Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
If waiting for the immigration process before you entered the country or left your own meant you could be killed, persecuted, or live in abject poverty.
Its easy to understand why the world is trying to jump the line into other people's countries rather than fix their own.
But if that logic were sound it would be ok for me to steal your house and your food too to improve my family.
A line of reasoning that reflects historic condition of many of theses source countries.
It also explains why we would want to limit the flow into this country to such a small number as can be assimilated as to abandon said 'reasoning' and values less it do to our country what it did to theirs.
so your ancestors should have stayed in their country and tried to fix it?
The Jews should have tried to fix Nazi occupied Europe in the 1930s and 40s?
Would have saved the world a lot of hassle. That's precisely why you never give up your guns.
Maybe you should go back to the land of your ancestors and fix it
@otterman68 My ancestors, a very small share of which came as Colonizers like most Americans, otherwise consist of people who came to an established country legally in such small numbers as to be able to assimilate into it adding only a small mutually agreeable elements to the prior culture.
This is the point of immigration, to join a new functional community which by necessity requires maintaining it.
We are already far beyond the number of immigrants in America which we can assimilate. Europe which is even less good at assimilation blew past that number decades ago. At this point its not about slowing down immigration its about kicking the most disagreeable aliens out.
This either happens via deportation or balkanization but it will happen, that is the nature communities at odds with each-other.
Exactly as option 2 says: Borders are man-made.
I am an Anarchist; NO Gods, NO Masters, NO borders
Now many people from various countries flee to our countries for various reasons... Some day the tables might be turned and we will have to flee.
This alone shouldn't be a reason to allow Refugees and Migrants access to a country, but it is a very good one and people who oppose migration now should do well to remember.
If you don't respect other people's property rights to include their own country you soon enough won't have a country to flee to legal or otherwise.
Anarchy @skinhead-1979 only works until someone imposes rules to protect their own interest. At which point it ceases to be anarchy but rather rule of warlords who eventually style themselfs goverment anew.
@monorprise I would go a little bit further... Anarchy will not work at all in our present day world; World Population is way too big, centralisation and governing with high (er) levels of authority are needed to keep people in check. Organisation like police forces are needed to ensure every lives up to the rules, laws... sadly we need a military too.
Anarchy only works in small, decentralised communities... and we simply do not live in a world in which it is possible.
Anything in an Anarchy based society is being done on a voluntary basis, by general consent... Even in countries with high levels of Authority governments struggle at times to keep their populations in check (unless it's DPKR... no one wants to live in a country like that).
This simply cannot be achieved in big populations.
But I do strongly feel that we can do with a lot less laws and government interference; I value high levels of personal freedom first and foremost. I strongly feel it isn't anyone's business what another person does as long as that person does not hurt someone else or damages someone else's property.
Borders, nations and nationalities... Race/ Ethnicity... mean nothing to me.
Religion wise, if anything, I'd be a Deist... I accept there's a God, but I strongly believe God plays no role in our lives. Organised religion is just nothing else than a way of controlling people for me.
Anarchy is an extreme Left ideology, and does accept many Socialist (Socialist... not Communist) policies... especially the ones regarding society and the economy; and I do agree most of them.
So I am somewhat of an idealist that I prefer an ideology which sounds nice on paper... but I think I am also realistic enough to understand that what I would prefer is not possible in our present-day world.
@monorprise Anarchy can only be achieved through civil disobedience... I do not support a violent revolution; I do not support violence (can't really call myself a Pacifist though); nor do I support any kind of vandalism.
God I sound like a Hippie lol
@skinhead-1979 Sounds like your more of a small goverment conservative than an Anarchist. You might fit in with the American Republican party as that is the dominate historic ideology, although its a bit more religious than you are.
Anarchy is an extreme libertarian ideology, It really has nothing to do with the collectivism that is the modern left in socialism, communism, welfare statism, etc...
They are completely opposite points of view one is independence/freedom the other is compete dependence/submission to others other than collapse. Which i guess anarchist who support leftist views think will happen either by design (never happens) or by incompetents (Does happen).
Either way anarchy is only a temporary state because human nature insure its temparty regardless of scale. Even in the smallest communities going back 10s of thousands of years we know people or individuals within them established systems of general control.
If you want to get nearest as you can to it, you have to go the libertarian route so people can learn to be more independent over time. Otherwise the collapse route just results in large numbers of people with no idea what to do usually leading to anther despotism.
@monorprise As with many other political ideologies, Libertarianism has many sub-ideologies.
Libertarianism does originate on the Left; though through Ayn Rand's theories a 'Right-Wing Libertarianism form came to be (She was not a Libertarian herself): 'Anarcho-Capitalism. This form of Anarchism came to be in the US and finds very little support outside of the US.
