If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
New immigration procedures
"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message ... Ivanna Getlaid wrote: mrtravel wrote: .. If things start to get straightened out in Iraq they'll run out of them relatively quickly. I believe that you are right if you by this mean that the US should get out as soon as possible and leave the country to the UN with a mandate to localise the control of the country as soon as possible. Nik. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
New immigration procedures
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:32:38 +0000 Simon Elliott
wrote: :Binyamin Dissen writes ::Immigration procedures are the interface between a country and the rest ::of the world. They are not just internal matters. :Nope. :The foreigner has the choice to not attempt entry. :Therefore they are not internal matters. They will affect the decision :of someone outside the US, which will in turn either beneficially or :adversely affect the US. OK :Should they attempt entry, they are subject to the "internal matters". :Certainly. ::are in place is a matter between US citizens and their government. :The procedures are, as well. :Certainly. ::Whether the procedures are appropriate is a legitimate topic for, well, ::just about everyone. Obviously the US isn't obliged to listen to the ::comments, but would nevertheless be well advised to do so. :Why? :What are you gonna do about it? :I'm going to do absolutely nothing about it. Restrictive and abusive :immigration procedures which harm the US are not my problem. The US is :big enough to take care of itself without any help from me. ::I really can't think of any countries in the world whose customs, practices ::and laws I find so offensive that I wouldn't, nonetheless, be interested in ::visiting them and, while there, I'd cheerfully comply with whatever ::restrictions and requirements were placed on me. Of course, if there were ::such a country, I simply wouldn't go. ::Up to a point I'd go along with this. For example, I have little ::sympathy for those jailed for drinking alcohol in Saudi. :What if they are whipped? :I don't agree with this practice, but those caught drinking alcohol knew :the risks. So why not "I don't agree with this practice, but those caught attempting to enter th USA knew the risks"? ::But when I don't like the human rights record of a country, I reserve ::the right to work to bring about change. I don't believe that ::fundamental human rights are trumped by national boundaries or by local ::culture. :Feel free to fight windmills. :But be aware that the argument "because YOU don't like it" tends to affect :your family alone, if that. :That's always a possibility. But those windmills aren't usually going to :fall unless a lot of people agree to take them on. And I admit that the :winds of change usually have to be blowing in the right direction. You have to convince the American voters. All you have done so far is whine - which typically doesn't endear one to Americans. -- Binyamin Dissen http://www.dissensoftware.com |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
New immigration procedures
Binyamin Dissen writes
:I don't agree with this practice, but those caught drinking alcohol knew :the risks. So why not "I don't agree with this practice, but those caught attempting to enter th USA knew the risks"? Because I think that immigration practice has wider implications: 1/ The drinker in Saudi has knowingly violated the law, or has been guilty of culpable ignorance about the country he is visiting. 2/ The right to drink alcohol isn't up there among my all time ten great human rights. YMMV. 3/ No other government is going to use the fact that the Saudis do something as an excuse for doing the same sort of thing themselves. :That's always a possibility. But those windmills aren't usually going to :fall unless a lot of people agree to take them on. And I admit that the :winds of change usually have to be blowing in the right direction. You have to convince the American voters. I've given my point of view in a discussion. That doesn't mean that I'm obliged to start some long drawn out campaign to change US immigration practices. All you have done so far is whine - which typically doesn't endear one to Americans. I thought I had given a brief, reasoned and balanced set of reasons as to why I believe this isn't in the interests of the US. It's disturbing to discover that this has come across as a whine to at least one person. -- Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
New immigration procedures
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:53:00 +0000 Simon Elliott
wrote: :Binyamin Dissen writes ::I don't agree with this practice, but those caught drinking alcohol knew ::the risks. :So why not "I don't agree with this practice, but those caught attempting to :enter th USA knew the risks"? :Because I think that immigration practice has wider implications: :1/ The drinker in Saudi has knowingly violated the law, or has been :guilty of culpable ignorance about the country he is visiting. The same with the foreigner attempting to visit the USA. :2/ The right to drink alcohol isn't up there among my all time ten great :human rights. YMMV. But you feel that visiting the USA is? :3/ No other government is going to use the fact that the Saudis do :something as an excuse for doing the same sort of thing themselves. So the issue isn't America, it is that other countries might learn from America? ::That's always a possibility. But those windmills aren't usually going to ::fall unless a lot of people agree to take them on. And I admit that the ::winds of change usually have to be blowing in the right direction. :You have to convince the American voters. :I've given my point of view in a discussion. That doesn't mean that I'm :obliged to start some long drawn out campaign to change US immigration :practices. If you were not attempting to convince the American voters, the only people who can force such a change, what was the point? :All you have done so far is whine - which typically doesn't endear one to :Americans. :I thought I had given a brief, reasoned and balanced set of reasons as :to why I believe this isn't in the interests of the US. It's disturbing :to discover that this has come across as a whine to at least one person. Try reading some American papers. You will learn how Americans think. -- Binyamin Dissen http://www.dissensoftware.com |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
