Open Border Tragedies Caused by Visa Lottery System

[Dashinka 24,797]

18 hours ago, smilesammich said:

where are you getting this idea that encouraging diversity is actually attempts to replace white people? why in the world would america need to maintain a certain percentage of whites?

If the program were truly diverse then why limit it to certain countries?

[jayjayj 571]

12 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

If the program were truly diverse then why limit it to certain countries?

They only want "controlled" diversity.  

[Dashinka 24,797]

Just now, jayjayj said:

They only want "controlled" diversity.  

Decided by the luminaries from the MDL.

[ILikeBread 43]

4 hours ago, jayjayj said:

Looks like they have already started doing just that -

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/emmanuel-emmanuel-macron-eu-army-joint-defence-budget-french-president-nato-britain-brexit-russia-a7968346.html

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/22/germany-is-quietly-building-a-european-army-under-its-command/

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/06/europe-forges-ahead-with-plans-for-eu-army/

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/804749/EU-army-Jean-Claude-Juncker-european-defence-fund-France-Germany

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/27/is-there-a-secret-plan-to-create-an-eu-army

 

As far as any EU country "freely leaving the Union", it sure doesn't sound like the EU is letting Britain leave "freely" -

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/880517/brexit-latest-news-angela-merkel-germany-plot-leaders-demand-EU-keeps-UK-single-market

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/880390/Brexit-news-Nigel-Farage-eu-divorce-bill-settlement

 

A common vision for defense matters is entirely different from stripping countries from their sovereignty. (See NATO)

 

You wouldn't expect the EU to keep paying subsidies for the UK do you? For example the British farmers greatly enjoyed Brussels subsidies (common agricultural policies). Now that the UK is leaving that money is gone. It's part of the bill but they chosed that path, can't complain about that now. 

 

[Dashinka 24,797]

4 minutes ago, Etxebunti said:

A common vision for defense matters is entirely different from stripping countries from their sovereignty. (See NATO)

 

You wouldn't expect the EU to keep paying subsidies for the UK do you? For example the British farmers greatly enjoyed Brussels subsidies (common agricultural policies). Now that the UK is leaving that money is gone. It's part of the bill but they chosed that path, can't complain about that now. 

 

I think what you are missing is that stripping a country’s sovereignty does not happen overnight.  The luminaries in Brussels are slowly imposing their federal requirements on the member countries, and sure they theoretically have an out, exercising that option is very difficult as we are seeing with the UK.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

If the program were truly diverse then why limit it to certain countries?

The dvp was intended to offset  shortages of emmigrants from countries  underrepresented in prior years immigration. The early years favored UK,  Ireland and Canada. The prior 5 years immigration volume by country determines the current goals. There is no ethnic, racial or religious dimension to the allocation.

[jayjayj 571]

8 minutes ago, Etxebunti said:

A common vision for defense matters is entirely different from stripping countries from their sovereignty. (See NATO)

 

You wouldn't expect the EU to keep paying subsidies for the UK do you? For example the British farmers greatly enjoyed Brussels subsidies (common agricultural policies). Now that the UK is leaving that money is gone. It's part of the bill but they chosed that path, can't complain about that now. 

 

They aren't pushing for a "common vision for defense matters", they are pushing to create an EU army, which is exactly what you said would be the first step in process of removing sovereignty.

 

You said any country could "freely leave", but that isn't the reality of the EU, and the Britain situation clearly demonstrates it.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

They aren't pushing for a "common vision for defense matters", they are pushing to create an EU army, which is exactly what you said would be the first step in process of removing sovereignty.

 

You said any country could "freely leave", but that isn't the reality of the EU, and the Britain situation clearly demonstrates it.

How does Britain demonstrate that?

 

They voted, they're leaving. They are free to do so.

 

Being free to leave it doesn't mean it isn't complicated.

[jayjayj 571]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

How does Britain demonstrate that?

 

They voted, they're leaving. They are free to do so.

 

Being free to leave it doesn't mean it isn't complicated.

I would argue that being "free to leave" means it should be uncomplicated and also implies that the EU wouldn't try to block it, which they did.

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

I would argue that being "free to leave" means it should be uncomplicated and also implies that the EU wouldn't try to block it, which they did.

Being "free" to do something doesn't mean that doing that is "uncomplicated", or easy.

 

I am free to build my own car if I choose. That seems complicated to me.

I am free to run a marathon. That doesn't seem "easy" to me.

 

Of course it would be complicated. It is a large multinational organization with 50+ years of regulations. The UK can't claim that they didn't know it would be complicated.

