The Hong Kong Solution to Immigration

 

One can only imagine, hmm?  The fact is that many nations who are politically much further left than the U.S. have far, far tougher immigration standards.  Yet it seems that the left is committed to open borders and no real plan for immigration.  One can only assume this is about one word:  Votes.   

Hong Kong is being taken over by the Chinese the way the US can't be. They've postponed elections and are seeing their culture dramatically changed. Dolce and Gabanna told it's non Chinese shoppers to not even come into the store; only mainland Chinese were allowed to enter. Call me when this shit goes down in the US. 

 

So it's about the number of immigrants is it? If the number of immigrants is small relative to the region's population, it ok to imply that people opposed to this immigration are xenophobic racists, but the the ratios are reversed, it's ok to be "concerned?"

 

 

You act like elections should only be about approved voters and that culture is some fixed, unchanging thing. Cultures are always changing. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Sometimes without any immigration at all.

Edited by MJ1970 - 5/7/12 at 2:16pm

EDIT Correction- I thought I was replying to trumptman here, and then the post was edited. I hope you didn't take offence mj!

 

I often find your posts contrary to reason, but this being posted within a single sentence without the heavily extrapolated explanation, accentuates that.

 

The people of Hong Kong are seeing the power of an undemocratic power mercilessly destroy their liberty, sovereignty and democracy. You see fit to see Americas poorest and most vulnerable citizens to be a fit comparison. How much more grossly inaccurate and insensitive could anyone be? Clearly the Mexican immigrants, in this scenario, would be metaphorically the oppressed not the oppressor.

Edited by Hands Sandon - 5/10/12 at 5:21am

 

That you don't see striking parallels between the two situations only demonstrates your poor comprehension. Your characterization of the respective concerns and threats simply betrays your biases.

 

But all that aside the most ironic aspect is your disdain for the big government communist, fascist, socialist oppressor which simply represents the further evolution of the type of government policy you regularly advocate for while arguing on behalf of Hong Kong, one the freest (at least economically) areas on the planet whose trade, taxation, spending and regulatory approaches, if they were proposed for the US, you'd be calling out the warnings of anarchy.

Edited by MJ1970 - 5/7/12 at 2:34pm

Mj, I'm already hardened to your simplistic summary of my views, so these shortsighted attacks aren't going to get you the response your begging for. It's a shame you, with all your intelligence still so happily define things in such hopelessly ignorant, harmfull and simplistic terms. I know you pay a lot of attention to things which can seem obscure at times to people like myself, but by now I would have hoped you know that our goals aren't as far apart as you make out.

Racism is not in my opinion a natural human condition, it only exists because those in positions of authority, from the local to the national level, see a threat or a profit motive to exploit people to believe it is. There's no reason at all in my mind to fall for it, but people do, partly out of self interest and partly out of our natural desire to blame someone else for our own problems to give us a seemingly accessible opportunity to improve circumstances we perceive as being the cause of any difficulties we are struggling with.

The fact is that the people of Hong Kong are being disenfranchised. The Mexican immigrants are being disenfranchised. Trumptmans thread of course has validity in the very loosest of terms,, but it's an insult to suggest that the people of Hong Kong are acting on the same level as some of those in the US.
Edited by Hands Sandon - 5/7/12 at 3:12pm

 

Oh dear, the irony. I guess we're even then.

 

 

 

I don't imagine our goals to be all that different, however our proposed means are substantially different.

 

For example I want people to be free, prosperous and happy. I suppose you want the same things (well maybe some people not as free as others...but...).

 

I believe the best and only real path way to the greatest happiness and prosperity for the greatest number is by allowing them to be free to arrange themselves and their exchanges voluntarily as much as possible with the state's only role being the protection of everyone's basic rights of life liberty and property.

 

You believe these goals are achievable through ever increasing levels of government coercion.

 

 

 

I think I'd generally agree with that.

 

 

 

The people of Hong Kong are being disenfranchised?! It sounds like that exactly like what they are trying to do to mainland immigrants.

 

 

 

You're right. It seems they may be acting worse.

