5 ms·

Lots of ugly and false assumptions you're making in this comment, but I'll bite. Billions of people want to come to the US. Many more than want to go to, say,

Lots of ugly and false assumptions you're making in this comment, but I'll bite. Billions of people want to come to the US. Many more than want to go to, say, Argentina. So our immigration laws need to be a bit more strict to restrict what could be a flood of immigrants to a more manageable flow. This is necessary for cultural and economic reasons, to promote unity and stability, which make America great. Second, we are understandably paranoid about security, which also leads us to more restrictive immigration laws. That said, nearly a million people immigrate into the US each year. Most Americans like legal immigrants contrary to what propoganda you may read or hear, considering we are a nation of immigrants.

techsupporter 8y ago
> Many more than want to go to, say, Argentina. So our immigration laws need to be a bit more strict to restrict what could be a flood of immigrants I disagree with this statement. The immigration laws of the United States need not be more strict; if anything, they should simply be more fair. The biggest problem with our laws is that they leave far too much up to discretion. If you turn in this stack of paperwork and if the person reviewing the application finds that you have met the requirements and if the person reviewing the application doesn't simply say "denied," then you may receive a visa. Decisions of immigration, visa, and consular officers are not reviewable by any court or administrative body. You are not even entitled to know why you were denied. The reviewing individual may simply deny you for no reason at all. That's not fair. > Second, we are understandably paranoid about security I also disagree that our paranoia about security is "understandable." I don't believe that it is. Virtually every action we have taken since That One Big Attack By Terrorists That Everyone Cites has shown that we're less paranoid about security and more paranoid about looking secure. Those are two almost totally different things. This means that our government takes wild actions that make us look secure--like simply banning all nationals of several countries, even people who happen to be dual-nationals of those countries--while accomplishing little. That's unwise.
- CostanzaKing 8y ago
  In regards to security and paranoia, let me give an analogy you may be more sympathetic to. Think of a woman who has been raped. It only happened once, but it was traumatic for her. It took her a while to begin going out to bars again, but she has finally worked up the courage to go out with her friends on Friday nights. But she is always looking over her shoulder, constantly in fear of another attack. Would you dismiss this woman's paranoia, as you dismiss the paranoia of a nation which lost nearly 3,000 of its citizens in an attack by an organization dedicated to the extermination of the US and its people?
  - colanderman 8y ago
    I really wish the right would stop holding up as an example a terrorist attack against what continues to be one of the most diverse, international, and left-leaning parts of the nation. Especially when the example is used to justify limiting travel from every country except the country most of the perpetrators were from, but including countries which have significant immigrant populations in the victim city. It's borderline offensive and patronizing. Not to mention rape victims... I know a few, and all of them attended or were wildly supportive of both the Women's March and the demonstrations against the travel bans. I don't think they'd appreciate their role in your analogy.
    - CostanzaKing 8y ago
      The discussion above is talking about general immigration laws and attitudes, not the travel ban in particular. That said, my analogy is completely appropriate - and necessary - as there seems to be many who are unable to empathize with people who are scared for their safety, whether justly or unjustly paranoid.
  - techsupporter 8y ago
    First off, you used inflammatory language with the word "paranoia." Fear is reasonable; paranoia is not. Second, your analogy is not apt because you cannot equate the fear felt by an individual with the fear felt by a populace. Only one person has input into the former; many have input into the latter and they all, as individuals, exercise it in different ways. Third, you did not respond to my point. I was not dismissing the fear; I was dismissing our paranoid response to it. Fear of an attack is reasonable. Fear of "looking insecure" is not. They are different. The former would have done things like streamlined intelligence gathering and looked into the myriad causes of attacks intended to create a terror response. The latter bans nationals of a handful of countries--but not the one whose nationals were responsible for the Big Attack we so fear--as a knee-jerk response. On the gripping hand, we won't do the former because we may just find that the terrorists look a lot different from who we think they look like.
colanderman 8y ago
I can go to Sweden (and thus the entire Schengen zone, i.e. most of Western Europe) with just a passport, no visa. Why is the reverse not true? Europe is just as popular a destination as the States. Is there a flood of Swedes trying to illegaly immigrate? "Unity" and "culture" don't "make America great". (Nor does the US even have a single culture. There are dozens within a mile radius of where I sit.) Greatness is only bestowed by others, and, non-Americans have really started looking down on America thanks to its antagonistic travel policies that strain friendships, families, and business ties.
- CostanzaKing 8y ago
  Not a flood of Swedes, because Sweden is a functioning state than can provide comfort and security for its people. But 4 billion people live in nations where the average standard of living is significantly worse than in Sweden.
  - colanderman 8y ago
    So, why should our Swedish friend Daniel need a visa and be subject to bureaucratic purgatory?

