I honestly think this is a great idea.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Az
I am not saying that they all are, of course - that's why everyone who passes comprehensive testing should be welcomed. However saying that this is just a conspiracy for the EU to not let "those" people in is either bogus or trivial, depending on what you mean by "those" people.

It's not a consiparacy. The UE's willingness to reduce immigration is anything but a secret.

If you mean screening based on ethnicity, this is bull - I am certain 100% that they'll let people in if they fit the criteria, and if they don't that doesn't mean you have to scrap the whole system. If you claim that the tests are "culturally biased" - well that's the whole point, innit? Maybe in country X it's ok to kill your syster because she sleeps around, or kick your wife because you feel like it - it's not the case here.

As to the hope that the people who immigrate will assimilate on the spot, we've all seen how well it has worked in Saint Denis (?).

Either I haven't been clear, or you jumped the gun and applied your prejudices toward me without knowing what I actually mean.

I think we do have a problem with integration, and I think that such a screening based on values is fundamentally a good - and maybe even a great - idea. However, you have to put this idea in the perspective of the current and concrete reality of European immigration policies.
This idea will be used as one further tool to reject immigrants, because you can be sure that its implementation won't result in the removal of another, obsolete, screening tool.

[Az]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What's wrong with rejecting immigrants?

[Spiffor]

1) It's economically stupid
2) It's often inhumane
3) Considering the demand for immigration (both from within and from without), rejecting legal immigrants results in a pandemic illegal immigration, where illegal immigrants live in horrible conditions (exploited by their bosses, exploited by the traffickers, constantly living in fear of the police).

[Az]

1) whether bringing a "traditional" family to the country is an economically sound policy is highly debatable.
2) Again, debatable. If they don't assimilate, how have you actually improved anything? their status isn't much better, and the society on the whole suffers.
3)Are you for adopting the same policy for all other ailments of society we can't cure, like heroine? 'sides, you can't legalize and regulate people.

[Spiffor]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Az
2) Again, debatable. If they don't assimilate, how have you actually improved anything? their status isn't much better, and the society on the whole suffers.[/q]
OK, I'll give you a few examples:
- When 500 aspiring immigrants from subsaharian Africa tried to reach the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla (in Morocco), the Spaniards shoot them. 5 died. But indeed, we arrested the others, and we gave them back to the Moroccans. The Moroccans have abandoned them in the desert.
- Thousands of people have died trying to cross the mediterranean trying to reach Italy or Spain, by paying a fortune to traffickers in order to board precarious vessels, as to avoid detection.
- Many people who try to immigrate in Europe are fleeing their country because they are seriously threatened there. I've heard the following story: A family of 2 parents + 5children lived in Congo-Brazzaville. After suffering from threats, the father disappears (along with one child) there. The remaining of the family flees to France. After a few years, the mother and the two girls are arrested by the police in order to expel them, while the two boys, having heard what happened, are on the run. The police has searched more than 20 homes to find the two boys, so that they could expel the whole family to Congo. Just an everyday horror story.

3)Are you for adopting the same policy for all other ailments of society we can't cure, like heroine? 'sides, you can't legalize and regulate people.

I am in favour of legalizing marijuana on these grounds. As to heroine, I'm all for society treating heroine users as victims rather than culprits. Obviously, this isn't what's happening today with immigration (except for white females being conned to immigrant prostitution)

[Last Conformist]

- Thousands of people have died trying to cross the mediterranean trying to reach Italy or Spain, by paying a fortune to traffickers in order to board precarious vessels, as to avoid detection.

I have certain difficulties sympathizing with people like these - in 99% of cases, nobody forced them to make the attempt, and they either were aware of the risks, or had no clue what they were doing.


As for the proposed tests, they're stupid.

[Fake Boris]

Unless someone can demonstrate that Muslims who live in Western countries beat their wives more often than the 'true' citizens, I'll have to assume this is another thread full of stupid prejudices.

[Last Conformist]

Nobody cares what you assume.

[mactbone]

Wouldn't it be more effective to just teach what the laws are in the country that the immigrant is trying to migrate to? What the questionnaire is doing is basically saying, if you're not enough like the citizens we already have then don't bother coming here.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Unless someone can demonstrate that Muslims who live in Western countries beat their wives more often than the 'true' citizens, I'll have to assume this is another thread full of stupid prejudices.

