Invasion USA: The US Recapture of Oklahoma

Some good news on the invasion front! The citizens of Oklahoma scored a major victory back in May against the tide of illegals flowing into their state. "The Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007" was signed into law and has proven to be a solid piece of legislation so far and has produced results already in the form of self-deportations out of Oklahoma. They may not be leaving the USA, but this is certainly a damn good start.

The meat of the law, as passed, is as follows:

* Illegals can no longer obtain state ID - effectively cutting off access to drivers' licenses.
* Illegals can no longer claim state benefits, such as welfare and in-state college tuition due to the requirement that proof of citizenship be provided.
* The Oklahoma state police are to be trained in being able to handle immigration enforcement and are being ordered to cooperate with ICE and to participate in the federal program they have setup to coordinate with ICE agents.
* Employers who hire illegal aliens will face stiff fines if caught.

All in all, it's a model piece of legislation that passed both houses of congress in Oklahoma with overwhelming majorities. It has a large backing from the voters in the state as well and the chances of it being attacked by activist judges is low since that would have already happened if it was planned. More states need to follow this lead and pass similar laws. The more states that do so, the more likely it is we can clean this problem up.

There's already some indication that a lot of the illegals in Oklahoma are bailing out and leaving for nearby states such as Texas and Kansas. I view this as proof that self deportation is NOT a myth as the Bush administration would have us believe. If there's nothing being offered to them to stay, they won't stay.

Oklahoma isn't quite done yet though. They're also planning to push for an English Only bill, which I'm really hoping to see pass as well. It'll make Oklahoma a very attractive possibility for a place to relocate to if they can make it happen.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

       
« America is Problem Free
Armenian Genocide Resolution »

Posted on Oct 8, 2007 12:05 pm by Samson in: | 21 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
Sounds like a great starting measure to me too, and that English only bill sounds good as well.

       
They tried laws like this in individual small towns that had relatively high illegal populations. It killed the towns economically. :shrug:

Whatever you think of illegal labor, they form part of the back-bone of this country's labor. Kicking them out unconditionally will only harm us in the end of the day.

(If you want references to this kind of thing in the news, I can provide them... if they'd actually be helpful, and not just taken as ultra-liberal-pink-commie propaganda in the most evil rag of them all, the NYT... :smile: )

Seriously, people want to come here and have jobs and pay taxes. Why exactly are we stopping that by making it so hard to get in legally that people feel the need to sneak in?

       
Seriously, people want to come here and have jobs and pay taxes. Why exactly are we stopping that by making it so hard to get in legally that people feel the need to sneak in?


Because they don't come here and pay taxes. If you think that, you've been drinking too much of the left-wing kool-aid.

The fact is they come here, get their cheap labor jobs, and pay next to nothing in taxes. The social security numbers they use are fakes, which often results in identity theft crimes. They sign up for welfare. They raid our emergency rooms, causing hospitals to close due to a lack of money. They fill our schools with their children who can't or won't learn English, bringing down the quality of our educational system for everyone. They steal the in-state tuition rates, often from American citizens who can't get it. They drive on our roads, with no insurance, and cause accidents, often killing people. They commit a whole host of other crimes, get arrested, deported, and sneak right back in. You even have arrogant ones like Elvira Arellano running around acting like we're obligated to give them everything they demand.

So you tell me. Where's the economic advantage in shelling out all this money so all these leeches can get all these services and benefits that you and I would be denied on the spot if we asked for them?

Employers are just as much to blame since they save money by not having to file SSI, medicare, and other taxes for these people who all work under the table. That's why punishing the employers has to be included in any strong immigration bill.

Now then. The reason this kind of thing doesn't work at the city and county level is because those entities are far too small to pull it off. A state is a wholly different thing with a whole other level of authority and power to execute it. Oklahoma has already proven you don't even need to expend effort to get rid of them once these kind of laws are passed. They'll leave on their own when the freebies go away.

When president Bush talks of "jobs Americans won't do" he's not finishing the thought. It's "jobs Americans won't do for shit wages". Farmers who bitch and whine about their crops rotting in the fields can blame themselves for it happening. They refuse to automate or hire people at a decent wage. They bring it upon themselves. Is it logical to allow your crops to rot instead of doing something about it?

Open borders don't work. Amnesty isn't the answer.

       
Because they don't come here and pay taxes.