The 'Small-State' Republicans you've mentioned, they are 'Right-Wing', the are still very Capitalist; they are 'Anarcho-Capitalists'.
Smaller State - > Greater participation of the private sector in politics, society and the economy. I really do not support this. While it goes too far to say "Capitalism is evil", because there are most certainly part about Capitalism which can be good/ beneficial, and I do feel there is a place for a private sector within an economy... handing power and control over to the private sector is a bad thing; You cannot expect a sector which only cares about Profit to properly look after society and people. Just look at your private healthcare system... and the thousands, millions maybe even, who cannot even afford healthcare when they need it or end up thousands of Dollar in debt. No thanks, I pass on that.
@monorprise "Anarcho-capitalists advocate private ownership of the means of production and the allocation of the product of labour created by workers within the context of wage labour and the free market – that is through decisions made by property and capital owners, regardless of what an individual needs or does not need."
Libertarianism originates on the Left, and 'Left-Wing' Anarchism is called 'Anarcho-Capitalism'. I am not a Capitalist... I am most certainly on the Left-side... I can find agreement with many parts of the Marxist ideology... but the main thing a Marxist and I will never agree on is that Marxists want a 'DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT'. Me being an Anarchist: All Dictatorships are bad, doesn't matter by whom it is being governed and I will oppose any kind of Dictatorship; doesn't matter whether it is a Left- or Right-Wing Dictatorship
"In the mid-19th century, libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists, especially social anarchists, but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists."
@monorprise The founding father of 'Collectivist Anarchism', and one of the earliest Anarchist Thinkers, is Mikhail Bakunin. Bakunin and Marx were colleagues, but disagreement arose. Bakunin also saw the dangers of Zionism, some of the early Zionists, like a Moses Hess, were colleagues of Marx too. Eventually Bakunin got banned from the 1st Internationale, and this caused a massive split between Anarchists and Marxists; Bakunin, knowing well who his political adversaries were, resorted to Anti-Semitic Rants.
While Bakunin has been very important to the Anarchist ideology, other Anarchist thinkers feel he does not go far enough; Bakunin still wanted to retain some kind of wage system. Others, like a Proudhon and Kropotkin went further.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
I don't do 'Group Thinking'... I can just as much disagree with parts of 'Anarcho-Communism' as I would disagree with Free-Market Ideologies, or Fascism. It is therefor really difficult for me to place myself in a 'corner' and often my views adopts aspects of many, sometimes even opposing, ideologies. I am, for example, fully aware that due to getting older I am become, regarding certain subjects, a little bit Conservative (I support LGBT... I do not support the Gender nonsense... a very good example regarding my Conservative views), but over the broad line I am still very 'Red'.
@monorprise R. A. S. H described me well I suppose: Red, Anarchist, and SKinHEad.
"In the context of the skinhead subculture, a redskin is a Marxist skinhead, who often also subscribe to anarchist views. The term combines the word red, (a slang term for socialist or communist) with the word skin, which is short for skinhead. Redskins take a militant anti-fascist and pro-working class stance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(subculture)
@skinhead-1979
Conservatism isn't really an ideology but rather a national reference to retain or return to past ideological position. To the extent you call that "right-wing" it is libertarian in the U. S. which was in fact founded on a very libertarian foundation.
As for capitalism, we define capitalism as simply the freedom to buy and sell that which you own at your own leisure. It is true that this system of self-organization is built upon indiviual choices voting with your wallet all the time.
It is not however true that this is necessarily bad for socility, given the same socility is made entirely of the same individuals. The examples you give where it goes off the rails, it was more likely to do so by way of a goverment bureaucrat ordering the market in that way, and indeed in most cases that is precisely what did happen.
Such cases actually include the American "healthcare" system which is anything but free or private b wing the most regulated and tightly controlled industry in America.
The fact that it is bureaucratic, and prohibitively expensive is in fact precisely what it is FORCED to be by goverment laws that have for 60+ years now prohibit transparency, competition, and price selection.
You take away any of those things from ANY INDUSTRY at all and prices are forced to go up as fast as they can. That is precisely what has happened. Probably by design as the politician want to force us to hand over control of the system. Likely as a way to give them a easy way to get rid of undesirable people, but mostly because Marx told them to as a means of controlling people's dependent loyalty.
Regardless I wouldn't be speaking, your NHS if a lying system that has largely bankrupted and destroyed one of the greatest economies on earth. Your leaders are lying about its true cost even as they miss-manage it into the ground, while using it to avoid needing to be competent in any other area of goverment.
@monorprise You are absolutely correct about the lying here. It's not specifically regarding the NHS (which does indeed cost a lot of the public purse each year), it's regarding the UK's finances... Providing Labour is correct
(I don't trust Labour, and I don't trust the Conservatives... so for me it is a bit difficult to figure out who is lying and who is lying even more)
Labour is now claiming that the Conservatives have been lying about the UK finances for the past 14 years and that the situation is far worse than they have always told the public.