The requires are for all immigrants not just muslims. Second of all this has zero to do with what citizens do and everything to do with "will this new immigrant make this country a better place or a worse place". If the anwser is a worse place then he shouldn't be allowed in. It's very simple and has nothing to do with prejudice.

[mactbone]

New questions for the Questionnare:

-What is your annual income?
-Will you work for minimum wage?
-Do you support the current President?
-Have you thought about changing religions?
-Do you practice safe sex?
-How much are you willing to spend on consumer products in the month of December?
-How many SUVs do you wish to own?
-What is your favorite sport?

If there's any relevant information about a potential immigrant that you could want I doubt you'll get the answers you want from asking the immigrant.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Unless someone can demonstrate that Muslims who live in Western countries beat their wives more often than the 'true' citizens, I'll have to assume this is another thread full of stupid prejudices.

Where did the OP mention Muslims? Any wife-beater should be refused entry, whether Muslim or not. It's not about whether or not it's more often than in Western countries, anyone who beats their wife should not be allowed in.

I do have questions about what answers are acceptable though. For the last one, if you said "disown him", would you be allowed in or not? I have no problem with banning people who say "kill him to save the family honour", but there are many, many people in Western countries who wouldn't be happy about their child being gay. Whole swathes of the West believe you should accept it would likely lead to being against that area's values (thinking areas of the Bible belt).

The questions are, IMHO, a great idea, but what is an acceptable answer and what isn't is a fine line. In many countries, the police are the terrorists, so people wouild be very apprehensive going to the police if they knew about terror attacks, even given that they didn't support them. Or who would keep quiet out of fear.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Az
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What's wrong with rejecting immigrants?

Treaties signed with other nations that you'll accept a certain amount, or more fundamentally, those fleeing persecution. Most people are in favour of allowing immigration of those fleeing persecution, but want a reduction in the number of them.

Short term it's economically stupid, long term it's economically necessary.

Why can't we have a system whereby you apply either for asylum, in which case an immigration officer decides if you are fleeing from persecution and acts accordingly, or you apply as an economic migrant and it's down to whether you'll contribute to the UK economy? Open and honest - we want people who will contribute more, and we want to be a safe haven for persecuted people. We don't want economic migrants who do not help the UK economy. The Oz or Canadian system seems to be roughly like that.

[Az]

OK, I'll give you a few examples:
- When 500 aspiring immigrants from subsaharian Africa tried to reach the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla (in Morocco), the Spaniards shoot them. 5 died. But indeed, we arrested the others, and we gave them back to the Moroccans. The Moroccans have abandoned them in the desert.
- Thousands of people have died trying to cross the mediterranean trying to reach Italy or Spain, by paying a fortune to traffickers in order to board precarious vessels, as to avoid detection.
- Many people who try to immigrate in Europe are fleeing their country because they are seriously threatened there. I've heard the following story: A family of 2 parents + 5children lived in Congo-Brazzaville. After suffering from threats, the father disappears (along with one child) there. The remaining of the family flees to France. After a few years, the mother and the two girls are arrested by the police in order to expel them, while the two boys, having heard what happened, are on the run. The police has searched more than 20 homes to find the two boys, so that they could expel the whole family to Congo. Just an everyday horror story.

What does this have to do with any screening procedure? If they're a humanitarian case ( defined roughly as being chased by *******s, and not being *******s themselves), then they should be let in.

I have no problem for accepting persecuted people as long as they're willing to play ball by the home's rules, sort of speaking. I am not going to feel sorry for people who are fleeing persecution if they want to be *******s in their new country.

Unless someone can demonstrate that Muslims who live in Western countries beat their wives more often than the 'true' citizens, I'll have to assume this is another thread full of stupid prejudices.

Own ****ing goal if I ever saw one.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Az
What does this have to do with any screening procedure? If they're a humanitarian case ( defined roughly as being chased by *******s, and not being *******s themselves), then they should be let in.

You asked what was wrong with anti-immigration policies, to which I replied they were often inhumane. You said that it was "debatable", so I brought this info to the debate.

It had been at least three posts that our discussion had drifted away from being centred only on the particular screening procedure featured in the OP. I was talking about the general climate wrt immigration in Europe, which is pretty important for the reality of that measure as it will be implemented. You took part to that debate just as much as me.

As for the measure itself, in absolute terms and all other things being equal, I've already said that I consider it a good - and maybe great - idea.