That might be because we don't let them. Hrm.

Where's the economic advantage

You didn't even listen to what I said. I told you that small towns have tried what you are so happy about, and it killed them economically. Look up the case of the Smithfield Foods factory if you like for a very recent example in the news of how this hurts our economy. There are many more in the past, if you care to look for them.

The entire structure of your argument is to slam me for supposedly being so happy with all the bad things you describe. Look, I'm pretty pissed off about a lot of it, too, even though I'm a slimy-pinko-commie-treasonous-conspiring-seditious-liberal. (Did I miss any labels?) But you're so entrenched in your views that you don't even stop to look at facts sitting in front of you.

When president Bush talks of "jobs Americans won't do" he's not finishing the thought. It's "jobs Americans won't do for shit wages". Farmers who bitch and whine about their crops rotting in the fields can blame themselves for it happening. They refuse to automate or hire people at a decent wage. They bring it upon themselves. Is it logical to allow your crops to rot instead of doing something about it?

This is econ 101. If farmers can employ people for cheap labor, it brings their costs down. Production costs going down means lower costs for consumers. That, umm, means you. How ready are you personally do pay higher prices on everything that comes from sectors that use illegal labor? You had darn well better tell me that you'd be happy to personally subsidize via increased consumer prices everything you're going on about here, otherwise I will charge you with Grade A Hypocrisy.

It's just like people who complain about off-shoring. Why do you think stuff is cheap? Because it's made by people who have crap wages. If you want to stop off-shoring, be willing to pay more. If you want cheaper prices, accept off-shoring. There's no having the cake and eating it too.

       
I don't recall having said I wouldn't be willing to absorb higher prices. You seem to have adopted the implied position that you already know I won't.

First and foremost, I'm in favor of the rule of law. That we've allowed this travesty to continue for so long is what's disgusting. Not that we're finally trying to do something to correct it. There is a middle ground to be had, but both sides appear to be unwilling to compromise long enough to find it.

Here's what I think should be done, in order:

1. Either close the border, or build a 2,000 mile long, 30 foot high, triple wide concrete fence tipped with razor wire.
2. Man the border with 50,000 National Guard or US Army troops. With orders to shoot to kill, like Mexico does with Guatemala.
3. Impose harsh penalties upon employers who continue to hire illegal aliens. Make it worth their money to hire Americans.
4. Shut off all the freebies. Oklahoma has the right idea, use them as a model.
5. Give those illegals currently here 120 days to apply for entry into the US, if they refuse, they're felons subject to arrest and deportation.
6. Only once all of the above is done do you then look into setting up some kind of guest worker program to provide cheap labor for lazy farmers.

I guarantee you the results would be favorable to everyone involved.

What you don't do though is fling the borders wide open, hand them all free state benefits, tax-free income, and bogus social security numbers.

BTW, while we're on the subject, have you ever looked into what rights you as an American illegal in Mexico would have? No? You might want to start. They tend to be extremely harsh, if not lethal, to illegals from anywhere. You'd never be able to pull off what their citizens get from us down there.

       
Indeed I assumed as much, because you were talking about there being no economic advantage, and there is at least one extremely clear consumer advantage which is lower prices for the most common goods we buy.

That we've allowed this travesty to continue for so long is what's disgusting.

I fully agree. The law should be respected. That's not the question. The question I submit is whether or not our laws in this case are correct. (They might be, but they might not be. Note that I am open to both possibilities.)

2. Man the border with 50,000 National Guard or US Army troops.

Too bad they're all busy fighting a war abroad with dubious gains for us. :wink:

6. Only once all of the above is done do you then look into setting up some kind of guest worker program to provide cheap labor for lazy farmers.

If condition 5 is actually reasonably applied, that is, you give them a reasonable chance of getting some kind of entry into the US, I'm not sure why point 6 is relevant. Point 5 is (or should be) already bringing up the guest worker program.

What you don't do though is fling the borders wide open, hand them all free state benefits, tax-free income, and bogus social security numbers.

Again, I agree fully on this. In fact, I started this by saying it's silly to not let people pay taxes who would if it were easier for them to do so.

You know, I think you don't realize just how much common ground there is on this question.

BTW, while we're on the subject, have you ever looked into what rights you as an American illegal in Mexico would have? No? You might want to start. They tend to be extremely harsh, if not lethal, to illegals from anywhere. You'd never be able to pull off what their citizens get from us down there.

While what you say is quite true, and not just of Mexico but of very many such countries, I do not feel it is relevant to this point. The argument that it's ok for us to do bad things because they do worse is morally bankrupt. Are you really going to judge/defend yourself by pointing to such flagrant violations of any notion of human rights there might be? "Oh, look, we're better than Syria and North Korea, let's pat ourselves on the back" ... seriously.

       
While what you say is quite true, and not just of Mexico but of very many such countries, I do not feel it is relevant to this point.


Actually, it's entirely relevant to the point because Mexico believes they're entitled to send their citizens to our country and Vincente Fox even flatly said as much in his recent interview with Larry King. He went even further to say that all of his country's problems are our fault. Mexico claims we have no right to police our own border. That we don't even have the right to build a fence. Vincente once even threatened to attack us if we did. Which was of course a joke, but that's Vincente for you.

The argument isn't that we should be allowed to do bad things, because I don't see my immigration plan as such. Maybe you do, and if so, I find that a sad attitude to have. I'm justifying my plan based on national security interests and what's best for my country. An unrestricted flood of criminal thugs from Mexico just doesn't seem like it's in our national interest. We haven't even begun to discuss the fact that terrorists from the Middle East are using Mexico as an entry path to the US.

Too bad they're all busy fighting a war abroad with dubious gains for us. :wink:


Actually they're not. We've got alot more military might than you've apparently been led to believe. We have more than enough troops handy to man the border. And if for some odd reason we don't, withdraw the ones Clinton sent to Kosovo and we'll have plenty.

       
Um, just as an aside to y'all's lovely discussion about this.. let me pose this quick question and then run so you two can happily shoot it out over it... :p

Would all those jobs that illegals are currently doing be doable by the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of U.S. Citizens who are currently on unemployment? How about those Americans who have been unemployed too long to even still qualify for Unemployment? (and I don't mean the professionally unemployed welfare abuser types, I mean those who honestly can't otherwise find work because there aren't enough jobs to go around right now, partially because illegals will do the jobs for less than minimum wages with under the table payment arrangements that cost neither employee nor employer taxes...)

       
Would all those jobs that illegals are currently doing be doable by the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of U.S. Citizens who are currently on unemployment?


Doable, yes. I'm assuming you aren't referring to the tens of thousands of Americans ( btw, may I point out that saying it this way implies it's a devastating problem when the percentages don't pan out ) on disability. If you're on unemployment because you can't find work, and are physically able to do the job of picking crops in some field somewhere, then you should probably be considering doing it instead of being a sponge.

Right now we're in a status they like to call "full employment" with roughly 4.5% of the population out of work. I suspect that most of these people are the lazy types who don't want any kind of work, otherwise they'd have it already. Or perhaps they're people who think physical labor jobs are beneath them somehow. But I bet you if they were forced to either do the job or lose their benefits, the figure would probably drop even further to something like 1-2%.

       
Actually, it's entirely relevant to the point because Mexico believes they're entitled to send their citizens (...)

That's not the same thing. You were talking about the rights that an illegal would have in Mexico, as if that has some bearing on the rights that illegals should have in the USA. You were saying that Mexico treats its illegals poorly. Well, sure, let's assume that that's true for the sake of the argument (I don't know either way and will for now take your word for it) but why is that relevant? Just because they're treated poorly over there doesn't mean that they should be treated as poorly or better here.

An unrestricted flood of criminal thugs from Mexico just doesn't seem like it's in our national interest. We haven't even begun to discuss the fact that terrorists from the Middle East are using Mexico as an entry path to the US.

See, that's your problem. Your view of the world is that immigration == crime. That's just not true. This country was built on immigration. If I am to judge from your last name, you're also an immigrant from some generation. I am too, from two to four generations back (depending on which side you count from). I'm not sure either of us count as criminals -- I hope. :-) Immigration is not equatable to crime.

Now, you are right that there is a major problem with having a loose border. People shouldn't be able to enter willy-nilly, but that's not at all because immigrants are evil criminals here to kill us in our sleep while stealing our jobs by day. The security argument is a much better one for controlling borders than immigration.

Would all those jobs that illegals are currently doing be doable by the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of U.S. Citizens who are currently on unemployment?

