buckle and will continue to work fine?

If your nation starts to buckle, why would anyone want to live there?  Is this the island of free blow jobs?

For the reasons people normally want to live in the places they emigrate to.

[Mike Christ]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

While Immigration is great and a vital part of most economies, you can't just say to everybody in the world that they can come and live in your country.

Why not?

Seriously? So billions of people can emigrate to a tiny island and the infrastructure and services wont buckle and will continue to work fine?

If your nation starts to buckle, why would anyone want to live there?  Is this the island of free blow jobs?

For the reasons people normally want to live in the places they emigrate to.

Then surely everything works with these billions of people on a tiny island; I can't imagine a scenario where people would want to live in a broken nation, aside from them either being held hostage or liking it that way.

[nastybit]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

While Immigration is great and a vital part of most economies, you can't just say to everybody in the world that they can come and live in your country.

Why not?

Seriously? So billions of people can emigrate to a tiny island and the infrastructure and services wont buckle and will continue to work fine?

If your nation starts to buckle, why would anyone want to live there?  Is this the island of free blow jobs?

For the reasons people normally want to live in the places they emigrate to.

If the conditions are not the same immigrants will change again. I find absurd I can't decide where I can live my life.
For example, I can't *work* and live in the US because I don't have a green card, I can participate to a lottery to have one. Is this a fucking joke?

[wachtwoord]

If we disband all socialistic systems we don't need to deny anyone entry.

[hilariousandco]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

While Immigration is great and a vital part of most economies, you can't just say to everybody in the world that they can come and live in your country.

Why not?

Seriously? So billions of people can emigrate to a tiny island and the infrastructure and services wont buckle and will continue to work fine?

If your nation starts to buckle, why would anyone want to live there?  Is this the island of free blow jobs?

For the reasons people normally want to live in the places they emigrate to.

Then surely everything works with these billions of people on a tiny island; I can't imagine a scenario where people would want to live in a broken nation, aside from them either being held hostage or liking it that way.

No. There's only 63 million people in the UK, so I don't think it could handle billions of people deciding they want to live there. It would be a broken nation if that happened, which brings me back to my original point.

[Mike Christ]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

While Immigration is great and a vital part of most economies, you can't just say to everybody in the world that they can come and live in your country.

Why not?

Seriously? So billions of people can emigrate to a tiny island and the infrastructure and services wont buckle and will continue to work fine?

If your nation starts to buckle, why would anyone want to live there?  Is this the island of free blow jobs?

For the reasons people normally want to live in the places they emigrate to.

Then surely everything works with these billions of people on a tiny island; I can't imagine a scenario where people would want to live in a broken nation, aside from them either being held hostage or liking it that way.

No. There's only 63 million people in the UK, so I don't think it could handle billions of people deciding they want to live there. It would be a broken nation if that happened, which brings me back to my original point.

Yes, I see that; your point is, people are too stupid to know what's good for them.  I disagree; I think people realize that, by the time the UK hit 100 million and it really started to get crowded, they wouldn't try to pile another 900 million in there, and then upon seeing this, that the UK somehow fit 1 billion people into its borders, that people wouldn't continue doing this clown-car routine and attempted to fit another billion people.  Long, long before this occurs, people realize either of the following:

"Moving to the crowded UK severely outweighs the negatives of living elsewhere."
or
"Moving to the crowded UK is not worth it."

And if the 1st is happening, you have far greater problems than a crowded UK; what the hell is going on with the rest of the world that the UK appears attractive?

[hilariousandco]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

While Immigration is great and a vital part of most economies, you can't just say to everybody in the world that they can come and live in your country.

Why not?

Seriously? So billions of people can emigrate to a tiny island and the infrastructure and services wont buckle and will continue to work fine?

If your nation starts to buckle, why would anyone want to live there?  Is this the island of free blow jobs?

For the reasons people normally want to live in the places they emigrate to.

Then surely everything works with these billions of people on a tiny island; I can't imagine a scenario where people would want to live in a broken nation, aside from them either being held hostage or liking it that way.

No. There's only 63 million people in the UK, so I don't think it could handle billions of people deciding they want to live there. It would be a broken nation if that happened, which brings me back to my original point.

