I just watched the sorriest debate I've ever seen...

[epicstruggle]

@Willmeister: cool i didnt know there were more of us. Im curious where did you come from and how long were you illegal. Im going to guess canada and 7 years. . I came from South Africa.

later,
epic

 

[London Geezer]

what a disgrace.. thinking that the vast majority actually think like u do covermye (or whatever ur name is)...

immigration law exists to (among MANY other things) make sure that an asylum seeker is a real asylum seeker. that is, if in case of him/her being returned to his/her country of origin, he/she would suffer persecution for religious beliefs, political activities, sex, and all those aspects covered by the Geneva Convention.
Granted, MANY immigrants ARE just "economic" immigrants, that is, they do not suffer persecution in their country of origin, merely choosing to move to a country where they can raise their standards of living. those are the ones that SHOULD go by the rules, and not come to the country illegally. fair enough. in fact, when the law gets it right, they are "asked to leave the country and return when they have all the permits sorted out" e.g. Visas etc...
the problem is, there are also MANY (the minority) asylum seekers who run away from their countries because otherwise they will be killed (or something along the lines). those people CAN NOT sort their documents out, and apply for visas (which in most cases gets refused) because by the time they get a response they're dead. or "disappeared" down a cliff...
the law is there so that those genuine asylum seekers get the treatment they SHOULD get under the Geneva Convention, and kicking EVERYONE out of the country only because many of them are not genuine would not be fair on those who, upon return to their countries, would be detained, beaten up or killed.

at the end of the day, what would u do if the police (yes, the police, thats how it works in some countries like some parts of Turkey and what used to happen in Kosovo in the bad years) came to your house, raped and killed your wife and daughters and came after u, just because u and ur family are not following (FOR EXAMPLE) the very strict muslim rules of living. and that example is taking into account that u're an adult. we used to get clients who were 10-18 years old, who saw their whole families attacked, raped and brutally mutilated and killed.
what would U do? seriously. the fact that u can always count on other countries in cases like that, and get the protection u need without having to "give" anything (because in those cases, u wouldnt OWN anything), is what makes this planet a better place to live in. and it should be MUCH MUCH better than it is now.

those many "cheaters" are the price to pay for following international conventions of Human Rights. and to be honest, a country has FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR bigger problems than those few not-genuine asylum seekers. "people" just need a scapegoat for problems that have always existed, and what better scapegoat than immigrants.
oh, i'm not an immigrant. i just worked in a law firm for 3 years.

sorry about the rant and the inevitable spelling mistakes, i'm a fast but inaccurate typer and i needed to get that off my chest...

 

[covermye]

Wow. I don't know where to start. London boy, you're not even on the same page with what we're discussing here...

immigration law exists to (among MANY other things) make sure that an asylum seeker is a real asylum seeker. that is, if in case of him/her being returned to his/her country of origin, he/she would suffer persecution for religious beliefs, political activities, sex, and all those aspects covered by the Geneva Convention.

Who's seeking asylum in this instance? We're talking about illegal immigrants to California, which for the major part are made up of Mexicans and Asians. These people are not seeking asylum. They're merely looking for a better way of life and for one reason or another didn't want to follow the rules.

Among many other things is the key phrase here, and you fail to address any of them. Among those other reasons for immigration laws is to PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY THE IMMIGRANT WANTS TO COME TO, by providing a record of the immigration, some form of background check, and, if need be, CONTROL THE AMOUNT OF IMMIGRANTS to a specific country. Let's say, hypothetically, that France was a utopian type of country and 50% of the world wanted to immigrate there. You're arguing against immigration limitations in that case? I'm confused here...

Granted, MANY immigrants ARE just "economic" immigrants, that is, they do not suffer persecution in their country of origin, merely choosing to move to a country where they can raise their standards of living. those are the ones that SHOULD go by the rules, and not come to the country illegally. fair enough. in fact, when the law gets it right, they are "asked to leave the country and return when they have all the permits sorted out" e.g. Visas etc...

The "economic" immigrants is what we're discussing here. Seems like you and I agree on the actual subject, but your emotions are blinding you to the obvious. What we're having a problem with here is the "law getting it right."

the problem is, there are also MANY (the minority) asylum seekers who run away from their countries because otherwise they will be killed (or something along the lines). those people CAN NOT sort their documents out, and apply for visas (which in most cases gets refused) because by the time they get a response they're dead. or "disappeared" down a cliff...

You're talking about a very, very small majority of immigrants here, london boy. Specifically, the illegal immigration problem in California couldn't be any further detached from this argument and this type of immigration.

California is experiencing MILLIONS of illegal immigrants from Mexico alone who are BY NO MEANS seeking asylum from "evil, corrupt government officials raping their women and pilliaging their homes." Why do you apply your emotional scenario to these people, who are the topic of this discussion?

sorry about the rant and the inevitable spelling mistakes, i'm a fast but inaccurate typer and i needed to get that off my chest...

I'm not sure you really got anything off your chest. It's an off-topic argument you've made, really.

I could do without the insult at the beginning, too, that it's a disgrace that to think that the vast majority agree that we should control immigration into our country. Why are you so irritated as to directly insult me for expressing a pretty harmless opinion?

Obviously we have a duty as a developed country to provide a place of asylum for those that are treated unfairly. I'm not arguing that in the least. You've completely missed the boat here and seem to be wanting to stir up an argument that doesn't exist.

 

[London Geezer]

sorry mate,
didnt mean to attack u or anything... i'd just had a discussion about the same stuff with some very stupid friends of mine and the adrenaline was still running... guess when i saw the word "immigrants" and "we have to protect our country from them" i kinda saw red.
of course there in california have a much much different approach to this matter, and that's because your kind of immigrants are very different from our type...
but anyway, this doesnt matter, the thread was about something else...