 

 

But back to the point of the thread. The question is: If someone in the US proposed similar measures are those being proposed in Hong Kong, what would the reaction be from those who would either turn a blind eye or even support those same actions in Hong Kong?

 

It seems you may have already given us a hint. Apologetics for those trying to control immigration to Hong Kong and sympathy for those trying to immigrate (illegally mind you) to the US.

Edited by MJ1970 - 5/7/12 at 3:41pm

 

Are you claiming the only reason for these HK policies (and presumably you're including other nations as well) is the nature of the immigration?  That's ridiculous.  Try to focus on the point here, Hands.  Hong Kong is not alone in its treatment of immigration, despite being more liberal than the U.S. in many ways.  Many nations restrict the occupation and land rights of immigrants, for example.  Move to London and tell me how easy it is for a non-British citizen to get a job.  From NHS:  

 

 

 

So let's address the point here, Hands:  Arizona can't even pass a bill that helps them enforce existing Federal law without the liberals going bonkers.  What do you think the reaction to the above policies would be? 

Begging the question that...

 

a) it's Arizona's job to help enforce federal law

b) the bills proposed actually help with the enforcement

c) the bills don't infringe upon the rights of legal immigrants, residents, and citizens

d) liberals went "bonkers"

e) liberals went "bonkers" because the bill helped enforce federal law  (also, see parts a and b)

 

But even more to the point is the question of whether this so-called "taking over" is a bad thing as a matter of fact.

 

I personally have no problems with Mexicans (or anyone else) coming to the US. The more the merrier. That said there may be certain problems with regard to our welfare state being a magnet for those who desire to come for the welfare benefits without working to contribute to the society. The tragedy of the commons and all that.

 

I suspect that if the conditions for living (the so-called "social contract") in the country consisted of:

 

a) you have to work hard

b) you don't get any hand outs

c) when you work hard and are successful you get to keep what you earn and this will be protected by the government

d) there is enormous opportunity for success (in part from the conditions of a, b and c)

 

you're far more likely to attract the quality people anyway.

 

Sure, some freeloaders will still come, but they'll end up getting discouraged by the fact that they actually have to work for their living and leave....or possibly capitulate to, you know, working.

 

P.S. I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were opposed to immigration from any particular place. I was really just addressing the point of the cultural and social "take over"...and on that I agree with you that such a "take over" from people of quality character and ethic is much preferred. That said, I'd argue that the US culture, society (and government) is being "taken over" from within by morally and intellectually bankrupt people anyway.

Edited by MJ1970 - 5/7/12 at 5:38pm

You have to put your foot down sometimes or everyone will take advantage of you. I do not blame him at all.

 

A)  Given that they refuse to, and that refusal is directly affecting them, then yes.  

B)  They do...and that enforcing is actually being done by the Feds, not AZ.  

C) They don't.  They allow officers to check immigration status in the course of people committing other crimes.  If the status is an issue, those people are reported to the feds. 

D)  Well given your President and Attorney General sued the state...given the reaction I witnessed on the left....yeah, they did.  Seriously...BR?  Perhaps calling supporters of the bill racists isn't going "bonkers" to you?  

E) I don't know if that's the case or not.  I do know that liberals would "go bonkers" if we had some of the same immigration policies as parts of Europe and Asia.  

 

 

Do you care to explain what the hell you're talking about?  

Quote mj1970- 

 

 

"But back to the point of the thread. The question is: If someone in the US proposed similar measures are those being proposed in Hong Kong, what would the reaction be from those who would either turn a blind eye or even support those same actions in Hong Kong?