That the situation is bad, there is no question about it
@skinhead-1979
It was once pointed out to me by a man who studied the issue by comparing America and Canada, that the parliamentary systems handle goverment in some significantly different ways than Congressional systems.
One of those differences is how they report the funding and legal issues with parliamentary systems often pretending things are better than they are to promote confidence in their goverment.
Whereas congressional systems needing to motivate support from congress pretend they are worse than they are to promote action by congress or divert blame to the same.
Other differences is shear level of partisanship, In America overall party-line votes are actually quite uncommon. Congressmen act more as individuals in general reflecting on their particular state & district.
Whereas in parliamentary systems they are more the norm, politics being more a competition between big parties.
The result is the truth about our goverment budgeting is a lot harder to hide, and much more openly discussed.
On the other hand congressional system is designed NOT to work without broad consensus.
While this deadlock would cripple a parliament leading to new elections, its rather the primary desired feature of a Congressional system.
This is because we already have an executive who can run the goverment and more agreeable states who do most of the work anyway.
It is also for this reason why our goverment suck at managing any complex industry, because the executive normally is elected to be good at other things and congress can never agree to make frequent or controversial changes.
Which is why our Federal goverment would run an even worse national health service if you can imagine that possible. Granted its dirty laundry would be everywhere.
its important to realize that when you decide to break a law, that there will be consequences should you be found out. and think about this: if 100 million people suddenly went to hawaii for vacation, would you still want to go there? wherever you go, you turn your destination into your place of departure. you change the place you go to. as long as you don't change it too much, you won't notice. but why would you want to stay somewhere that is no longer the place it was and the reason you wanted to go there?
@jennyPuss
If any significant population showed up anywhere with the attitude of ignoring the rules that place would soon enough be unable to support them.
Property rights are the foundation of property as it gives gives reason to build rather than simply take form others. Borders exist to allow nations to exclude people who don't necessarily share their view of the subject from taking from them.
As such we cannot have open borders with Mexico because we cannot trust Mexico or the rest of the world to return criminals to us. Either because they lack the biding interest in doing so or because they lack the ability.
would you risk the consequences if your family's life depended on it?
100% of people would but it is hilarious watching Republicans twist themselves in knots trying to give all these irrelevant answers about not respecting local culture as if that'd be at all relevant to their family moving countries and the country keeping them out and not answering. All decent people would do what they had to do to help their family.
Do tell me, why would you want to import hundreds of millions of people who's only defining attribute is their lack of respect for our laws?
How exactly do you expect to share anything with anyone with such a vastly different idea of right & wrong or who simply takes what they want as theses people did to get here?
You can empathize with these people all you want but the only thing you know about them is that they don't care about your rules.
The question posed here is would YOU move YOUR family. That's it. It is not about your overal thoughts on immigration or specific immigrants and therefore doesn't need to be discussed in THIS question. That's just an evasion of the question being asked.
Opinion
25Opinion
The answer to the question is that of course I would and I would assume anyone who actually loves or cares for their families would do so. The scenario you present is one of dire circumstances. The idea that those could even potentially be avoided, with or without guarantee, would be more than enough for me to do whatever needed to be done to protect my family and to try to improve their quality of life. Anyone who says otherwise either does not care for those who they claim to love or is just repeating talking points fed to them by a chosen political party that they feel they’re beholden to.
If there was a magical way to know that these are the guaranteed outcomes, then sure. I'd do anything in that circumstance. Fortunately there's no need to break any laws, because asylum is available to people in genuine need. Even with the endless hordes of psychopaths abusing the system to force innocent people to be their slaves and care for them in perpetuity, the systems remain intact for genuine victims.
you have to apply for asylum after entering the US. It's not so simple to enter the US legally
I would do what I needed to… but that don’t absolve me of my crimes. Let’s be clear. These people can find safety in Mexico but choose to come here. Best case their situations genuine and we temporarily grant them safety. But it’s not Mexico pursuing them… so their safe in Mexico as well.
If you’re selfish enough to think of your family first then im selfish enough to say obey our laws because you are not the most important person. If you can get in illegally why can’t anyone else without family do the same? You make it sound noble but really its just selfishness over others safety
it's selfish to put the life and safety of your family first. Sure, but is it wrong?
Lets look at from both angles. First of all coming in illegally isn't as simple and straightforward as it may seem.
From the view of the person who is coming in illegally they are on the run for their life.. do or die its simple.
However on the side of those that say come in the right way. They was once immigrants to and they had to go through test and a long legal process, but here comes this person that just pops up here with no illegally and didn’t have to go through struggle you went through to get in.. is that fair? No
Ok no lets look at from another stand point. If 1 person breaks the law it sets a standard that your law is a push over and then opens the flood gates for everyone to try as well because there's no consequence. This put the entire country at risk because now out enemies who wants to do us harm has away in to do it.
