Nationality and ethnicity

[Sarcelle]

My brother has been to China and there’s been an influx of Russians coming over for work.

 

[jrgmercado]

My grandparents worked a diary farm . My grandfather worked as a janitor and my grandmother a sewing machine operator in a textile factory raising 3 daughters. They have 6 grandchildren; a teacher, a nurse, a former soldier and 3 professionals. Exactly where would they fall in the “merits based system” you are speaking of? FYI…they were “unskilled” refugees…

 

[phil19034]

CCHcolonel:

want all peoples to have their own homelands. Poland for Poles, England for the English, Scotland for the Scots.

Unworkable and potentially conflict-causing in so many areas of the world. Don’t forget that many places in the world have more than one ethnicity residing there simultaneously, and each having been there as long as the others. Who gets the land in that case? They all have the equal right to live there.

Homogeneous states are an impossibility.

Just for context I’m thinking primarily of my home area, the Middle East.

True, but I think you can have a primary culture.

The issue with multiculturalism isn’t the multiple ethnicities. It’s the idea that the prime culture needs to yield to multiple foreign cultures.

When one moves to a new area, it’s ok for them to keep & honor their heritage. But people should assimilate to the culture of the land. A land with no primary culture is a land with no culture.

 

[Rational1]

Couldn’t tell you. My guess is they wouldn’t meet the requirements though, I think it’s more geared towards doctors, engineers and such. But I imagine there would be a lot of research into what industries had labor shortages and tailor admittance to those needs.

What I don’t understand about folks that have concerns about immigration is that they prefer a merit based system. In such a scenario wouldn’t immigrants that are doctors, engineers and such then compete and possibly replace Americans and… you know take the jobs your kids are going to compete for? Why be so afraid of immigrants that are taking low wage labor jobs but welcome those that will compete with you and your kids?

 

[Londoner]

British nationality law as regards our former colonial possessions is unimaginably complicated. There are British citizens, British Overseas Territories citizens (previously called British Dependent Territories citizens), British Overseas citizens, British Nationals (Overseas), British subjects, and British protected persons. Some of these are further subdivided into those who do and do not have right of abode in the UK. There also used to be Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I think that just about covers it.

The short answer is that most residents of Hong Kong of Chinese ethnicity did not have the right to live in the UK after Hong Kong reverted to China and consequently there are relatively few Hong Kong Chinese people in the UK.

 

[Sarcelle]

In such a scenario wouldn’t immigrants that are doctors, engineers and such then compete and possibly replace Americans and… you know take the jobs your kids are going to compete for?

In all honesty, foreigners need not come here to compete with US citizens for jobs.
In this globalized economy, jobs have been going overseas for some time now. This is true for all sorts of jobs requiring a wide range of skill sets and skill levels.

 

[Rational1]

You don’t have any relatives who work low income jobs? Must be nice.

I’m just asking a question, I don’t mean to come across as uncaring to anyone.

Knowing that most parents regardless of what they do, usually want something better for their children, it is surprising to me that wanting more competition for high income jobs is preferred.

Even for oneself it sounds self defeating to want more competition for jobs I’m hoping to fill myself. It’s like working really hard to qualify for a promotion and then hoping that my company will also consider outsourcing or bringing in someone from the outside to compete with me. That’s great for the company but not so good for existing employees.

 

[Rational1]

I mean in my ideal world we wouldn’t take any immigrants, and only allow in persecuted Christians as refugees. But we don’t live in an ideal world. So if we’re going to have immigrants I’d rather them be educated and self sustaining, and have them fill whatever is actually needed, than having lots of poorer and uneducated and unskilled people come in and suppress wages for Americans already at the bottom of the economic ladder

Wouldn’t having more competition for high paying jobs suppress wages for those jobs as well? It seems to me that historically nations have preferred to being in low skilled labor so that it’s citizens could enjoy a higher standard of living. I believe that this is why the Egyptians did not want to let the Israelites go. Brings to mind Moses request to “let my people go”. However wanting to bring in high skilled people to take over these jobs is a new one for me. Perhaps there is historical precedent that I’m missing where this was done and worked well for a nation?

Other than for special circumstances like bringing in scientists to develop the atomic bomb or rockets but this was a small number of people and not the millions needed to build infrastructure or replace retirees who are leaving the workforce.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I am an American. I read newspapers and watch television news, but I have not heard of the loud noisy faction who wants to bring in anyone and everyone. Who are these people you speak of?
Only recently has President Trump spoken of merit-based immigration.
Before that, he only spoke of building walls and trying to keep people from what he referred to as “s-hole countries” from coming into this country.
The President has called Mexicans murders and rapists. He has used some nasty rhetoric at his televised rallies.
Is Trump a racist? His words and actions would seem to indicate that he might be, but I cannot definitively state that he is a racist.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

“I’m married to a daughter of a Mexican man, and she and I both support the wall…” So by saying this, you can justify what you have said?
Walls do not work. History. The Berlin Wall did not keep people in East Germany from escaping to the West. And there were machine gun nests and other deterrents to keep people in East Berlin.
This country is already pretty violent. Look at the number of shootings that take place in America each year. We don’t have to worry about importing violent people. Violent people, mostly American-born people, already live in our communities.
Having visited some of the countries that President Trump, and you, deem as s-hole countries, I can tell you that you both are wrong. There are some beautiful places in those countries you mentioned and the people I have met there were nice. All countries have an element of bad people who live there, even the United States.