 

It seems you may have already given us a hint. Apologetics for those trying to control immigration to Hong Kong and sympathy for those trying to immigrate (illegally mind you) to the US. "

~ mj1970

 

You seem to be intentionally missing what's really happening here. Imagine if you can that America's president was unelected and was from Mexico. The people of the US want to be able to vote for their own president but they're not allowed. They're left waiting all the while the prospect of ever having their own elected president get's further and further away. That Mexican president has 1.3 billion people living in a vast country, America has a population of just 7 million people and is thirty times smaller than Maryland. The Mexican president opens the doors to your tiny country and within a few years, 45% of the new births in your country are from Mothers from Mexico, wanting many of the free services available in your country, even though most of them have no intention of ever living there or paying any taxes there. As each year passes the rates of these Mexican births increases. From 2010 -2011 the rate increases by 108%. Growing anger mounts in the US, people are aware that they have very few ways to alter the Mexican governments decisions. Because the people of America are rising up though and speaking out like never before, the Mexican president throws them a bone. He declares that in the future that some of the Mexican mothers who live in Mexico but go to America for the day to give birth and who's father is not an American, will not have free services for life from America.

Edited by Hands Sandon - 5/10/12 at 6:23am

@trumptman

 

Most of them are authorised immigrants. You and your fellow countrymen voted for the laws that allowed them to become citizens. If you don't like becoming a minority, consider moving somewhere with more of the people you prefer and vote differently next time. That's a whole lot easier for you to do than it is for a Hong Konger. 

 

Here are a few facts about where you live, from about 2004. I'm sure since then these numbers will have grown considerably-

 

 

"About half of California's children have immigrant parents, and about one seventh have unauthorized parents, in contrast to the nation as a whole, where one-fifth of children have immigrant parents.

 

In Los Angeles, almost two-thirds of children (62 percent) have immigrant parents.

 

Large majorities of children with unauthorized parents are U.S.-born citizens: 68 percent in California and 76 percent in Los Angeles.

 

Almost all unauthorized men work, and labor force participation rates are substantially higher for unauthorized men than for legal immigrant or U.S.-born men.

 

By contrast, labor force participation is much lower for both unauthorized and legal immigrant women than for U.S.-born women, mostly because unauthorized women are more likely to have children."

 

~ http://www.urban.org/publications/411425.html

Edited by Hands Sandon - 5/10/12 at 10:44am

Unauthorised immigrants can't get food stamps. They can get food stamps only for their children, if their children are US citizens. I'm sure some of them are though by tricking the system, but as nearly all the males work, that probably won't happen too often where the parents are both together. If they're split up, leaving the mother with the kids, I suspect the mother's forced into breaking the law, but how many of them can get away with that I don't know. Do you?

 

The courts have to follow the constitution. If you propose illegal laws, what do you expect to happen? It's no good breaking the law to deal with people who are breaking the law. No wonder your state is changing so much.

Edited by Hands Sandon - 5/10/12 at 11:28am

 

What are you referring to?  I'm unaware of any laws that are "illegal" in terms of immigration.  Obviously the Constitution has to be followed.  Oh, and by the way...call it what it is:  Illegal immigration. It's not just unauthorized...it's a crime.  

California, like you know, can amend it's constitution, it can't violate the rights of others in doing so, hence why prop8 was ruled illegal.

 

If you really want to change things in your state you're going to have to change the laws on how many immigrants you take in legally as well as let stay illegally. It's going to be increasingly difficult though because those with opinions like yours are as a percentage are rapidly diminishing, so you'll be out voted by Hispanics alone in the not too distant future. From a business perspective, they're more likely to speak the language and have cultural ties which will help in their business dealings and many of them will want to swell their numbers as much as possible to give themselves more clout in politics. Really effectively then, you're too late to turn the clock back. My advice is to see how best you can make what you have work and look forward to less hostility.

Edited by Hands Sandon - 5/10/12 at 12:53pm

@sdw

 

There was a case where a higher court threw out a lower ruling that would have meant unauthorised immigrants couldn't get reduced tuition fees in California's universities, just like the authorised citizens of California can by being residents of the state. These kinds of illegal practices, just get thrown out and people like trumptman end up getting nowhere.

 

 

What do you mean "these kinds of illegal practices?'  That case has yet to be ultimately decided.  As for the issue itself, you're on the wrong side in my judgment.  Illegal immigrants should not get benefits that even legal, non-California residents can't get.  It's wrong.  

You really hate the Libs I see on each post you create.
 

Illegal immigrants should get ZERO and go back where they belong in their own dam country.BORDERS LANGUAGE AND CULTURE.
 

 

 

 

  And I'm the hater?