Yes, I see that; your point is, people are too stupid to know what's good for them.  I disagree; I think people realize that, by the time the UK hit 100 million and it really started to get crowded, they wouldn't try to pile another 900 million in there, and then upon seeing this, that the UK somehow fit 1 billion people into its borders, that people wouldn't continue doing this clown-car routine and attempted to fit another billion people.  Long, long before this occurs, people realize either of the following:

"Moving to the crowded UK severely outweighs the negatives of living elsewhere."
or
"Moving to the crowded UK is not worth it."

And if the 1st is happening, you have far greater problems than a crowded UK; what the hell is going on with the rest of the world that the UK appears attractive?

Nor can you let so many people in that it even starts to get any where near buckling. So that's why you cant just let everybody that wants to go to a country in willy-nilly. There needs to be controls in place.

[nastybit]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

While Immigration is great and a vital part of most economies, you can't just say to everybody in the world that they can come and live in your country.

Why not?

Seriously? So billions of people can emigrate to a tiny island and the infrastructure and services wont buckle and will continue to work fine?

If your nation starts to buckle, why would anyone want to live there?  Is this the island of free blow jobs?

For the reasons people normally want to live in the places they emigrate to.

Then surely everything works with these billions of people on a tiny island; I can't imagine a scenario where people would want to live in a broken nation, aside from them either being held hostage or liking it that way.

No. There's only 63 million people in the UK, so I don't think it could handle billions of people deciding they want to live there. It would be a broken nation if that happened, which brings me back to my original point.

Yes, I see that; your point is, people are too stupid to know what's good for them.  I disagree; I think people realize that, by the time the UK hit 100 million and it really started to get crowded, they wouldn't try to pile another 900 million in there, and then upon seeing this, that the UK somehow fit 1 billion people into its borders, that people wouldn't continue doing this clown-car routine and attempted to fit another billion people.  Long, long before this occurs, people realize either of the following:

"Moving to the crowded UK severely outweighs the negatives of living elsewhere."
or
"Moving to the crowded UK is not worth it."

And if the 1st is happening, you have far greater problems than a crowded UK; what the hell is going on with the rest of the world that the UK appears attractive?

Nor can you let so many people in that it even starts to get any where near buckling. So that's why you cant just let everybody that wants to go to a country in willy-nilly. There needs to be controls in place.

So to be fair which types of control do you think we should use?
Age/Sex? Qualification? Country of Origin?

[hilariousandco]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

While Immigration is great and a vital part of most economies, you can't just say to everybody in the world that they can come and live in your country.

Why not?

Seriously? So billions of people can emigrate to a tiny island and the infrastructure and services wont buckle and will continue to work fine?

If your nation starts to buckle, why would anyone want to live there?  Is this the island of free blow jobs?

For the reasons people normally want to live in the places they emigrate to.

Then surely everything works with these billions of people on a tiny island; I can't imagine a scenario where people would want to live in a broken nation, aside from them either being held hostage or liking it that way.

No. There's only 63 million people in the UK, so I don't think it could handle billions of people deciding they want to live there. It would be a broken nation if that happened, which brings me back to my original point.

Yes, I see that; your point is, people are too stupid to know what's good for them.  I disagree; I think people realize that, by the time the UK hit 100 million and it really started to get crowded, they wouldn't try to pile another 900 million in there, and then upon seeing this, that the UK somehow fit 1 billion people into its borders, that people wouldn't continue doing this clown-car routine and attempted to fit another billion people.  Long, long before this occurs, people realize either of the following:

"Moving to the crowded UK severely outweighs the negatives of living elsewhere."
or
"Moving to the crowded UK is not worth it."

And if the 1st is happening, you have far greater problems than a crowded UK; what the hell is going on with the rest of the world that the UK appears attractive?

Nor can you let so many people in that it even starts to get any where near buckling. So that's why you cant just let everybody that wants to go to a country in willy-nilly. There needs to be controls in place.

So to be fair which types of control do you think we should use?
Age/Sex? Qualification? Country of Origin?

Only white people should be allowed in and no Muslims. Jokes.

[Mike Christ]

Nor can you let so many people in that it even starts to get any where near buckling. So that's why you cant just let everybody that wants to go to a country in willy-nilly. There needs to be controls in place.

I don't understand the reasoning: in a free society, there's no immigration controls, but there's also no emigration controls; if I was you in this scenario, I'd leave, excited about living in a world where all the stupid people had vanished to a concentrated area to kill themselves off.  This also has the added benefit of not needing tight controls on where you go and why, but you don't seem to find this agreeable.

