According to the UN, migration should be a human right

[Shad]

Well I have books on US immigration policies and in my professional life I've been involved in helping professional immigrant candidates get their green cards and such. There was absolutely a form of merit system involved in those cases.

The US has a quota system ergo not a merit based as a quota systems must dismiss merit at a point, an arbitrary one. Merit maybe used in evaluations that does not make the system one of merit itself.

So can you provide any citations?

Per Country Limit
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg911.pdf (Section 2a)

The 65 changes to immigration changed the bias of the quota system of the past but didn't not remove the quota system. It just made it balanced.

There is family based immigration as well.

 

[Curious George]

You are ascribing views to me that I do not have. I think immigration policy IS a huge issue for Europe right now. I agree that immigration is not YET a crisis in North America. There have been parallel discussions in this thread:

- One discussion concerns what some Eastern European leaders have been doing - the leaders characterized as xenophobic.
- A separate discussion concerns what - if anything - we should do about US immigration policy.

I would appreciate you stowing your snark.

It is a little hard to stow my "snark," when people are too timid to just say what they mean. I am not informed enough to speak about Europe's immigration, but i will say that fears of europe countires becoming nations under Sharia law are misguided at best.

More still you call it snark but the truth is oozing from your fingers as you type: even as you type that immigration is not "YET" a problem.

 

[Woberts]

Not an easy task, but one we should pursue. Current immigration laws disqualify:

1 - revolutionaries
2 - conspirators
3 - terrorists
4 - totalitarians
5 - religious freedom deniers

Among other things. I'm willing to set aside terrorism for this discussion, I think it's largely a red herring.

That said, Islam is fundamentally anti-secular, anti-religious-freedom, and pro-totalitarian. So conservative Muslims could be disqualified on any combination of points 1,2,4, and 5. There is a group called the Muslim Reform Movement. While not perfect, I think they represent a step in the right direction. These Muslims are not in denial of the many issues associated with traditional Islam. I would say they have a better handle on their faith than you do. We could use their orientation in vetting Muslims.

Have fun deporting a large chunk of Christians with #5.
#3 sounds great, until someone decides that all Muslims are terrorists. That's already happened, too.
#4 The Neo-Nazi's fall into that category, yet no one has deported them all yet.
#2 is really broad. There's not much else to say about that one.
#1 is difficult to enforce as well. Nigh impossible, in fact.

 

[siti]

Fair point. (But again, this part of the thread is about eastern european leaders.)

So I'd say that they are not being xenophobic, that instead they have a rational fear of mass migration.

That is also a fair point...but as far as I can tell the point of the "compact" is for countries to cooperate more effectively in managing migration - presumably with a view to avoiding the kind of sudden mass migration episodes that result in both acute economic and social stress on the receiving countries and loss of human dignity for the migrants. But like I said - its a "compact" so I don't see it making any meaningful difference one way or t'other.

On the other hand, I think the Fiji - Kiribati model is worthy of imitation - the hand of friendship has been extended years - possibly decades - before the anticipated need - we know that climate change is happening (yes we do) and regardless of the causes and possible solutions it is very likely that fairly large numbers of people (by South Pacific standards) in the low lying coral atoll countries of the South Pacific will be displaced (as well as coastal populations in the bigger islands a number of whom have already been relocated further inland in Fiji due to coastal erosion)...anyway, my point is that if the compact is designed to get countries to think strategically about how to manage necessary migration rather than having border control officers point guns at large groups of people who have suddenly and unexpectedly appeared at a fence then I am all for it.

 

[icehorse]

Have fun deporting a large chunk of Christians with #5.
#3 sounds great, until someone decides that all Muslims are terrorists. That's already happened, too.
#4 The Neo-Nazi's fall into that category, yet no one has deported them all yet.
#2 is really broad. There's not much else to say about that one.
#1 is difficult to enforce as well. Nigh impossible, in fact.

These are immigration rules, I didn't make them up.

 

[icehorse]

The US has a quota system ergo not a merit based as a quota systems must dismiss merit at a point, an arbitrary one. Merit maybe used in evaluations that does not make the system one of merit itself.

Per Country Limit
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg911.pdf (Section 2a)

The 65 changes to immigration changed the bias of the quota system of the past but didn't not remove the quota system. It just made it balanced.

There is family based immigration as well.

I understand the quotas, I don't believe they operate independently of merit. They certainly did not in the situations I was involved in.

 

[Notanumber]

That is also a fair point...but as far as I can tell the point of the "compact" is for countries to cooperate more effectively in managing migration - presumably with a view to avoiding the kind of sudden mass migration episodes that result in both acute economic and social stress on the receiving countries and loss of human dignity for the migrants. But like I said - its a "compact" so I don't see it making any meaningful difference one way or t'other.

