Immigration

CallusedSilk:

Technically freedom of speech is a political right, not a human right.

All political rights are also human rights.

Freedom of speech is basically a civil right because it restricts the powers of the government to interfere in people's individual freedom. Political rights, like the right to vote, grant people their prerogative to participate in the political life of their country.
They are both human rights, but from different classes.

CallusedSilk:

I then asked you to define what 'significant' is since it's not a small detail. These kinds of details are the very real things that are keeping people from being seen as full citizens/residents of a country.

As I told you, I can give you my opinion. I said, I think six months to a year seems reasonable to me.
But this is only my opinion, not based in any sociological or political fact. I think ultimately this decision should be made by the people, through direct vote. What else do you want to know?

CallusedSilk:

Also, the parts of government that aren't interwoven with media aren't usually the parts I see that influence bigotry. However, the parts of media that aren't interwoven with government do regularly promote and show bigotry.

Which parts of the government aren't interwoven with media? And vice-versa?

@ taion

taion:

Political right. The right to vote is the most basic political right, not human right. There's a difference.

vs.

taion:

All political rights are also human rights.

Which one is it? If you're going to criticize my stance that one is a political right and one is a basic right, please stick with whether you think there's a difference between basic and political rights.

taion:

As I told you, I can give you my opinion. I said, I think six months to a year seems reasonable to me.
But this is only my opinion, not based in any sociological or political fact. I think ultimately this decision should be made by the people, through direct vote. What else do you want to know?

Actually, you refused to give an answer at all as to what was the beginning. Also, in order to present a vote on this, we'd have to narrow down an idea of what to give the people to vote on. Voting is multiple choice, not short essay.

taion:

Which parts of the government aren't interwoven with media? And vice-versa?

The fact of the matter is that 'media' is a broad term for a large selection of things. Commercials, radio, television, books, newspapers, magazines and movies, just to name the ones I can think of, all fall under media. So yeah, quite a lot of that is separate from the government. The judicial branch of the US government is for the most part fairly separate from media. One can make arguments for portions of the executive branch, although legislative branch is where it gets the murkiest.

It all feeds into each other, but media is also just flat out what most citizens are directly affected by every day, regardless of class, race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality or anything else.

I'm sorry. I made a mistake on that post. What I mean is:

There are dozen of categories of human rights. There are civil rights, political rights, social rights and so on. All of them are ultimately also human rights.

The right of vote is the most basic political right. Which means that among the political rights the right to vote is the most fundamental one. Because if you deny people this right, there is no representative democracy, doesn't matter if all other political rights are still somehow granted.

But yeah. Unless you just wanted to nitpick on what I wrote, you could have just looked it up on the internet. You don't need to take my word for this sort of thing.

CallusedSilk:

Actually, you refused to give an answer at all as to what was the beginning. Also, in order to present a vote on this, we'd have to narrow down an idea of what to give the people to vote on. Voting is multiple choice, not short essay.

I only said I couldn't be bothered to discuss this with you. In this thread. I'm here to discuss social and political issues behind this debate and not to dwell on just one single point that is fairly small when compared to the big picture of what we were discussing. And I'm pretty sure politicians and bureaucrats would be able to come up with a multiple choice question, better than I would.

I said I'd consider residents people living in a country from 6-12 months. Can we move forward now?

CallusedSilk:

It all feeds into each other, but media is also just flat out what most citizens are directly affected by every day, regardless of class, race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality or anything else.

I asked you those questions before because I was trying to understand what were you trying to get at.
I sort of see it now, but I won't even try answering this here. I'd need to write an essay and, really, this is way off-topic.
If you wish, we could find a more appropriate thread or create a new one for this discussion.

@ CallusedSilk

@ taion
Look up an opinion? Because it is an opinion, and it was stated in a way where I became confused about what your opinion actually was. Exactly how was I supposed to look up to see what you particularly meant by it? I personally see human rights and political rights as connected. I still stand by my saying that freedom of speech is more of a basic right than voting is. Since without freedom of speech, voting can end up being pointless. Especially if the system itself is corrupt.

I didn't realize that you saying 'I can't be bothered' isn't a refusal to talk about details. Not to be totally cliche, but the devil is always in the details. Details are important. Details are the reason why half of the things that get discussed never move forward, because people exaggerate details that are never specified by the side. Simply going 'switch to residency' gets us nowhere. The whole point of a debate is to state your terms clearly.

At this point though, I'm fairly certain that you and I personally will never reach even remotely a consensus on this. I'm too detail oriented, and you feel strongly about big picture.