techsupporter 8y ago

> Many more than want to go to, say, Argentina. So our immigration laws need to be a bit more strict to restrict what could be a flood of immigrants I disagree with this statement. The immigration laws of the United States need not be more strict; if anything, they should simply be more fair. The biggest problem with our laws is that they leave far too much up to discretion. If you turn in this stack of paperwork and if the person reviewing the application finds that you have met the requirements and if the person reviewing the application doesn't simply say "denied," then you may receive a visa. Decisions of immigration, visa, and consular officers are not reviewable by any court or administrative body. You are not even entitled to know why you were denied. The reviewing individual may simply deny you for no reason at all. That's not fair. > Second, we are understandably paranoid about security I also disagree that our paranoia about security is "understandable." I don't believe that it is. Virtually every action we have taken since That One Big Attack By Terrorists That Everyone Cites has shown that we're less paranoid about security and more paranoid about looking secure. Those are two almost totally different things. This means that our government takes wild actions that make us look secure--like simply banning all nationals of several countries, even people who happen to be dual-nationals of those countries--while accomplishing little. That's unwise.

CostanzaKing 8y ago
In regards to security and paranoia, let me give an analogy you may be more sympathetic to. Think of a woman who has been raped. It only happened once, but it was traumatic for her. It took her a while to begin going out to bars again, but she has finally worked up the courage to go out with her friends on Friday nights. But she is always looking over her shoulder, constantly in fear of another attack. Would you dismiss this woman's paranoia, as you dismiss the paranoia of a nation which lost nearly 3,000 of its citizens in an attack by an organization dedicated to the extermination of the US and its people?
- colanderman 8y ago
  I really wish the right would stop holding up as an example a terrorist attack against what continues to be one of the most diverse, international, and left-leaning parts of the nation. Especially when the example is used to justify limiting travel from every country except the country most of the perpetrators were from, but including countries which have significant immigrant populations in the victim city. It's borderline offensive and patronizing. Not to mention rape victims... I know a few, and all of them attended or were wildly supportive of both the Women's March and the demonstrations against the travel bans. I don't think they'd appreciate their role in your analogy.
  - CostanzaKing 8y ago
    The discussion above is talking about general immigration laws and attitudes, not the travel ban in particular. That said, my analogy is completely appropriate - and necessary - as there seems to be many who are unable to empathize with people who are scared for their safety, whether justly or unjustly paranoid.
- techsupporter 8y ago
  First off, you used inflammatory language with the word "paranoia." Fear is reasonable; paranoia is not. Second, your analogy is not apt because you cannot equate the fear felt by an individual with the fear felt by a populace. Only one person has input into the former; many have input into the latter and they all, as individuals, exercise it in different ways. Third, you did not respond to my point. I was not dismissing the fear; I was dismissing our paranoid response to it. Fear of an attack is reasonable. Fear of "looking insecure" is not. They are different. The former would have done things like streamlined intelligence gathering and looked into the myriad causes of attacks intended to create a terror response. The latter bans nationals of a handful of countries--but not the one whose nationals were responsible for the Big Attack we so fear--as a knee-jerk response. On the gripping hand, we won't do the former because we may just find that the terrorists look a lot different from who we think they look like.

colanderman 8y ago

I can go to Sweden (and thus the entire Schengen zone, i.e. most of Western Europe) with just a passport, no visa. Why is the reverse not true? Europe is just as popular a destination as the States. Is there a flood of Swedes trying to illegaly immigrate? "Unity" and "culture" don't "make America great". (Nor does the US even have a single culture. There are dozens within a mile radius of where I sit.) Greatness is only bestowed by others, and, non-Americans have really started looking down on America thanks to its antagonistic travel policies that strain friendships, families, and business ties.

CostanzaKing 8y ago
Not a flood of Swedes, because Sweden is a functioning state than can provide comfort and security for its people. But 4 billion people live in nations where the average standard of living is significantly worse than in Sweden.
- colanderman 8y ago
  So, why should our Swedish friend Daniel need a visa and be subject to bureaucratic purgatory?