[hilariousandco]

Nor can you let so many people in that it even starts to get any where near buckling. So that's why you cant just let everybody that wants to go to a country in willy-nilly. There needs to be controls in place.

I don't understand the reasoning: in a free society, there's no immigration controls, but there's also no emigration controls; if I was you in this scenario, I'd leave, excited about living in a world where all the stupid people had vanished to a concentrated area to kill themselves off.  This also has the added benefit of not needing tight controls on where you go and why, but you don't seem to find this agreeable.

Which free society is this? Your reasoning doesn't work in the real world.

[nastybit]

Nor can you let so many people in that it even starts to get any where near buckling. So that's why you cant just let everybody that wants to go to a country in willy-nilly. There needs to be controls in place.

I don't understand the reasoning: in a free society, there's no immigration controls, but there's also no emigration controls; if I was you in this scenario, I'd leave, excited about living in a world where all the stupid people had vanished to a concentrated area to kill themselves off.  This also has the added benefit of not needing tight controls on where you go and why, but you don't seem to find this agreeable.

This doesn't make any sense. What's stupid for you is not for others. In some countries you don't even have decent internet outside of the main cities
Are you saying we all should live in the countryside growing organic veggies? oh man

[Mike Christ]

Nor can you let so many people in that it even starts to get any where near buckling. So that's why you cant just let everybody that wants to go to a country in willy-nilly. There needs to be controls in place.

I don't understand the reasoning: in a free society, there's no immigration controls, but there's also no emigration controls; if I was you in this scenario, I'd leave, excited about living in a world where all the stupid people had vanished to a concentrated area to kill themselves off.  This also has the added benefit of not needing tight controls on where you go and why, but you don't seem to find this agreeable.

Which free society is this? Your reasoning doesn't work in the real world.

Coming from a guy who thinks several billion people wanting to live on an island (and the UK at that) is a real world scenario, I'm not sure what to make of this.

This doesn't make any sense. What's stupid for you is not for others. In some countries you don't even have decent internet outside of the main cities
Are you saying we all should live in the countryside growing organic veggies? oh man

I'm fairly certain I'm speaking in clear English; if billions of people want to fit onto the UK island, let them.  If you don't like this, don't stick around for it.  What does this have to do with being a hippie?

[hilariousandco]

Nor can you let so many people in that it even starts to get any where near buckling. So that's why you cant just let everybody that wants to go to a country in willy-nilly. There needs to be controls in place.

I don't understand the reasoning: in a free society, there's no immigration controls, but there's also no emigration controls; if I was you in this scenario, I'd leave, excited about living in a world where all the stupid people had vanished to a concentrated area to kill themselves off.  This also has the added benefit of not needing tight controls on where you go and why, but you don't seem to find this agreeable.

Which free society is this? Your reasoning doesn't work in the real world.

Coming from a guy who thinks several billion people wanting to live on an island (and the UK at that) is a real world scenario.

Never said it was. My argument was that you can't just let everybody who wants to go to a specific country in and that still stands, but obviously you thought you'd found an opportunity to try be smart and attempted to bait me, but that didn't really work out all that well, did it?

[Mike Christ]

Never said it was. My argument was that you can't just let everybody who wants to go to a specific country in and that still stands, but obviously you thought you'd found an opportunity to try be smart and attempted to bait me, but that didn't really work out all that well, did it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.  And you're not arguing anything, you're just repeating bias and pointing out a boogeyman.  "We need X controls because zombie apocalypse" sort of thing.  Nobody wants to live in a nation that doesn't work; you've shown this by asserting there needs to be border controls.  Because of this, nobody truly wants to immigrate to a nation that's showing signs of overload; thus, people stop coming, even leave.  It's a self-correcting problem.

[hilariousandco]

Never said it was. My argument was that you can't just let everybody who wants to go to a specific country in and that still stands, but obviously you thought you'd found an opportunity to try be smart and attempted to bait me, but that didn't really work out all that well, did it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.  And you're not arguing anything, you're just repeating bias and pointing out a boogeyman.  "We need X controls because zombie apocalypse" sort of thing.  Nobody wants to live in a nation that doesn't work; you've shown this by asserting there needs to be border controls.  Because of this, nobody truly wants to immigrate to a nation that's showing signs of overload; thus, people stop coming, even leave.  It's a self-correcting problem.

If you have no idea then that's your problem, not mine. And you're being facetious now.

I'm fairly certain I'm speaking in clear English; if billions of people want to fit onto the UK island, let them.  If you don't like this, don't stick around for it.  

If loads of squatters turned up in your house you'd just let them stay and instead move out because you didn't like it? I'm not quite sure I understand your logic or reasoning here.

[Mike Christ]

If you have no idea then that's your problem, not mine. And you're being facetious now.

I'm fairly certain I'm speaking in clear English; if billions of people want to fit onto the UK island, let them.  If you don't like this, don't stick around for it.  

If loads of squatters turned up in your house you'd just let them stay and instead move out because you didn't like it? I'm not quite sure I understand your logic or reasoning here.

How am I being facetious?  You're saying your country would collapse if border controls ended from people flooding in, as if the whole nation was made of gold.  Yes, I realize it's the place you live, but I don't have that kind of attachment to it, and nor will the other several billion people who have no interest in living there.

I have a house, and these people have none.  I'm more concerned with understanding why there are squatters on my land, and why they do not have their own homes, than worried about getting them off of it; if they willingly became squatters and were just passing by, then so be it; I'd be a little more concerned with enjoying my life.  Anyway, I wouldn't shoot them, or ask the state to shoot them, whatever your flavor is; perhaps not many will agree, but I'm concerned about society and actually interested in solving its problems.  But ultimately the squatters probably aren't armed so a warning shot will get them off, if you really need them off.

However, this is a straw man.  People living far, far away from me on the other side of the nation, that I'll never meet in person, coming in, and for me to have the nerve to tell them to get out; that's much different than having squatters on the land I actually own, as that is my business; the business of people I've never met, I tend to keep my nose out of.

[Elwar]

I would say that anyone can come in.

But to be a citizen you have to pay a one time fee.

That fee should be the only income needed by the government.

If the fee is too high, less people will immigrate. If the fee is low, more people will immigrate.

If the government spends wisely and is a good government they will get people willing to pay. If they suck, nobody will want to come to the country.

I say a one time fee because that way you know what you are getting when you pay.

[beetcoin]

I would say that anyone can come in.

But to be a citizen you have to pay a one time fee.

That fee should be the only income needed by the government.

If the fee is too high, less people will immigrate. If the fee is low, more people will immigrate.

If the government spends wisely and is a good government they will get people willing to pay. If they suck, nobody will want to come to the country.

I say a one time fee because that way you know what you are getting when you pay.

i think that would be a problem. only people with money would be able to get in, and that means there'd be less cheap labor available.

[Lethn]

1. Many women
2. From Romania
3. College
4. Caucasian
5. Don't care.

LOL!

[Hawker]

Never said it was. My argument was that you can't just let everybody who wants to go to a specific country in and that still stands, but obviously you thought you'd found an opportunity to try be smart and attempted to bait me, but that didn't really work out all that well, did it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.  And you're not arguing anything, you're just repeating bias and pointing out a boogeyman.  "We need X controls because zombie apocalypse" sort of thing.  Nobody wants to live in a nation that doesn't work; you've shown this by asserting there needs to be border controls.  Because of this, nobody truly wants to immigrate to a nation that's showing signs of overload; thus, people stop coming, even leave.  It's a self-correcting problem.

Your position is "Yes the system will break down; yes people's standard of living will collapse but if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else.  Its a self-correcting problem"

As long as you never seek the power to impose your position on a society, it doesn't matter but surely you can do better?

[Hideyoshi]

1. How much?

Unlimited

2. From where?

Anywhere

3. How qualified?

Anyone who thinks they can find a job

4. From which ethnic groups?

Does not matter.

5. Special preference for persecuted ethnic groups?

None. If they are persecuted, they will probably want to immigrate more than others anyway.


Very idea of immigration is silly and meaningless in world of internet. Geography based politics and law is stupid and does not make sense.

[Waramp22]

Anything but muslims

[bryant.coleman]

Anything but muslims

lol.... so the problem will be solved if they convert to Christianity?

[Elwar]

I would say that anyone can come in.

But to be a citizen you have to pay a one time fee.

That fee should be the only income needed by the government.

If the fee is too high, less people will immigrate. If the fee is low, more people will immigrate.

If the government spends wisely and is a good government they will get people willing to pay. If they suck, nobody will want to come to the country.

I say a one time fee because that way you know what you are getting when you pay.

i think that would be a problem. only people with money would be able to get in, and that means there'd be less cheap labor available.

There would be a huge amount of cheap labor. I said anyone can come in.

The only cost would be citizenship. Citizenship could entail things such as paying for education, social security, ability to own property, business benefits, etc...

[bryant.coleman]

There would be a huge amount of cheap labor. I said anyone can come in.

Cheap labor will cause another problem. The average salary will go down. Local people, who were previously receiving $15 / hr for their work will receive something like $8 / hr.

[notabot]

Having grown up in a traveling family, and having legally followed work myself around the world, I'm presently in my 4th country. The whole idea of a national identity, although it usually has certain characteristics, tends to fall away after the 3rd country you live in.

There are a lot of issues that people look at in regards to immigration - lower wages, prejudices, etc, but as long as a person is honest, responsible, hardworking, and contributes, I'm happy to have them near me. The media distorts society to look at itself from a perspective with an agenda, escaping that is the biggest step you can take to personal freedom. If you are fortunate enough to live in a good community with a diverse group of people, you soon no longer see them as being from here or there, or being well educated or poorly skilled, you see them as your friends and people you can count on. And that is what is missing from the programming that society is receiving these days, the sense of community and that all can contribute to it.    

And when it comes to refuges who are interned in detainment camps, run by one of the three international corporations that run these 'prisons', what is criminal is the treatment these people receive. These corporations receive about $50K per year per refuge they keep locked up, and there are stories of entire families in detention for years and years. There are vast areas of most countries that need developing, why not set up immigrants where they can live freely and create their own future?  

[guybrushthreepwood]

Having grown up in a traveling family, and having legally followed work myself around the world, I'm presently in my 4th country. The whole idea of a national identity, although it usually has certain characteristics, tends to fall away after the 3rd country you live in.

There are a lot of issues that people look at in regards to immigration - lower wages, prejudices, etc, but as long as a person is honest, responsible, hardworking, and contributes, I'm happy to have them near me. The media distorts society to look at itself from a perspective with an agenda, escaping that is the biggest step you can take to personal freedom. If you are fortunate enough to live in a good community with a diverse group of people, you soon no longer see them as being from here or there, or being well educated or poorly skilled, you see them as your friends and people you can count on. And that is what is missing from the programming that society is receiving these days, the sense of community and that all can contribute to it.    

And when it comes to refuges who are interned in detainment camps, run by one of the three international corporations that run these 'prisons', what is criminal is the treatment these people receive. These corporations receive about $50K per year per refuge they keep locked up, and there are stories of entire families in detention for years and years. There are vast areas of most countries that need developing, why not set up immigrants where they can live freely and create their own future?  

I agree, but who is running and get paid to run these camps you speak of? Any more info?

[Carlton Banks]

These questions remind me of the Pacific Islanders who tried to move to Indonesia recently (or was it Papua New Guinea? the country's not important to the point, anyway)

A few hundred years ago, it wouldn't be an issue. They lived on their island. Sea levels periodically rise and fall. If it gets a bit too deluged year to year, get in the boat and move.

Then, the 19th-21st century turns up, and the more they try to just do the logical thing and move when they get flooded, the more they get turned into pawns in everyone else's political games. If it's not "proof that immigrants are ruining x", it's "proof that climate change is ruining x".

How about this crazy notion: immigration and climate change are not the new phenomenon here. The problem (and the only thing that's changed) is this over possessive attachment to land masses that don't belong to anyone. These people living their inter-generational island hopping lifestyle have been doing this for centuries with no problem.

[notabot]

And when it comes to refuges who are interned in detainment camps, run by one of the three international corporations that run these 'prisons', what is criminal is the treatment these people receive. These corporations receive about $50K per year per refuge they keep locked up, and there are stories of entire families in detention for years and years. There are vast areas of most countries that need developing, why not set up immigrants where they can live freely and create their own future?  

I agree, but who is running and get paid to run these camps you speak of? Any more info?

Searches bring up lots of information that is not publicly known. From http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/privateprisons

"The three largest corporations with stakes in immigration detention today are Corrections Corporations of America (CCA), the GEO Group, Inc., and the Management and Training Corporation (MTC)."