Also, please stop with the smilies. It makes you come across as condescending. There really isn't a point to include a facepalming smile in an intellectual debate.

@ CallusedSilk

classes of human rights are subjects of political theory. The way how they are classified is not a matter of opinion, that's why you can look it up in books and on the internet and that's why I won't elaborate on it anymore.

I'm not concerned with reaching a consensus here. When I came here not even for a second I though people would agree with me, I'm aware my opinion is not exactly a popular one. I just wanted to expose my ideas and see if someone would share their thoughts on it, but we got stuck and since I don't really wish to have my personality analyzed by a complete stranger, maybe we can go back to the discussion at hand?

I'll try one last time.

Supposing residents are people living for more than six months in a certain country, do you agree they should have a right to vote or not? Why? Or would you grant those people citizenship? What the conditions for this would be?

(I more or less know what you're going to say, but please take it as a way to keep the discussion on this thread going).

I only put the facepalm there, because I did something very facepalm-worthy, a double-post.
I'm sorry if it offended you somehow.

@ taion
That's an incredibly broad way of putting it. There's multiple schools of thought in political theory, and once again, it doesn't help me narrow down what you're exactly talking about to even double check it.

I never attempted to analyze your personality. You flat out stated you were concerned with big picture. That's not an assessment of personality; it's just a flat out regurgitation of what you said.

Have you ever heard of a summer/vacation home? There are people that are rich enough to just pick up and live somewhere else for months at a time. Simply living somewhere, even for as long as six months, isn't actually an indication of wanting to be considered a citizen of that area. So, basically, no. Simply being in a country for six months is not enough of a reason, in my opinion, to have the right to vote in that country's election.

Someone actively applying for citizenship would make it clear that they wanted to be a citizen of the country and be a sign that they wanted to be involved in the process. I do think a minimum of probably closer to a year should happen for the citizenship process, as well as having secured (through renting, leasing or otherwise) a place to live. A job, part time or full time, would also show a commitment to being in the area.

But once again, they have to actually show that they want to be a citizen. Simply being in the country for months at a time isn't always because they want to be a citizen.

I wasn't aware it was because of a double post. I misunderstood it as condescending because it's a reply to me, and all the post contains is a facepalm smiley. I accept your apology though.

Citizenship is very important to the immigration issue and we are able to discuss if it should exist whether that was intended by the original question or not. This is a discussion thread, not a blog

@ CallusedSilk
you have a point about the time thing. If you only visit a country for months at a time, that's more like residency to me, that's not remotely close to citizenship.

Like right now, I'm not a citizen, nor am I a resident I'm someone that's been given permission to work in this great country.

*Cracks fingers*

Let's talk about where I live! I live in Florida (not Mexico ) and over here there are many Latinos that are not Cuban or Puerto Rican or legal to put it bluntly. Since Florida is a retiree state, many older folks complain that we are an issue as if we're cockroaches. Bleh.

Do I think something should be done? I do. I don't necessarily want people like me to be deported because let's be real...there are many like us...and it would start up the craziest situation. I always talk to my friends about this, and it would make some kind of sense.

A year or two ago Obama let children of illegal immigrants that had no choice in coming to America get some kind of rights to work and go to school. This was the solution we were looking for, and it looks really promising and stuff.

I'm saying that stuff like that should happen more often and to people that are older than 30. We get charged a sum of 465 for each renewal, so that's not only bringing money in, but it's also giving people the opportunity to pay taxes.

I so hope that this is making some kind of sense

@ CallusedSilk

Yes, I've even been to one of those places, but as I've said earlier, I don't know anyone who spends, say, two months chilling in the beach and not doing nothing all day, let alone six months. Because you know, even rich people work, there's a reason why they're rich, after all.

But let's admit people who vacation for six months or more straight do exist (which is humanly impossible, imo, but yeah). How much of a country's population do they represent? About 0,01% maybe? In any case, not enough to significantly impact the result of an election, for example. That's why I don't think this is a very strong argument. If you have numbers to prove me wrong, please do.

CallusedSilk:

Someone actively applying for citizenship would make it clear that they wanted to be a citizen of the country and be a sign that they wanted to be involved in the process. I do think a minimum of probably closer to a year should happen for the citizenship process, as well as having secured (through renting, leasing or otherwise) a place to live. A job, part time or full time, would also show a commitment to being in the area.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Except that I still don't agree with the word "citizenship", but since I don't want to repeat myself, I guess we'll just agree to disagree there.

