Originally posted by NibedicusExactly so I think what people here could agree there are ranges of what we consider to be good law abiding citizens which to me are the ones that only commit minor crimes from time to time. Of course we probably all have some more of what we would consider minor crime.
Plus I bet lots of ppl here pirate some form of media (games/movies/music/comics). 😛
Originally posted by Newjak
If you;re using such a strict definition for law abiding there probably aren't any law abiding citizens in this country. Because if you're definition of a law abiding citizen is any who is not breaking any law then I'm sure based on statistics there are none. Why because people litter, J-Walk, speed even if it only five miles above the speed limit, and etc.
I don't find those things quite the same though. People are not littering 24/7, not jay walking 24/7, not speeding 24/7. I'm just saying, for me I'd just phrase it like saying a majority of them don't rape or kill. Problem is, as long as even a small amount of them do that..there is a problem.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Can you clarify what you mean by birthright citizenship? Children born in Germany generally are German citizens so long as one of their parents has been resident for a while.Do you mean a system where just being born in the nation, regardless of circumstances or status of parents or even how long you were there, makes you a permanent citizen? If so, I don't think the lack of such an unusual law is something you can say is against socialist principles. It's a rather irrelevant thing to mention. Right or left wing, fully open birthright citizenship is a trait of the new world- i.e. the Americas and is more related to their attempts to populate the nation than any overarching political philosophy.
But in any case, as pointed out, Germany isn't really an example of a socialist country.
Not quite sure I understand your main question either- Germany is exceptionally welcoming to immigrants. It's why they take so many. The concern now is over the high volume and distribution, not the principle.
The big problem with EU immigration right now is that a lot of EU countries signed a legally binding agreement saying the first signed-up nation where an asylum seeker arrives is the country where they will find asylum. But as jaden says, that's doesn't exactly work in nations like Greece who can't possibly manage the influx, and who are now ignoring that law and moving asylum seekers on.
This has wider political ramifications- Germany is talking about altering the EU treaty to adapt to the new situation. The UK has been after treaty change for years to settle its own relationship issues with the EU, including immigration. Most nations have been against going through the hassle of treaty change just to keep the UK happy, but this creates an opening to settle everything.
Sure what I mean by birthright citizens ship is easy to clarify. What I mean is if you are a foreigner legal or illegal you do not get citizenship based on being born in the country. This is stark contrast to America.
Until not too long ago, if you were born of foreign parents in Germany you were allowed dual citizenship until the age of 23, at which time you had to choose between German citizenship or that of the country from which your parents came. If your parents were from an EU-country you were allowed to have dual citizenship anyway.
I think they changed it somewhat, not too long ago. Though I'm not sure, I think everyone born of foreign parents is now allowed to hold dual citizenship whether their parents are from a EU country or not. This was mostly to appease Germany's large Turkish population.
This map is very telling- the countries in black are the ones that have automatic citizenship based on birthright and no other factor:
http://www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2010/birthright-map-big.jpg
As you can see, it is all focussed on the New World- places with a specific need, after European colonisation, to increase citizenship. It was never to do with political attitude, just practicality. Right or left wing, no matter just where you are in the world.
Originally posted by SurturWhich is fair and I agree when you have a subset of a group committing rapes and murders it is always a problem. But to me the problem are the ones committing the violent crimes.
I don't find those things quite the same though. People are not littering 24/7, not jay walking 24/7, not speeding 24/7. I'm just saying, for me I'd just phrase it like saying a majority of them don't rape or kill. Problem is, as long as even a small amount of them do that..there is a problem.
My concern is that you seem to be wanting to hold the entire group responsible for the actions of a few individuals.
I think that is a bit unfair considering almost any group coming to the United States whether legally or illegally will have close to the same chance of a subgroup committing violent crimes. Legal immigrants, for instance, have similar chances of killing American citizens when they enter this country. The same with tourists just visiting this country. There is a chance of them committing a violent crime against a US citizen.
So I find it hard to say that we understand and accept the risk from those groups while trying to condemn an entire group based solely on the odds of them committing violent crimes against US citizens. Unless we are talking like a Cartel/Mob/Criminal Organization group whose entire concept is based on committing violent/dangerous crimes. But the vast majority of illegals don't fall under those categories.
Most illegals would condemn the actions of violent offenders doing violent things. So why is it acceptable to say if even one illegal would commit a violent crime then we should do a better job deporting and getting rid of all of them when we don't hold other foreign visitors/transients to the same standards? As in if you hurt an American Citizen all of you are going to pay.
Well I think we should hold foreign visitors to the same standards in all honesty. We need to be more mindful or who we let in this country.
I want to say I am not condemning them. I'm rather saying what I said before: I think this is about quality of life vs actual life.
It is unfortunate, but I guess the best way to describe it is..have you ever been in school and one or two people in class were misbehaving and the teacher punished the entire class for it? Or been on a sports team and one guy messes around and the coach gives everyone extra laps?
I will flat out tell you I realize this is not fair..I just feel we have enough problems and crime without adding anymore. Also remember one of my main issues with this stems from the sanctuary cities. I'd perhaps have a different view if they were gotten rid of. I want to at least know if they pick up an illegal criminal(don't care if it's even petty crime like weed) they will not just release this person back on the streets.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Does the UK have birth right citizenship?
Ush provided a map where you can check. I could tell you, but why spoil the surprise.
http://www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2010/birthright-map-big.jpg
The US is not the easiest country to immigrate to by a long shot. It does have birthright citizenship, which, like Ush said, comes from its history. To be honest it is a big part in what makes America great, the American dream, that a poor child of immigrants can become a billionaire, or a great scientist, or the president....but if you want to shit on that American greatness, that's cool too.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The US is not the easiest country to immigrate to by a long shot. It does have birthright citizenship, which, like Ush said, comes from its history. To be honest it is a big part in what makes America great, the American dream, that a poor child of immigrants can become a billionaire, or a great scientist, or the president....but if you want to shit on that American greatness, that's cool too.
Ah see, the kicker and bitterness is at the end, which always comes out.
You say America is the easiest and greatest on immigration. We agree.
Where we disagree is that your country is relatively solid because your country does not have entitlements to immigrants like we do here.
You want US to open our borders to everyone who wants to come regardless of laws, criminal backgrounds and open our programs for our own citizens who have worked for them for a lifetime, and then let the immigrants who come illegally reap the benefits of the immigrants who came here legally years ago and now have such as social security, Medicaid/care, health coverage etc.
Our system can not handle it.
Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialExcept he did not say the US is the easiest or greatest on immigration. I'm pretty sure he said the exact opposite of that.
Ah see, the kicker and bitterness is at the end, which always comes out.You say America is the easiest and greatest on immigration. We agree.
Where we disagree is that your country is relatively solid because your country does not have entitlements to immigrants like we do here.
You want US to open our borders to everyone who wants to come regardless of laws, criminal backgrounds and open our programs for our own citizens who have worked for them for a lifetime, and then let the immigrants who come illegally reap the benefits of the immigrants who came here legally years ago and now have such as social security, Medicaid/care, health coverage etc.
Our system can not handle it.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Who cares? You can come here illegally. And have a baby and get citizenship.What about all the people that come legally and wait and pay for, Screw them right?
Woah, no, the baby will get citizenship, it can be a pathway for the parents to get lawful residency, but they don't get citizenship automatically.