 

[Londoner]

And as someone who has been to Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Honduras, and Colombia, I’ll sit with trump and say those country’s, relative to the US, are s*** holes

Of the countries you list, I’ve only been to Argentina. A beautiful country with warm, hospitable people. I absolutely loved it.

 

[Salibi]

But it was still dirty, impoverished, and while I liked the trip enough to go back several times, it’s not a country I’d want to emulate

So are all cities. Ever been to Paris?

I also wasn’t aware U.S cities were the height of cleanliness.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

But the question is how will these people from outside this country be allowed in?
Trump focused on the southern border. How about Canadians and others who come in from the northern border illegally?
How about those who enter on visas and then just never leave?
What is needed is a comprehensive immigration policy.
What is needed is working toward solutions and dropping all of the political rhetoric! Politicians are good at using issues like immigration to further their own goals, instead of working for what is best for our country.
Historically speaking, I remember when Cubans came illegally to this country in exodus from Fidel Castro’s Communist Cuba. They were allowed into this country for the very same reason that many coming up from Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua for the same reason. They were fleeing for their lives. Why is this so very different? The fact is that is the same thing.

 

[Londoner]

I mean in my ideal world we wouldn’t take any immigrants, and only allow in persecuted Christians as refugees.

I’m interested to know how you hold that view given that you say your grandfather was an English admirer of Enoch Powell and your father-in-law is Mexican. If it were not for immigration you would not be enjoying the lifestyle that you enjoy.

I’m also curious how you would justify expressing a preference for Christian refugees over others. For one thing, wouldn’t that run contrary to the USA’s separation of religion and the state? But more fundamentally, a refugee is by definition a person who needs to claim refuge. I don’t see how you can want to give refuge to Christians but not to non-Christians who are by definition equally in need of claiming refuge.

 

[Rational1]

Most of the democrats running for office support the lottery/diversity policy, and also letting people who have a distant relative here be used as a chain link to bring in more and more people.

I’m married to a daughter of a Mexican man, and she and I both support the wall, and don’t want the violence of Mexico being brought across the border.

And as someone who has been to Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Honduras, and Colombia, I’ll sit with trump and say those country’s, relative to the US, are s*** holes

As the husband of a minority and perhaps kids as well… are you worried about a rise of racism in America? Are you concerned that the hate will eventually spill over and affect your family?

 

[Salibi]

The Middle East is something of a special case and Lebanon is perhaps something of a special case even within the Middle East maintaining a precarious balance between the interests of Sunni and Shia Muslims, Maronites and Melkites, Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Christians, and Druze. The situation in Europe is very different, at any rate in a country such as the UK. There are people who oppose immigration from the rest of the EU, but the situation is nothing like as complicated as in Lebanon or other countries of the region. We have about 1 million Poles and 400,000 Romanians (just the most significant groups). These people have made nothing but a positive contribution to our economy, society, and culture. There is no risk of their representing a danger to our pol

Londoner,

You are correct in what you say. I would like to extend my compliments for your knowledge of the Middle East and its groups, precious few are familiar with it who are not Mid-Eastern. There is, of course, a great many things to add to your post, but as it is a daunting and time-consuming topic, forgive me if I don’t want to broach it right now. And also, let us not derail the thread with a topic some might be averse to.

Kind regards.

 

[jrgmercado]

FYI… :“loud noisy faction” normally translates to “Democrats”

 

[jrgmercado]

So historically, Cubans have been treated differently for several reasons:

1. the historical ties to the United States
2. Communism
3. the majority of the population was white, especially before the 80’s.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I have watched enough Donald Trump rallies on television to know that “loud and noisy faction” translates more to Republicans.
Cuba has historical ties to the United States?
Whether it be communist thugs or drug lord thugs, what difference does it make to folks trying to flee for their lives?
What does the color makeup of the US have to do with immigration? Most of those so-called “White” Americanss were at one time immigrants from some other place.

 

[Londoner]

That’s a shame. I was curious to have answers to these interesting ideas:

I don’t believe in democracy, nor do I support a separation of church and state …

When my mother became a citizen I told her I was against it. I don’t think foreign born people should be able to have a say in the government of a land they didn’t grow up in.

I’d like a much more limited citizenry, with an even more limited amount of people who have a say in government. Francisco Franco and augusto Pinochet hold a bit of what I consider good government.

It seems like he is saying:

1. Democracy is a bad form of government.
2. The state should establish a national religion.
3. Nobody should ever be allowed to naturalise as a citizen of a country where he was not born.
4. Among current citizens of countries there are people who should lose the citizenship they already have. Presumably this would lead to many people becoming stateless people with nothing more than the right to permanent residence in a particular country.
5. Even among those people permitted to retain citizenship, some of them should lose the right to vote or hold office.
6. Franco and Pinochet are admirable examples of good government.

I am wondering, are these ideas common among Catholics in the US? Or common among people in the US? On other threads @CCHcolonel has expressed not dissimilar views such as not supporting representative forms of government, believing in government by the nobility, and believing that the right to vote should be determined by level of federal income tax paid. It seems strange to me that two Americans on this forum should hold such strangely similar views that are counter to the values expressed in the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Hence wondering whether in fact a lot of Americans have these ideas or at any rate whether there is a specific kind of American political philosophy behind these ideas.