@ dru is beautiful.
I already discussed it quite a bit with the other poster. I'll also point it out again that there's enough to discuss with just reforming immigration without discussing the details of overhauling the entire idea of citizenship for everyone.

@ SmilingScarlet
Look at you, being all sneaky. People complain everywhere. I live in Missouri, so I get to hear a lot of complaining. Bible belt + tornado alley = people are cray.

I am really glad that he did that, 'cause the kids really did get no say in it. It's not like they can turn to their parents and go, "Mom, Dad? I'd rather be left alone in a country without you."

Holy shit, 465 every renewal? That's intense.

Also, yes it did make sense.

@ taion
Actually, a lot of the super rich are rich because of interest on other wealth, and also from bonuses. And tax evasion. So, not precisely from actually working. Also, they can still be working and not working with anything that's actually physically in the country they're staying in at that moment. Internet makes that possible.

Also, in the United States, it can influence an election depending on how many electoral votes each state gets and what that population is. You'd have to look at each state individually to see how much the tourists would actually influence it. Florida, for example, gets 29 electoral votes. It gets millions of people staying there for vacation every single year since it has numerous tourist attractions. California gets 55 electoral votes, and also gets millions of people vacationing there every single year. New York gets 29 electoral votes, and yep, once again, gets millions of tourists every single year. Just one of those states being swayed to a different vote can change the outcome of the entire election.

@ CallusedSilk
Do these tourists stay for six months or more? without working?

@ taion
Tourists, by definition, are there for pleasure instead of work. They're there for varying amounts of time though. I'm just pointing out that when it comes to America at least, if you influence the right state, you can influence the entire election. So even a seemingly small population can make a monumental difference.

@ CallusedSilk
I'm asking you how many tourists in a country could stay for six months or more without working. Because these people could get a right to vote and wrongfully influence in the results of an election. You're not answering me, so I think I'm right to assume the number of these people is actually irrelevant.

And if this is the only point you're attempting to make, then I rest my case.

@ taion
I don't know the exact number of people, since I don't exactly work in the government. Also, you asked once, and I didn't answer once, so that's an assumption that it's an irrelevant number? You get to refuse to answer questions repeatedly, but that's just a 'don't feel like it', but my forgetting to answer one question in one reply means I get to be dismissed?

I'm done talking to you.

We apparently have an 'immigration problem', according to the politicians in this country. I don't think we do, because the main argument in immigration here is "they come over and steal all our benefits and jobs". While I agree that perhaps we're extremely lax when it comes to what qualifies for benefits (which should be something we discuss as a separate issue from immigration -- I know people from the country that don't really need benefits and will not refuse to go and get a job because of it, so it isn't just the immigrants that are abusing the system) I don't agree with closing the borders or trying to eject the country from the EU (which is a stupid idea to begin with) just to stop the open borders policy.

I mean, I know more hardworking immigrants in this country than I do people from the country that work hard. My GP is an Indian. He's incredible at his job and he works extremely hard to provide for himself and his family. The woman that owns the local shop by my university is Pakistani, as far as I'm aware, and she does the same. The Polish shop in the town is owned by immigrants, and they have that shop opened almost every single day to make money for themselves. I can see more different nationalities in basic paid jobs than ever and I feel that trying to say that immigrants are just coming over for the benefits (which seems to be David Cameron's main argument) is largely invalid. You're always going to have these people that abuse the system. I can't say we don't have immigrants that aren't here just because our benefits system is hilarious. We've got Scots that do the exact same. I just don't think that should be the main argument.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, more than an immigration problem in this country, I think we have a problem with the way that the benefits system works. For those that are coming across the border to take advantage of that, I feel that there should be something in place because it does put strain on the economy and perhaps means that those in desperate need of the benefits will struggle to qualify. However, many immigrants that we have in this country work hard and contribute to the economy as a whole. I don't see why that should be a problem, or why we're pushing so hard for racism to still be apparent in today's society, especially through parties like UKIP or Britain First. If people are willing to work and obey the laws of the country, then I don't see why they shouldn't be given the opportunity to live here and contribute to the overall way the country is run.

@ nearly witches.
You should read the statistics on how many people take advantage of the welfare system. It's less than 1%.

@ dru is beautiful.
For the UK it tends to be between 2 and 3% (or it was in 2012, I've not been able to find any more up-to-date fraud figures). I don't know what the percentage of that is for immigrants, but I'd be pretty confident in betting that they are a tiny amount of it. That's why I said above that it was a minority that abused the system.

@ nearly witches.
But I still don't think that would hve anything to do with the reason. To have a 2% chance of getting benefits fraudulently?