I think American immigration issues and European differ enough to be separate discussions.My question is this: How do you decide who to let in and who to deny entry? — Samlw
I would like the US government to work with Mexico to make those people relatively comfortable, safe, and secure. — tim wood
That is, a stream of immigrants to Greece or Italy should not be just a Greek or Italian problem, but a European problem. — tim wood
You deny entry when the immigrant does not meet the countries established laws for entry. I don't think its any more complicated then that. If you want to let more immigrants in, change the law. If you don't, change the law. The one thing which is completely unacceptable is when immigrants are allowed in against the law. — Philosophim
What about an asylum seeker. — Samlw
In my opinion that is a very cold, black and white way of looking at it. Would you turn away a human trafficking victim, would you turn away an unaccompanied minor on the border? What about an asylum seeker. — Samlw
And if you were to say we should say no regardless then I would say that you need some compassion for your fellow human. — Samlw
You deny entry when the immigrant does not meet the countries established laws for entry. — Philosophim
Think of it as a question about what the laws should be. — Leontiskos
Your answers are sidestepping the purpose of the OP. — Leontiskos
I firmly believe that each nation should be able to vote to decide how immigration works. If a nation wishes to have full and free immigration, then they can. If they want to be restrictive, then they can. It is up to the individuals of each nation to determine what they as a nation can allow in without risk to resources, population limits, housing, food, etc. There is no one size fits all, because every nation has different limits they have to consider. — Philosophim
And I say you are too self-righteous in your denial of the bonds and rules of your nation. Are you better than everyone else? You'll be the one to decide? Where does that stop? If laws are to be broken whenever we deem, what good are they? — Philosophim
The OP is not anti-democratic. If you're not interested in the topic of the thread I'm not sure why you are posting in it. Adios. — Leontiskos
what happens to an established culture and values when different and perhaps antithetical values and beliefs enter in large numbers? — Tom Storm
Can't let this pass. Care to qualify this in some way that will move it from nonsense to sense?The laws should be whatever the citizens desire in a democratic nation. Do you disagree? — Philosophim
It's not clear to me that anyone here has understood the question. I read it as applying only to people who have presented themselves as candidates for entry. The gatekeeper consults his rulebook and on that basis admits or rejects the applicant.My question is this: How do you decide who to let in and who to deny entry? — Samlw
I have no issue with legal immigration, and I would be surprised if anyone on this forum does. England thrives on legal immigration. For example, according to NHS Workforce statistics published by NHS Digital, 265,000 out of 1.5 million NHS staff are of non-British nationality, making it 1 in 5. Immigrants contribute significantly to our society, and to disagree is, in my eyes, is regressive. — Samlw
My question is this: How do you decide who to let in and who to deny entry? — Samlw
The laws should be whatever the citizens desire in a democratic nation. Do you disagree?
— Philosophim
Can't let this pass. Care to qualify this in some way that will move it from nonsense to sense? — tim wood
My question is this: How do you decide who to let in and who to deny entry?
— Samlw
It's not clear to me that anyone here has understood the question. — tim wood
I am not disagreeing with you, I am simply asking about your independent view on what we can do about this situation, lets dive into the topic and what your personal beliefs are, maybe even come up with an idea. — Samlw
The laws should be whatever the citizens desire in a democratic nation. Do you disagree? — Philosophim
Then you are content with whatever any country decides to do within its borders - without qualification? I doubt you mean that, but it's what you seem to be saying.The only fair way to judge is to let the society as a whole decide. If you are fairly letting people decide through democratic and representative processes, then that is what works for that society. — Philosophim
Then you are content with whatever any country decides to do within its borders - without qualification? I doubt you mean that, but it's what you seem to be saying. — tim wood
Is the "parole" plan in 3. above a reasonable policy? I think not. — jgill
Can I ask why you think this and what you think should be done differently? — Samlw
My question is this: How do you decide who to let in and who to deny entry? — Samlw
If the government insists on flying in "inadmissible" immigrants, then they should be carefully chosen to
benefit the nation in some manner. Doctors and nurses, scientists, engineers, might well be encouraged to apply. That does not appear to be the case. — jgill
How do you feel about slavery? Do you think the Taliban are doing a good and admirable job of governing Afghanistan? How abut Iran? How about if the will of the American public is to deliver all of its "illegal" immigrants to England. Why should the English object? Or if the US state of Texas (et al) criminalizes abortion, well done them, yes?If it is the will of the people of that state, I do. Why would you disagree with this? — Philosophim
How do you feel about slavery? Do you think the Taliban are doing a good and admirable job of governing Afghanistan? How abut Iran? Or if the US state of Texas (et al) criminalizes abortion, well done them, yes? — tim wood
How about if the will of the American public is to deliver all of its "illegal" immigrants to England. Why should the English object? — tim wood
We know that an individual can do wrong. Your proposition amounts to saying that in a group constituted in any of a particular set of ways, those people so constituted can do no wrong, or at least nothing you could object to. Which I think is ridiculous and absurd. Are you that? Or have you just misspoke? — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.