It's not a question of being doable, it's a question of people wanting to. Most Americans don't want to do those jobs for the same wages. And you mentioned that, although it's not necessarily always below the minimum wage.

However, those same immigrants who are doing those jobs for so much less contribute to making your food cost less, in addition to very large quantities of other goods you purchase. Although I have the fortune of being able to afford higher prices to pay for my principles, and Samson is also willing to do the same for his, there are large segments of the USA's population for whom a $0.20 increase on basic staple items can be very harmful.

So, we have something of a conundrum: these illegals working contribute to lower prices across the whole country. Just look at the example of the pork factory I mentioned a few posts up: they've had to go from $5/hr workers to $10/hr or more. That's a big increase for the company, and will obviously have repercussions on the average citizen.

Like I said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Americans aren't willing to do the job for less (and I'm not saying that they *should* be willing to do so), they can't expect prices to remain low while demanding that the companies hire Americans.

       
Your view of the world is that immigration == crime.


We can't have a discussion here if you continue to deliberately twist my position. I think I've made it perfectly clear in the past that I'm opposed to ILLEGAL immigration. The only time I ever run into an argument like this is when I'm dealing with someone who thinks there's no such thing as an illegal. Is that you?

I'm not sure either of us count as criminals -- I hope.


Our status is irrelevant to the situation. I was born in Texas in 1971. So I'm a legal US citizen. My mother was born in Texas in 1949, making her a legal US citizen. My father was born in Illinois in 1941, making him a legal US citizen. Both grandparents on my mother's side were also born in Texas. I'm not 100% positive on the national origins of my grandparents on my father's side. But that still has no bearing on Jose sneaking across the border tonite - which is a crime.

If Americans aren't willing to do the job for less (and I'm not saying that they *should* be willing to do so), they can't expect prices to remain low while demanding that the companies hire Americans.


That sound like you're just trying to justify criminal activity by saying that we should just keep letting things go as they are to avoid having to pay $2.50 for a hamburger instead of $2.20. Employers who are doing this sort of thing are knowingly violating the law by hiring illegals.

       
Samson, these were your words:
An unrestricted flood of criminal thugs from Mexico just doesn't seem like it's in our national interest.

Forgive me if I interpreted that as meaning that you think the flood from Mexico is a bunch of criminal thugs. In the future be more careful in your hyperbole.

The only time I ever run into an argument like this is when I'm dealing with someone who thinks there's no such thing as an illegal. Is that you?

Oh boy, more ad hominem! Whee. For you to say such a thing indicates that you either haven't read what I have written so far or have chosen to ignore it. At least we haven't dropped into labels like happened on the other thread.

That sound like you're just trying to justify criminal activity by saying that we should just keep letting things go as they are to avoid having to pay $2.50 for a hamburger instead of $2.20. Employers who are doing this sort of thing are knowingly violating the law by hiring illegals.

No, not at all. I am railing against the large number of anti-immigration zealots who want to have their cake and eat it too. You at least are aware of the problem, and are willing to pay for it, but you seem to think that the rest of the country would be willing to do the same.

Basically, I am pointing out that the situation is really not as simple as you make it out to be.

       
Just to further stir up the pot a little.. and specifically to respond to some remarks directly aimed at me...

Doable, yes. I'm assuming you aren't referring to the tens of thousands of Americans ( btw, may I point out that saying it this way implies it's a devastating problem when the percentages don't pan out ) on disability. If you're on unemployment because you can't find work, and are physically able to do the job of picking crops in some field somewhere, then you should probably be considering doing it instead of being a sponge.

Right now we're in a status they like to call "full employment" with roughly 4.5% of the population out of work. I suspect that most of these people are the lazy types who don't want any kind of work, otherwise they'd have it already. Or perhaps they're people who think physical labor jobs are beneath them somehow. But I bet you if they were forced to either do the job or lose their benefits, the figure would probably drop even further to something like 1-2%.

Nope, just the ones on unemployment, not the ones on disability.
I don't know, Samson, the numbers I've been seeing from Yahoo seem to indicate the numbers are rising more than you like to admit.

It's not a question of being doable, it's a question of people wanting to. Most Americans don't want to do those jobs for the same wages. And you mentioned that, although it's not necessarily always below the minimum wage.

Nope, it's not always below the minimum wage, but it's usually below what tax paying citizens are willing/able to work that type of job for.