CCA is #1 according to http://www.businessofdetention.com/

And you can find more information at http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/privateprisons_note2

Thank you for your interest.

[Elwar]

There would be a huge amount of cheap labor. I said anyone can come in.

Cheap labor will cause another problem. The average salary will go down. Local people, who were previously receiving $15 / hr for their work will receive something like $8 / hr.

Better cheap labor locally than outsourcing.

[Waramp22]

Anything but muslims

lol.... so the problem will be solved if they convert to Christianity?

I dont care what ficticious religion they choose practice, as long as they dont yell discrimination as we force our countrys laws upon them.

[bryant.coleman]

I dont care what ficticious religion they choose practice, as long as they dont yell discrimination as we force our countrys laws upon them.

If the immigrants feel that they don't have to obey the laws, then the problem lies with the law-enforcement authorities.

[d5000]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

+1111111

[hilariousandco]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

+1111111

Can I come stay in your house for free?

[bryant.coleman]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

+1111111

Can I come stay in your house for free?

lol.. epic. For some people immigrants are Okay as long as they stay away from their neighborhoods.

[some1]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

+1111111

Can I come stay in your house for free?

There is a big difference you are ignoring:

My house = my private property

My country, my city, my quarter  = a big place were a lot of people live. Noone owns it.

[hilariousandco]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

+1111111

Can I come stay in your house for free?

lol.. epic. For some people immigrants are Okay as long as they stay away from their neighborhoods.

Yeah, as long as they don't bother them. Funny how people complain at immigrants breaking the law or being a nuisance, but not their natives. It's simply just racism/misplaced hatred.

Just let everyone live where they wish.

+1111111

Can I come stay in your house for free?

There is a big difference you are ignoring:

My house = my private property

My country, my city, my quarter  = a big place were a lot of people live. Noone owns it.

But he said Just let everyone live where they wish. What if I wished to stay in his property for free? My point is, you have to be pretty naive and have little to no understanding of economics if you think you can let everyone go wherever they want without there being dire economical consequences.  You can't let almost unlimited amounts of people into your country to live, then give them houses and let them use the services and claim benefits etc all for free whilst not contributing anything themselves. This is my point.

[some1]

Just let everyone live where they wish.

+1111111

Can I come stay in your house for free?

There is a big difference you are ignoring:

My house = my private property

My country, my city, my quarter  = a big place were a lot of people live. Noone owns it.

But he said Just let everyone live where they wish. What if I wished to stay in his property for free? My point is, you have to be pretty naive and have little to no understanding of economics if you think you can let everyone go wherever they want without there being dire economical consequences.  You can't let almost unlimited amounts of people into your country to live, then give them houses and let them use the services and claim benefits etc all for free whilst not contributing anything themselves. This is my point.

Ok, bad choose of words.

But the problems you are afraid of are already in place because of global market.
Workers and companies of your country have to sustain this welth while competing with companies in countries where this welth does not exist.
I believe a Chinese living in China is more harmful  to you than a Chinese living in your quarter.

[hilariousandco]

You can't let almost unlimited amounts of people into your country to live, then give them houses and let them use the services and claim benefits etc all for free whilst not contributing anything themselves. This is my point.

If that's your point, I agree with you completely.

So I'll spell it out for you in more detail.

Just let anyone live wherever they want. It would be wrong (and counter-productive) to threaten or use force to stop people from living where they want. But equally those people need to find a place to live without threatening or using force.

So they won't be "living at my place for free", to use your words. But I might rent them a place if I feel like it. Otherwise, someone else will.

Of course no-one should be expected to "give them a house" or "give them benefits". Everyone can freely exchange whatever they choose to offer, for whatever they wish to obtain. That creates a win-win situation and is in every way preferable to forcefully penning people into tax farms, usually the one where their mother happened to give birth.

Well, this is unfortunately/fortunately for some the random reality lottery of life. I don't begrudge anyone emigrating and trying to make a better life for themselves to any place they wish, but there's a limit any country can handle without turning itself into a third-world country eventually. I don't think anybody should be forced anywhere, but restrictions obviously need to be in place.

[hilariousandco]

... but restrictions obviously need to be in place.

Advocating something by stating that it you think it is "obvious" does not add value to a discussion. If it really was obvious, there would be no discussion.

Well, I think it's pretty obvious that restrictions need to be in place but obviously some people don't see the obvious  .