New immigration procedures
Binyamin Dissen writes
:1/ The drinker in Saudi has knowingly violated the law, or has been :guilty of culpable ignorance about the country he is visiting. The same with the foreigner attempting to visit the USA. In most countries, including the US, the immigration authorities can do unpleasant things even if the visitor hasn't broken the law. :2/ The right to drink alcohol isn't up there among my all time ten great :human rights. YMMV. But you feel that visiting the USA is? With some exceptions, I believe that travel is a Good Thing, and therefore it follows that anything that restricts travel is a Bad Thing. :3/ No other government is going to use the fact that the Saudis do :something as an excuse for doing the same sort of thing themselves. So the issue isn't America, it is that other countries might learn from America? The issue isn't America, the issue is unnecessary and unpleasant immigration practices. I believe that unnecessary and unpleasant immigration practices are a bad thing anywhere. :I've given my point of view in a discussion. That doesn't mean that I'm :obliged to start some long drawn out campaign to change US immigration :practices. If you were not attempting to convince the American voters, the only people who can force such a change, what was the point? My point is to demonstrate that unpleasant US immigration practices have a cost, a downside. I want to encourage people outside the US (and especially in the UK) to evaluate the costs before supporting such practices in their own country. I would have made similar comments if the OP had discussed the immigration practices of any Western democracy. But unpleasant immigration policies are in my opinion just a symptom of a larger disease: the cult of the Necessary Security Measure which governments so love to introduce in times of trouble. To combat this, we all need to become instant security experts, to learn what works and what doesn't, so that we don't get taken in by draconian window dressing. :All you have done so far is whine - which typically doesn't endear one to :Americans. :I thought I had given a brief, reasoned and balanced set of reasons as :to why I believe this isn't in the interests of the US. It's disturbing :to discover that this has come across as a whine to at least one person. Try reading some American papers. You will learn how Americans think. I think that would take a lot of time. I've visited small areas of the US, just scratched the surface really. There was quite a diversity of opinion and culture. The US is a big place and I'd be quite surprised if there was a monolithic "how Americans think". -- Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
New immigration procedures
"Inserted Finger" wrote in message ... PTRAVEL wrote: Whether they are appropriate or not (and I'm not venturing an opinion one way or another) is a matter between U.S. citizens and their government. Not when the USA breaks with international agreements. For instance, instead of refusing entry (the accepted procedure which results in the person remaining airside and sent on the next flight back to their point of origin), allowing the person to enter, immediatly arresting the person, keeping them in a US jail for a few days and then sending them to a 3rd country without allowing the person to make a phone call, without advising the country on the person's passport etc. The fact that they technically allow the person to enter the USA is then no longer an immigration issue, it is a legal and human rights issue. Deportation procedures require that the person have at least a deportation hearing, that he be given the chance to contact his embassy etc etc. In many cases, the USA has broken those agreements. As a matter of fact, friends who recently got a USA visa told me thay had to sign a waiver to any deportation procedures. Yes, the USA has the right to refuse entry to anyone and everyone, but when it does so, it should act according to international agreed procedures. Sending a grand mother traveling from europe to USA to visit a daughter to a jail upon landing in the USA is way out of bounds. Sending her back with a simple "sorry mam, we can't let you enter the USA, we're sending you home on next available flight" would have been the right thing to do instead of slapping some handcuff on the poor old lady. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the either the new procedures, or the post to which I was replying. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
New immigration procedures
Martin Euredjian wrote:
"SCHIAVONE: Some of the most fertile grounds for these deals are in Europe, with big corporations taking U.S. tax breaks on everything from the Paris subway to the Berlin subway to railroad tracks, power plants and town halls. Ahh, the big country that likes to pretend it doesn't subsidize anything and slaps on tarifs to any country it accuses of subsidizing anything. Have americans been told that the average cow in the USA gets a subsidy that is higher than the average wage in the rest of the world ? Have americans been told that US wheat is one of the most heavily subsidized in the world and is causing hardship in poor countries who find themselves importing subsidized US and european wheat because it comes out cheaper than to grow it locally, resulting in bankrupcies to local farmers who can no longer afford to produce anything ? It is amazing that Loo Dobbs, a staunch Bush Jr regime supporter, would produce such **** reporting. Subsidies don't go to the Paris Metro, they go to the US companies producing widgets, and that means jobs that stay in the USA instead of being moved to India or elsewhere. The bad news is that because of transportation and telecommunications, the USA will now have to start to compete in a global basis against countries whose standard of living is way lower. And the only way for the USA (and other western nations) to compete is for their citizens to have lower standard of living from a material point of view. And what happens when the average american family can no longer can afford to buy 2.7 cars per year ? The car industry will flounder. And when the car industry flounders, so does Television because they derive so much revenu from car ads. When the car industry flounders, so does steel etc etc etc. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
