It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I believe in immigration

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:05 AM

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE

No one likes rules, but they are every where, familys,schools, work, citys,states and countrys, and without rules there is no order.(sad but true)

Have you been to Africa or Asia and experienced their community? have you been in a Jamaican community and experienced their "rules"? Rules are needed but not to the extent of the west and yes even the middle eastern countries have crazy rules. Did you know palestinian immigrants are in Lebanon just in tents an the government do not care about their welfare even though alot of middle east say they do care about Palestine?

Do their rights and needs over rule mine ?

When were talking about people who starve t death, receive pennies for their work daily and live in mud house's or leave on toxic waste, in this debate, yes.
You should feel some guilt for what your masters haven't?.

We all have wants and needs and most of us follow the rules to get what we want and need even though we don't like it , because, there are always consequences for not following the rules.

Rules in the wild life don't excisit. It is not for rules to dicate how a creator has made the playing field. You could debate on whoever created has instilled power and greed in us. So in that case we should rule,torture, maim, kill, abuse this is right yes even wild dogs and lions have a hierarchy so this would indict that it is a natrual reponse. What's not natural is i have this ill choose to give you what you want if i feel you deserve it.

Is it so wrong for those of us who have worked so hard for what we have to want to keep and maintain what we have ?
Is it any different from those who want to achieve that goal?

For those who do not appreciate how other's are been subjected to hell via because maybe the government and the rich in the first place. Condoning your profit that you are given in a cycle by the rich. Would it not be your duty to donate your money to the actual people who really need it more than you do?
I agree alot would abuse your kind service, I have brought a homeless person home before and gave him food and drink, the next day he still wanted alcohol, there was no hope for him. However, at least i contributed and i did a good deed.

I am someone who is on Disability living allowance even though i have my own difficulties and yes my food and my home come first.... I feel i must contribute in some way.

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:14 AM

Originally posted by Brit-Tex
Sorry if my post speculated or implied that all immigrants are criminals. Yes I am british and I don't know if all immigration should be hard for all, yet the rules are there because the society or country which you are applying to wants a successful encomy.

I understand this and abide by these rules.

We as the human race have compassion but at the end of the chain is a government which wants to be prosperous for it's citizens and it's self. So in that people must abide by laws and regulations. If laws are not followed then the country is in termoil and we have a situation of factions trying to do the right thing but usually people get hurt and lives are distroyed this can also be said for a government which over dictates to it's people.

Your post did not implicate that all immigrants are criminals however your concern was that many could be which is true because many can't get a job as it is. Now, why did you leave Britain without been to personal? any good factors about moving?

The first thing i would mvoe to USA is the law on defence, you can shoot dead anyone who tries to rob you at home?

I think certain immigrant's such a western or well developed countries should all have their laws tightened on them. Alot of immigrants, such as those from western , developed and developing countries can make something of themselves in their own countries. However try to rescue the third world people who can not even afford to get over here in the first place is important.
The immigrants that come here, majority of them are not the poor you see on tv in the third world countries. That is who i support in bringing over here not the money chasers

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:14 AM
reply to post by anonymousproxy

Do you know what would fix this?

If the greedy people stopped being greedy.

If the rich countries helped the poor countries.

And if people cared about other people.

But where it stops is here - rich countries can afford it, but they would rather wage war. And war is expensive. War is obscene and indefendable.

So, I would like to challenge warmongerers everywhere - stop fighting and start feeding.

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:16 AM

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by anonymousproxy

Do you know what would fix this?

If the greedy people stopped being greedy.

If the rich countries helped the poor countries.

And if people cared about other people.

But where it stops is here - rich countries can afford it, but they would rather wage war. And war is expensive. War is obscene and indefendable.

So, I would like to challenge warmongerers everywhere - stop fighting and start feeding.

Bravo but i think warmongers who i think bet on which country will beat which such like dog fighting need to be cleared out.
I must say something that might also be quite controversial. AID workers who go to places such as afgan or IRAQ who have had their heads chopped of, moan on TV about been captive. Now, i don't think that people should have their heads chopped off and they have come to those countries to help, however those that do cut the heads off are criminals. They feel they have the right do it because of the continued brutalisation of mostly, Britain.

War dose not help war and violence don't help violence, would they of saved any of these's men if they understood their concerns?

[edit on 14-5-2010 by anonymousproxy]

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:22 AM
reply to post by anonymousproxy

The sad truth is this:

Countries care nothing about other countries.