If i was an enemy wanting to bring down another nation i would just flood them with illegal immigrants until they break down internally.
@OtterMan68
I don't think you will much care to live in a place that does not to some degree follow laws which protect your property rights, and exclude those who don't adequately.
m I think anyone would to save their family.
Looking at the US, a huge number of people that moved to the US were escaping persecution from the countries they lived in, someone down to religion, some down to they were forced to live in poverty, facing famine.
No. There’s no guarantee you won’t be persecuted, tortured and killed wherever you’re planning to go. No nation on Earth is without crime. Thinking bad things just magically stop happening because of imaginary lines land barons made up centuries ago is akin to believing in fairy tales.
I would do whatever I needed to do to save my children.
Yes, I would do what I needed to do then I would go home again.
Poverty is not a grounds for political asylum. And there is no way the world's wealthier countries can accommodate the world's poor, so even in practical terms, it's ridiculous to cite poverty as a grounds to enter another country illegally.
yeah no one ever starved because of poverty, right?
are billions trying to get into the US?
At least a billion would like to (this is the result of a poll a few years ago), especially if you say you'll take care of them. And tens of millions and counting have already entered at this administration's invitation.
We already have dozens of millions living in poverty in the US, and many a medical emergency or job loss away from it. People in poverty in other countries is not our fault and not our problem.
If you need to feel better about yourself and can't be bothered to donate to charities that help people who are legally resident in the US, then donate to one that helps to alleviate poverty overseas.
same thing we said about Jewish refugees in the 1930s and 1940s
Well, being descended from some of those Jewish refugees (who by the way went to other European countries or China), I can tell you you’re wrong.
You know there is no case whatsoever for making poverty a cause for political asylum, so you’re trying to dishonestly tie your desire for completely flooding countries with the world’s poor to a historical example of a genuine need for political asylum.
I would try to do things legally, but if that doesn't work, I'd break the rules to protect my family.
There are 195 countries in the world and apparently, over half are poor. Even the gang members and the prison populations.
I would just apply for a K-1 visa.
how does one do that?
Those families can do whatever they want, but it's up to the country to have a policy to keep them out. Try getting into any other country on Earth for any reason. You will not be let in. A country cannot survive with open borders. We work and pay taxes and they use those taxes to pay for people who don't have any money and aren't even citizens of our country. How long can you keep paying for that as an American citizen, when you can't even afford for your own family to live?
Think of it this way: if your American next door neighbor came over and said he had to move his family into your house because he was having a life of poverty, would you let him?
My family sponsored two refugee families fleeing Vietnan in the 1970s
I'd think authorities would understand the situation, if it were explained to them
Sure. No one questions why people want to leave their absolute shithole countries and come to the West--either in Europe or North America. The question is, what should the Western countries do about it? Hence the talk of restricting immigration.
That's a leading question and a half. Yes, but most people entering countries illegally are fighting age young men without their families.
Do you have stats to back up that claim? Because I’m not sure I buy that line. Sounds like a talking point you have been fed. Maybe I’m wrong? I would love to see a source for this claim.
Here are the stats for European refugees, who are overwhelmingly young adult men: https://www. pewresearch. org/global/2016/08/02/4-asylum-seeker-demography-young-and-male/
And here are the stats for European illegal immigrants, who are also overwhelmingly young adult men: https://www. pewresearch. org/social-trends/2019/11/13/the-origins-time-in-country-and-demographics-of-unauthorized-immigrants-in-europe/#:~:text=More%20than%20half%20of%20unauthorized%20immigrants%20in%20Europe%20are%20male&text=That%20share%20was%20even%20higher, younger%20than%2035%20in%202017.
I'm talking about families
I’ll do whatever I can to give my family a better life, or die trying
Not if I thought I would be apprehended, jailed, or thrown in jail.
Yes I mean your life in danger your families in danger.
Weird we've seen a bunch of military-aged men from China and the middle east crossing the border illegally without families. You had such a good, emotional story going on.
You might not have to wait to find out the answer to your question at the rate this country is turning to shit! We are already a third rate nation under the Democrats control
Considering my family is toxic, i'm in it just for myself.
From death and persecution I will enter illegally and ask for asylum to see if they can help me otherwise I won't enter illegally.
Not a great question.
Usually people who do it, don't respect laws and culture of country they are migrating into.
I'd kill to protect my family.
No. I don't have mentality of locust swarm.
so you'd leave your family in danger
wouldn't give it a second thought!
Its life and death , yes Sure would.
Absolutely.
No, I would become a local warlord first.
I would
Who wouldn't?
No, I would legally enter another country.
Yes 100%
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions