[snakeoil]

I have a few questions, probably dumb questions. I'm not being funny, I really don't know the answer to this.

All of the immigrants fleeing the Arab conflicts have left their lands with little other than the clothes on their backs. They have no jobs and many have no money or assets at all.

a. Where is the money going to come from while they sit in camps waiting for permission to relocate?

b. Once they receive permission to relocate, where is the money going to come from to assimilate them into the society of the host country?

c. Has money been set aside and where does it come from to vet each of the immigrants to ensure that no terrorists slip through? Remember that, in Paris, there is already one confirmed case of a terrorist coming in with refugees.

d. If and when peace returns to the areas of conflict, is there a plan to send the people back to their country? If not why not?

[Dogzilla]

At what point should immigration to the US have been cut off? I'm sure that Pocahontas, Patrick, and Ahkmed would have different answers. What's yours?

[johnforbes]

That's the wrong question.

Immigration should depend upon the needs and wants of the receiving country, and that's how Canada, Australia, etc do it.

Are dentists needed? Or, as in the case of H Kong folks wanting to go to Vancouver in the past, Canada wanted to know their net worth in order to assure it was not getting a bunch of future welfare bums.

Yes, I know my poor Irish ancestors might have been kept out of America by that standard, but America is now a developed country.

When the Homestead Act was signed in 1862, America still had vast tracts of undeveloped land and it wanted folks to come from Europe and be pioneers.

Take Nebraska Territory, for example, where many Civil War vets went to settle. Most got a quarter section of 160 acres, they had 5 years to "prove up," and in 7 years with a lot of work and sweat they could get title.

But this is the 21st Century and America is now a crowded, modernized country, and what we get are welfare recipients from Third World dumps.

[Dogzilla]

So.....The cut-off was once YOU got here??

How bout it, Snake? When is YOUR suggested cut-off?

[RealJustme]

So.....The cut-off was once YOU got here??

There should be no need for a cut off, it should be what they have to offer America, not we have to offer them.

[snakeoil]

Just remember, Islam is a political system and a religion.

[johnforbes]

Come on Dogzilla, go back and read over what I posted.

You know very well that's not what I said.

Is America still a frontier west of the Mississippi?

Every admitting country should consider ITS OWN NEEDS.

[Dogzilla]

Based on the above words of all three of you guys, there are indeed changes in the American Immigration policies. I am merely asking when those changes took place...or SHOULD take place. It's not a trick question. In the beginning, there was a free-for-all policy.....now, not so much. My question is WHEN was/is it.

PS....I'm not saying that I disagree with you. I'm just asking for clarification.

[johnforbes]

Immigration should depend upon the needs and wants of the receiving country, and that's how Canada, Australia, etc do it.

Are dentists needed? Or, as in the case of H Kong folks wanting to go to Vancouver in the past, Canada wanted to know their net worth in order to assure it was not getting a bunch of future welfare bums.

Yes, I know my poor Irish ancestors might have been kept out of America by that standard, but America is now a developed country.

When the Homestead Act was signed in 1862, America still had vast tracts of undeveloped land and it wanted folks to come from Europe and be pioneers.

Take Nebraska Territory, for example, where many Civil War vets went to settle. Most got a quarter section of 160 acres, they had 5 years to "prove up," and in 7 years with a lot of work and sweat they could get title.

But this is the 21st Century and America is now a crowded, modernized country, and what we get are welfare recipients from Third World dumps.

[Dogzilla]

So.....The problem is welfare? Getting free stuff from others, without having to earn it. Sounds a lot like the means upon which this great nation was founded. So....we need to get away from those principles? Gotcha.

[Clownkicker]

Dog, it is futile to ask johnforbes for clarification.

Or to ask him any questions at all, for that matter. He will never answer, even after you just finished answering one of his questions. johnny doesn't see "discussion" as a give and take. He sees "discussion" as a string of silly pontifications (at which he excels, no doubt about it.)

His mind is incapable of restating or elaborating on what he is convinced are complete thoughts in themselves.
He can't see the fog that's constantly floating around his head.

All he can do is copy-and-paste the first regurgitations he can dredge up.
When once he states something, it becomes set in bone in his ossified brain.
He will even go so far as to randomly copy-and-paste these things into other threads when he can't think of an appropriate response to a thread topic.

[johnforbes]

Of course, the problem is not solely welfare.

The issue is: WHAT DOES THE RECEIVING COUNTRY NEED TO IMPROVE ITSELF AND ITS WAY OF LIFE.

Obviously, not importing new welfare bums is part and parcel of that.

Look at what Canada, Australia, etc do.

As things now stand, America brings in one million new legal immigrants every year and simply hopes for the best.

Meanwhile, 94.4 million Americans are out of the labor force, and 12 million illegal immigrants wander back and forth over a mostly open southern border.

Clearly, America needs to ask: WHAT DO WE NEED? WHAT WILL HELP PRESERVE AND IMPROVE OUR WAY OF LIFE, CONSISTENT WITH SECURITY.

[Dogzilla]

You do realize how America came to be, don't you JohnnieBoy?? A bunch of misfits and convicts were allowed to come over here, where they abruptly set about robbing and stealing from the Natives that were already here in their land, and once they stole all they could, they killed the very natives that had supplied them with what they needed. We ARE descended from that bunch of peoples, and now you want to stop others from coming here to escape the same things that we came here for.

So.....AGAIN......When was the magic cutoff point? Can you supply me with a date, in order that I may update my history books.

[Clownkicker]

"I got mine. Screw you."-johnfrippery(noted American)

[johnforbes]

America was once an open, undeveloped frontier land.

It needed, wanted, asked for, and got millions of new legal immigrants under the Preemption Act, the Homestead Act of 1862, the Timber Culture Act, the Kinkaid Act, and so on.

Now it is developed, with about 330 million people.

Double the population of the WW II era.

The Founding Fathers never envisioned a million new legal immigrants per year, particularly from Third World dumps, nor did they foresee 12 million illegals.

As to "I've got mine," an affluent person can live anywhere -- Switzerland, France, Austria, Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, etc. -- and enjoy very high quality amenities.

America needs to reassess its immigration system, and everybody knows that.

[Dogzilla]

"America was once an open, undeveloped frontier land."

No. It belonged to the native Americans. We immigrants merely stole it from them.

What is the DATE at which these new immigration laws should be/have been implemented?

[johnforbes]

Sure, the Americans took that land.

But it WAS an open, undeveloped land.

That's simply the case.

Steamship lines even ran ads to lure immigrants to America after the Homestead Act was passed.

America is no longer the same undeveloped land it was in 1852.

To suggest its immigration system should be anybody who sneaks in, well that's just brain-dead.