People care nothing about other people.


posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:26 AM
reply to post by anonymousproxy

Am interested where you found this law, that states that recycling has to occur within the UK..

I'm not saying your points are not well met, however on what point can you claim any EU/UK laws have been broken regarding WEEE.

Edit to add:

Actually that was really unfair of me, the 8 page EU directives transposes into just under 80 pages of UK legislation.. you will find a similar approach in most EU states.. I know I've implemented that piece of legislation across the EU from Sweden to Italy.

There is (like all Environmental legislation I've implemented) get out clauses that usualy states something like, you can pass to responsibility onto another party at any point within the supply chain.. ultimately who ever has end responsibility can also pass it on to someone else..

So the recording, monitoring is pretty much a sham... hence why I no longer would entertain implementing such legislation.. the projects waddle and quack i.e they are all ducks.

The biggest drawback is that Environmental legislation is passed onto the corporates to organise and implement with no oversight..

Thus in my field the interest was on smelting the goods to reclaim the valuable precious metals they contain (hence why China has increased the price of it's precious metals)

So instead of dumping those EOL products in the ground we smelt the plastics and dump the toxic output into the atmosphere, really health eh. it simply moves the problem to a new area.

I am sure if we sold screens they would be passed onto some 3rd party, with a written promise they would be disposed of responsibly, we would then report those figures, and the Enviromental Agency would report those figures to show how green the UK is..

But I doubt I would have been allowed (by the corporates I worked for) to audit the process to ensure that it meets the requirements.. and within that chain end they up some where, which you have clearly shown..

The cost of recycling screens is prohibitive... a cost which, if the corporates had to bare would be passed onto the consumer, which the consumers won't pay for... people want to be green without the cost..

Hence you find these disgusting situations arising.. and again, why I no longer work in this area.. All through the supply chain you will see people claim to be green, when in reality they are simply moving the problem around..

But to say it breaks the law is as miss leading as the legislation itself

[edit on 14/5/10 by thoughtsfull]

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:19 AM
reply to post by anonymousproxy

What is it you are trying to say, that america is a shangala that I am blind to the rest of the worlds troubles?

In the mid 80's I was laid off my wife died and left me with 4 kids under 16
then I lost my house and my car broke down. For three years all my kids got for their birthdays was a cake,and at christmas they got socks and underware.
I picked myself up and started from scratch, I didn't wallow in self pity and I got help from no one. Now I donate a meal for a family every Thanksgiving to the Salvation Army, because I know what it feels like do go without.

America is no shangrala, the rest of the world does not see or hear about americas poor, starving and homeless because thats not an image america wants the world to know. America is no different than any other country in many aspect. All americans DO NOT have big houses,big screen TV's , drive a fleet of cars and eat steak every night for dinner, alot of americans work hard just to survive like anyone else in the world.
Americans do care about humanity, but charity does start at home.

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:36 AM
Sorry, but you obviously have no grasp upon the realities of the world we live in.

1. Your focus on America, Europe and Australia being the elements that have to change, is totally flawed. As with every other USA-hating goof, you are ignoring the fact that the rest of the world is equally, or more corrupt than us. Opening the borders, like idiots, and keeping a big dumb smile on our faces while anybody that wants to come in, is welcome to do so, would be the end of the "America" that these people wish to come to in the first place.
Demanding that the Caucasian nations go all limp and weak would just welcome corruption from other nations to take advantage. And, make no mistake, they will!
Turning the USA into another third world country is not the answer.

2. People in these failing countries need to take responsibility for their own situations. Sitting around, hating and coveting is not going to help in the least. If they want anything from the US, it should be help to get their nations on their own two feet. Not to take what is NOT theirs!

3. Americans have children too. And, although I feel sorry for children around the world that are in these terrible situations, my job is to take care of my child first. And, I would never allow her future to be jeopardized by somebody else.

By the way, unfortunately, YES, the game is RISK. In reality, it is. Because, weakening the USA is not going to fix anything. Because, the game IS RISK, and there are many other players out there that will not stop playing, just because the USA stops playing.