 

As for "trying to block it" - The article you linked is reporting that businesses want Merkel to essentially try to get the EU to offer a new "compromise". That wouldn't be forcing the UK to leave, that is essentially asking to concede to more of the UK's issues with the EU to try to see if they can stay instead. 

 

Then as for the "divorce bill" that the other article mentions - That is a bill for liabilities that the EU will suffer based on contracts and decisions made when the UK was a member, that the EU will take a loss on once the UK leaves. They disagree regarding how much those things are worth. That isn't just a bill for leaving. The UK clearly owes the EU something, though the exact figure can be argued over, since decisions and plans were made, money was invested all before the UK decided to leave. 

 

That's like if I was a member of a club and the club had already paid for my trip to a club meeting in a years time. If I quit the club before that meeting, I would clearly owe the club the money (or the trip) that they paid for that I won't be using.

Edited November 17, 2017 by bcking

[jayjayj 571]

Just now, bcking said:

Being "free" to do something doesn't mean that doing that is "uncomplicated", or easy.

 

I am free to build my own car if I choose. That seems complicated to me.

I am free to run a marathon. That doesn't seem "easy" to me.

 

Of course it would be complicated. It is a large multinational organization with 50+ years of regulations. The UK can't claim that they didn't know it would be complicated.

 

As for "trying to block it" - The article you linked is reporting that businesses want Merkel to essentially try to get the EU to offer a new "compromise". That wouldn't be forcing the UK to leave, that is essentially asking to concede to more of the UK's issues with the EU to try to see if they can stay instead. 

 

Then as for the "divorce bill" that the other article mentions - That is a bill for liabilities that the EU will suffer based on contracts and decisions made when the UK was a member, that the EU will take a loss on once the UK leaves. They disagree regarding how much those things are worth. That isn't just a bill for leaving. The UK clearly owes the EU something, though the exact figure can be argued over, since decisions and plans were made, money was invested all before the UK decided to leave. 

 

That's like if I was a member of a club and the club had already paid for my trip to a club meeting in a years time. If I quit the club before that meeting, I would clearly owe the club the money (or the trip) that they paid for that I won't be using.

The original quoted post used the term in an manner that implied it is simple for EU countries to leave the EU.  They aren't free to leave in that sense.  It isn't a simple process, as you yourself have said, it is complicated.  This is another sympantics argument, ironically about Britain again.   

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

The original quoted post used the term in an manner that implied it is simple for EU countries to leave the EU.  They aren't free to leave in that sense.  It isn't a simple process, as you yourself have said, it is complicated.  This is another sympantics argument, ironically about Britain again.   

I admit at first I didn't go far enough back to read the first use of the phrase "freely leave". I just did.

 

I disagree that it was implied that it was simple. The other poster was merely saying that EU countries are allowed to do that if they choose to, as the UK is demonstrating.

 

The practical realities are that despite every country being allowed to do it, it is incredibly complicated. 

 

The UK is leaving freely. The EU is also free to be unhappy about it, and they are completely free to make the negotiations difficult for the UK so that they end up with a better deal and the UK suffers. At the end of the day the UK is still leaving in 2019 (I forget the exact date/month). What they are discussing is the TERMS of leaving. The leave date is already there and if terms aren't settled then they will just "freely leave" without any negotiations or contracts in place.

[ILikeBread 43]

51 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

They aren't pushing for a "common vision for defense matters", they are pushing to create an EU army, which is exactly what you said would be the first step in process of removing sovereignty.

 

You said any country could "freely leave", but that isn't the reality of the EU, and the Britain situation clearly demonstrates it.

The Franco-German brigade has existed for years, France and Germany are still independent. 

 

I said freely leave in the sense that any country can decide to leave the Union on their own accord without being forced by Brussels to stay. I didn't say it was simple. When joining the EU the UK agreed to mingle some of its institutions with the EU, now they have to unmingle those. Can't act surprised here that was to be expected. 

 

If you understood freely as in it doesn't cost money, the UK was entitled to subsidies that they will now loose. So it will cost money but they knew that when starting Brexit, can't paint that as a low blow by the EU either .

[Steeleballz 7,550]

10 hours ago, jayjayj said:

Reading comprehension.  I was clearly talking about F4 visas in my post.  

 

Filipinos (Filipino: Mga Filipino) are the people who are native to, or identified with the country of the Philippines. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipinos

 

 

 

 

  Apologies. I know you mentioned F4, but I thought you were expounding on the previous point someone made about the DV selection criteria being racist. 

 

  I'm not sure what your point is about Filipino's. 

[jayjayj 571]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Apologies. I know you mentioned F4, but I thought you were expounding on the previous point someone made about the DV selection criteria being racist. 

 

  I'm not sure what your point is about Filipino's. 

It was probably my fault, I was kind of going off topic.