On the other hand, I think the Fiji - Kiribati model is worthy of imitation - the hand of friendship has been extended years - possibly decades - before the anticipated need - we know that climate change is happening (yes we do) and regardless of the causes and possible solutions it is very likely that fairly large numbers of people (by South Pacific standards) in the low lying coral atoll countries of the South Pacific will be displaced (as well as coastal populations in the bigger islands a number of whom have already been relocated further inland in Fiji due to coastal erosion)...anyway, my point is that if the compact is designed to get countries to think strategically about how to manage necessary migration rather than having border control officers point guns at large groups of people who have suddenly and unexpectedly appeared at a fence then I am all for it.

A Compact is an agreement that in this case is designed to put moral pressure on the countries that sign it to do the United Nations bidding.

Many countries are not falling for their deceit.

Taxes are being introduced in the name of climate change to pay for the fiscal effects of increased migration.

 

[icehorse]

It is a little hard to stow my "snark," when people are too timid to just say what they mean. I am not informed enough to speak about Europe's immigration, but i will say that fears of europe countires becoming nations under Sharia law are misguided at best.

More still you call it snark but the truth is oozing from your fingers as you type: even as you type that immigration is not "YET" a problem.

You are exaggerating or mis-stating my concerns. As far as Europe goes, many parts of Europe have been experiencing stress and strife over the recent decades' open immigration policies. It's not a black and white situation. There is plenty of room on the spectrum between hunky-dory and Sharia.

As for the US, if we go the route of Europe, then we WILL experience many of the same problems they are experiencing.

I don't believe I've directed any snark at you, I'm trying to discuss the situation as logically as I can.

 

[siti]

A Compact is an agreement that in this case is designed to put moral pressure on the countries that sign it to do the United Nations bidding.

Many countries are not falling for their deceit.

Taxes are being introduced in the name of climate change to pay for the fiscal effects of increased migration.

Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear!

 

[siti]

There is plenty of room on the spectrum between hunky-dory and Sharia.

Thank the Lord for that! Have you let Donald in on this good news yet?

 

[Yerda]

You can be as pedantic as you like while you are not under Sharia, but other sources are still available for the time being.

Would you kindly point me to them.

 

[Notanumber]

Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear!

You may well say that when you have watched these videos.

 

[icehorse]

That is also a fair point...but as far as I can tell the point of the "compact" is for countries to cooperate more effectively in managing migration - presumably with a view to avoiding the kind of sudden mass migration episodes that result in both acute economic and social stress on the receiving countries and loss of human dignity for the migrants. But like I said - its a "compact" so I don't see it making any meaningful difference one way or t'other.

On the other hand, I think the Fiji - Kiribati model is worthy of imitation - the hand of friendship has been extended years - possibly decades - before the anticipated need - we know that climate change is happening (yes we do) and regardless of the causes and possible solutions it is very likely that fairly large numbers of people (by South Pacific standards) in the low lying coral atoll countries of the South Pacific will be displaced (as well as coastal populations in the bigger islands a number of whom have already been relocated further inland in Fiji due to coastal erosion)...anyway, my point is that if the compact is designed to get countries to think strategically about how to manage necessary migration rather than having border control officers point guns at large groups of people who have suddenly and unexpectedly appeared at a fence then I am all for it.

I agree with your intentions. Sadly, as I read the compact, I infer different intentions.

 

[Notanumber]

Would you kindly point me to them.

The videos I have just posted are worth watching.

 

[Curious George]

You are exaggerating or mis-stating my concerns. As far as Europe goes, many parts of Europe have been experiencing stress and strife over the recent decades' open immigration policies. It's not a black and white situation. There is plenty of room on the spectrum between hunky-dory and Sharia.

As for the US, if we go the route of Europe, then we WILL experience many of the same problems they are experiencing.

I don't believe I've directed any snark at you, I'm trying to discuss the situation as logically as I can.

What stress is europe facing as a result of immigrants, migrants, and refugees?

 

[siti]

You may well say that when you have watched these videos.

Steve Turley and RT - are you serious? Oh wait - I see you are answering @icehorse's question about how fake xenophobia can make money...two excellent examples there.

 

[siti]

I agree with your intentions. Sadly, as I read the compact, I infer different intentions.

Maybe you've been watching the same news channels that @Notanumber subscribes to. Anyway, what "intentions" are you reading into it? It really does begin to sound like some kind of conspiracy theory paranoia to me - this document certainly doesn't compel any nation to act against its own interests does it? Where does it even suggest that?

 

[Curious George]

The videos I have just posted are worth watching.

I heard multiculturalism is bad, socialism is bad, Islam is bad. I didn't hear substance. I womder why people think such sentiments are xenophobic and racist? It also seems apparent from your videos how the alt right is leveraging these issues to gain political power.

Do you have videos that have substance?

 

[Shad]

I understand the quotas, I don't believe they operate independently of merit. They certainly did not in the situations I was involved in.

If immigration from a specific nation reaches the limit no amount of merit overrides this law. I assume in your cases the limit was not met or rejection based on said limit was below your position.

 

[Notanumber]

Do you have videos that have substance?

Yes, plenty.

Here is another that shows that I am not the only one that has had enough of Globalisation and its negative effects on nation states.

It looks like the United Nations and the EU have gone too far this time.