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:08 PM
What you are saying is that immigration is a form of escape
from depravity in ones own nation.Well, unfortunatley that can not be the case. What people who immigrate to better countries are doing is allowing wickedness to win in their home country. Every person is born on a certain land where they grow up and are well accustomed to, and have an obligation to keep that land properly suited for the benefit of the group. If they are unhappy with the way their nation is being run they should not flee, they should revolt!They must fight for what is good for the group and their nation!. The people who live in poor nations where people immigrant rampantly and frequently to better nations, have a "social contract"(thomas hobbes) with the governors of that nation. The people are the governed and they therefore give the governors(head of state officials) the right to govern them as long as they provide the people with the needs and benefits the people desire.If the governors do not provide that then it is the peoples right and duty to revolt and change their nation so that it can serve the needs of the governed. People seeking a better life should not immigrate and therefore allow their home and another part of the world to be deprived of freedom and "greatness", they should form a coalition amongst themeselves and fight for what is good and optimum for themselves and their nation.____What i am primarily trying to say is that, although i do sympathize with immigrants from poor and unjust nations, what they are doing is running, running from their responsibilty to make their land/home a place of warmth and tranqulity. Just like nations that are considered "great" and a "refuge for a better life", once did.

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 03:21 PM

Originally posted by thoughtsfull

But to say it breaks the law is as miss leading as the legislation itself

i agree what you said, however there is a law if you look it up. Nothing is free, everything costs money including been green.

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 03:28 PM
[ quote]running from their responsibilty to make their land/home a place of warmth and tranqulity. Just like nations that are considered "great" and a "refuge for a better life", once did.

There's war in Africa and Asia all the time including Thailand right now, they try and get n were. IRA have been trying to change government, they only got northern Ireland, Taliban are doing that right now.

Some, can't even do a revolt because there that hungry, even the western nations have not revolted to whats going on in their nations so it doesn't stand dose it really?

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:58 PM
Originally posted by anonymousproxy

your saying that by earning a pound a day. Living in a mud house living with 18 or so people were that single pound has to contribute to all, is helping the third world countries?.

Yes because if the ambitious stay in their countries, then there is a chance that 5 years from now they will earn 2 pounds a day, a decade it will be 4 and so on.

People make a country. If the country has too much poverty, its not because it has too many people.
Many left wing people would disagree with me, but that's because they ignore reality.
Otherwise Britain (by rights) should be a Third World Country. Countries like Japan and Singapore would be even poorer countries.
Instead: If a country has too much poverty, its because it doesn't have the right economy to support (whatever size) population a country might have.

So you believing that the sending of (the generally most) young & ambitious abroad (a major foundation of any national economy) is good for a country, is untrue, unless you're only think of the short immediate-term. The idea it benefits the long-term is at odds with the reality of human civilisation (and all its great feats, of defying nature, to deliver great prosperity).
Ambitious individuals, are (in fact) behind every kind of business, every government, and every, everything, that's powerful or wealth producing.

Letting the "Chav's class" stay behind (in third world countries) to have ever more babies, whilst everyone else with a gram of wisdom (or the ability to beg-borrow or steal) leaves the country is what, I'd consider the "perfect" recipe for a country that will continue to be third world in say... another 50 years time.

Problem is biggest; when you remember that the same people who were bright & ambitious in their own economies, are on arrival often over-educated, under-qualified, and generally become quite disillusioned. Sometimes the migrants integrate with a culture fairly well, but many become quite "wasted" in our own civilisatiuon.
Nevermind "unwanted" by the white, local natives (often, even when, our own national, economic needs, demand they should be allowed to come). I'm not always against immigration because I think about "me". But for the similar reasons, I usually see it as a failure of government to educate our own under-employed.

Unacceptable attitude, it's not about your children to compete for job's. it's not about you you you, and if there is political discontent or social unrest or indeed a world bankruptcy.

Ha, ha...
One of your ideologies, "little barriers" is that (if politics is about converting ideas into reality) and (most of all) if it's about passing the "acid-test" of a democractic selection, then I'm afraid: "it is" indeed about me, my children, and the (vast, vast) majority of other people who also think about "me, my children, my living standards, my countries growing economy, ect..."

The fact that human "greed" can be harnessed for good (as weall any type of good(s) you can imagine!) is also one the facts why Capitalism has (largely) one out over Socialism (and even at the peak of world communism-socialism, was always the most dominant, world system)

It is needed to distinguish between people like yourself and the other few people who have replied to this thread who will survive and build this world back up, and it won't be people like you who will survive.

Thankfully (if human history is anything to go by) it will be the people like me (and the other people who like me) think about "me" who are most likely to survive any kind of disaster. I'm not against thinking about community, in fact it comes very naturally, and I'm a very good defender-advocate of others.
Difference is: I think of community as something "local", whilst you see it as something "international". In any kind of disaster (and no matter how much it's caused by the "over success" capitalism) it will be the international connections that produce you, least, and the local politics, of the local "me thinking" majority, that triumphs over you're classes "head in the clouds" thinking.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in