Like I said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Americans aren't willing to do the job for less (and I'm not saying that they *should* be willing to do so), they can't expect prices to remain low while demanding that the companies hire Americans.

I don't know that prices are so low at this point even with the low wage workers, but even so, if more Americans were working, then more could afford the price increases that their employments would create.

Samson, these were your words:
An unrestricted flood of criminal thugs from Mexico just doesn't seem like it's in our national interest.


Forgive me if I interpreted that as meaning that you think the flood from Mexico is a bunch of criminal thugs. In the future be more careful in your hyperbole.

As for the criminal thugs thing, I think Samson's made it clear enough in the past that we can easily infer he means those who illegally (hence criminal) immigrate to this country and then try to force their way (hence thugs) into our society and, on all too many occasions, to even force their way over our society. For example, we now have whole cities such as El Paso in Texas that have made Spanish their official language to accommodate immigrants who don't speak English and who have no desire to learn English (or even, in some (most?) cases) to become legal citizens.

       
Bah, stupid bbcode really should work the same way on every site.. :(

       
Conner said:

I don't know, Samson, the numbers I've been seeing from Yahoo seem to indicate the numbers are rising more than you like to admit.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment is at 4.7% for September 2007. I was only off by 0.2% so I think I'm pretty safe. You can get some pretty detailed breakdowns all the way down to individual cities. I don't know where on Yahoo you looked at this, so I'd be interested in seeing what they have to say about it. But keep in mind, Yahoo is a glorified search engine that wishes it was a news agency.

David Haley said:

Forgive me if I interpreted that as meaning that you think the flood from Mexico is a bunch of criminal thugs. In the future be more careful in your hyperbole.

I don't know. I would have figured by now you'd have gotten a pretty good feel for how I approach the issue of immigration. The fact that I spend so much time condemning illegal immigration while saying nothing or very little about legal immigration should have been enough for you to know what I was talking about. That 6 point plan I posted? Obviously doesn't affect those who are already doing things the right way. Sneak across the border in the dead of night hoping nobody will notice? You're a criminal thug.

David Haley said:

I am railing against the large number of anti-immigration zealots who want to have their cake and eat it too.

The flaw in your argument is right here. You're railing against anti-immigration zealots on a blog run by an anti-ILLEGAL-immigration activist. It irritates me to no end when people on the left leave that critical detail out, then paint us all as xenophobic racist zealots who want to seal up the country forever. Most of the time playing that card works, and the people trying to advance our position shut up and walk away. I don't operate that way.

David Haley said:

Basically, I am pointing out that the situation is really not as simple as you make it out to be.

Except it actually is s simple as I'm making it out to be. We have a legal process to immigrate to this country. All I'm asking for is that the people of Mexico follow that process instead of demanding that we give them whatever they want because Vicente Fox told them they're entitled to it. If they can't do what's right, then they don't need to be here.

       
Oh, and Conner, the BBCode support here works just like it does everywhere else. Except for the apparent nested quotes problem - nobody has ever tried to nest one before so I didn't know that was broken.

       
That was easy enough, nested quoting is now fixed.

       
It irritates me to no end when people on the left leave that critical detail out, then paint us all as xenophobic racist zealots who want to seal up the country forever.

Haha! Forgive me as I chortle in mirth as poor Samson bemoans the fact that everybody on "his side" gets painted with the same brush, as he gleefully does the same to the evil, traitorous-ultra-conspiring-liberals.

You know, Samson, just because I was railing against a particular point doesn't mean I think that you necessarily have it. In fact I think I said you didn't later on. This issue is bigger than the three of us, no? So I think it's not entirely unreasonable for me to discuss the point more generally. Furthermore, any decision made must be accepted by all, so it's even less unreasonable to talk about what people in general would accept.

Except it actually is s simple as I'm making it out to be. We have a legal process to immigrate to this country

You, obviously, are not an immigrant and have never been one. Do you know how hard it is for truly talented, skillful (and rich) labor workers to immigrate to the US? I am surrounded by such people here, people who truly want to pay taxes and who would be earning $100k+ per year in salaries. Do you have any idea how many hoops they are made to jump through? Probably not, and this isn't really a failing of yours, it just probably never really occurred to you to check.

And these are the people who have money and have a company sponsoring their H1B work permits. Now think about the poor (as in "no money";) people who are not in that situation.

Seriously dude, you should learn a bit more about what exactly you have to do to immigrate before you go around saying just how easy it is.

       
Haha! Forgive me as I chortle in mirth as poor Samson bemoans the fact that everybody on "his side" gets painted with the same brush, as he gleefully does the same to the evil, traitorous-ultra-conspiring-liberals.


And by the same token, allow me to laugh my ass off as you freely begin throwing around insults and attacks at the drop of a hat after running from two arguments after having perceived me to have done the same to you. But you aren't like that are you? Hmm? I've always been very specific about WHO I'm labeling as "evil, traitorous-ultra-conspiring-liberals" so who's the one generalizing now?

As far as the H1B people, I don't know the gritty dirty details of the process but we do have several people from India where I work who have gone through the process and have had very few if any problems that would indicate to me that there's as much hoop jumping as you say. Sure, immigrating here the legal way may not be the easiest thing to do in the world but that doesn't justify criminal activity because you believe yourself to be above US law because Vicente Fox says you are.

You might want to look into how many barriers and hoops Mexico and most European nations throw up at you before you get their equivalent of a green card. I've talked to people in the US who want to leave who have taken literally decades to get through the process. So you might want to consider that before making it out like the US is some kind of imposing battle fortress of doom to get into.

       
Samson said:

I don't know where on Yahoo you looked at this, so I'd be interested in seeing what they have to say about it. But keep in mind, Yahoo is a glorified search engine that wishes it was a news agency.

From their "Breaking News Alerts" email service. So probably from AP ultimately, but could be almost anywhere. *shrug*

Samson said:

Oh, and Conner, the BBCode support here works just like it does everywhere else. Except for the apparent nested quotes problem - nobody has ever tried to nest one before so I didn't know that was broken.

Sounds like it shouldn't be a surprise that I'd be the first to try it then. ;D Though I have seen plenty of sites that come up with their own variations on how bbcode works, from slightly different code usage to extra or different codes being supported. Even bbcode.org suggests that the img tag should support sizing args but not all sites support that. *shrug*

Samson said:

That was easy enough, nested quoting is now fixed.

Ok, as long as I'm testing/breaking things for you... let's see if the quote tag supports the name of the person being quoted.. ;D

       
And by the same token, allow me to laugh my ass off as you freely begin throwing around insults

I'm not sure how it's insulting to you to point out the dichotomy of you labeling left-wingers as all having the same tactics, and then complaining when you perceive the same happening to you. It certainly wasn't meant to be an insult, in any case. I just thought it was very ironic. If you took it as an insult, well, sorry.

In contrast, I don't recall telling you that you were wrong simply by virtue of the general "side" you take, which is what I will not stand for on your part. I'm tired of your frequent ad hominem, but I live with it. It's your blatant labeling that I won't tolerate. (Look up the "poisoning the well" fallacy.)

Sure, immigrating here the legal way may not be the easiest thing to do in the world but that doesn't justify criminal activity because you believe yourself to be above US law because Vicente Fox says you are.

Of course it doesn't. Sometimes you say very obvious things. :smile: (But then you make it sound as if your debate opponent thinks the contrary, which is when it gets problematic.)

You might want to look into how many barriers and hoops Mexico and most European nations throw up at you before you get their equivalent of a green card.

Again, Samson, you clearly haven't tried to go through the process nor do you know a whole lot about it. We got our "green card" for France in a very short period of time, and even citizenship was just a few-year process. I strongly urge you to learn more about these, and yes, dive into the nitty gritty details too, before you start saying how much you know about them. I'm intimately aware with the immigration process for the USA and France, and by extension on the last one, the entire European Union.

(Why am I intimately aware of the USA's process? Because my girlfriend has had to go through it several times and due to that, me with her; furthermore, a good portion of my close friends are internationals and I have taken it upon myself to educate myself as to the process.)

I'm not sure what else to tell you, Samson. Just go learn about this stuff before speaking with such bluster. I'm trying to be as neutral as I can.

As a side note: Australia is a different question than Europe, that much I'll grant. They pretty much explicitly have things like age barriers where they say they don't want you if you're above some threshold. (They don't want people retiring there to sap resources, presumably.)


And, yet again, you are trying to justify one problem by pointing out problems elsewhere, which is an argument that simply doesn't fly. "Oh, look, our immigration policy is better than North Korea's, woot woot, aren't we so good".

       
<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31