New immigration procedures
"PTRAVEL" schreef in bericht ... Please watch your attributions. I didn't write what you've attributed to me. Sorry - I made a mistake. Sjoerd |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
New immigration procedures
"Simon Elliott" wrote in message ... PTRAVEL writes I've got to say, I find the responses of a number of posters to this rather peculiar. U.S. immigration procedures are matters internal to the U.S. Whether they are appropriate or not (and I'm not venturing an opinion one way or another) is a matter between U.S. citizens and their government. Immigration procedures are the interface between a country and the rest of the world. They are not just internal matters. Whether the procedures are in place is a matter between US citizens and their government. Whether the procedures are appropriate is a legitimate topic for, well, just about everyone. Obviously the US isn't obliged to listen to the comments, but would nevertheless be well advised to do so. I guess you missed the point of my post. Different countries have different procedures. If you want to visit different countries, you follow those procedures. If you don't want to follow the procedures, don't visit. I believe that people have exactly the kind of government that they want. If they don't like it, they vote it out, depose it or revolt against it. However, it is not the place for non-citizens of a country to say, "This is what you must do." For example, I'm sure that many posters in this thread find America's current incursion into Iraq, in an effort to impose so-called American-style democracy, offensive. You cannot object to America's attempt to change the internal governance of another sovereign nation and, at the same time, insist that America's own internal laws conform to your preferences and beliefs. I really can't think of any countries in the world whose customs, practices and laws I find so offensive that I wouldn't, nonetheless, be interested in visiting them and, while there, I'd cheerfully comply with whatever restrictions and requirements were placed on me. Of course, if there were such a country, I simply wouldn't go. Up to a point I'd go along with this. For example, I have little sympathy for those jailed for drinking alcohol in Saudi. At this point I have little sympathy for anything Saudi Arabian, period, but that's another thread. However, I'd stiill find a visit to that country interesting and worthwhile, and would go fully prepared to follow whatever restrictions and regulations were placed on me without criticism or complaint. But when I don't like the human rights record of a country, I reserve the right to work to bring about change. I don't believe that fundamental human rights are trumped by national boundaries or by local culture. The problem, though, is whose conception of human rights will you use? As an example, the U.S. has constantly pressured the PRC to "reform" with respect to human rights, and that has been true under both Democratic and Repbulican administrations. The simple fact, though, is the vast majority of Chinese are satisfied with their government -- _their_ conception of human rights differs vastly from that of the various American administrations. If they wanted a different conception, they'd have it. For the average Chinese, "freedom" means the freedom to prosper, to keep the fruits of one's labor, to see one's children enjoy a better life. American conceptions of "freedom of speech," and "freedom of religion" are far down the list. The Chinese people are not shy about revolution -- they've had at least three significant ones in the last century. If they weren't satisfied with their present government, they'd change things. So who is right? The Chinese people who live within the parameters established by their government, or the U.S. who wants things changed "for their own good"? Similarly, I wouldn't want my wife living on the rules of Sharia in Muslim countries (nor would she). However, unless and until the majority of Muslim women rebel against the restrictions placed on them, we've got no business telling them they're wrong. Of course, when the fanatics embark on a holy crusade to impose their views on us, who don't want any part of them, we have a right to respond. -- Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
New immigration procedures
"Simon Elliott" schreef in bericht ... I think that would take a lot of time. I've visited small areas of the US, just scratched the surface really. There was quite a diversity of opinion and culture. The US is a big place and I'd be quite surprised if there was a monolithic "how Americans think". And luckily, relatively few Americans think like Benyamin Dissen thinks. Many, many Americans are more intelligent and more open to the world. Sjoerd |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New immigration procedures | mrtravel | Air travel | 21 | November 3rd, 2003 08:07 PM |
New immigration procedures | Binyamin Dissen | Air travel | 2 | October 30th, 2003 06:41 PM |
New immigration procedures | NewsRojosh | Air travel | 0 | October 29th, 2003 10:48 PM |
New immigration procedures | [email protected] | Air travel | 0 | October 29th, 2003 10:27 PM |
New immigration procedures | Casey | Air travel | 0 | October 29th, 2003 04:30 PM |