Immigrants face tougher character test in Australia

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

immigration is a privilege.

I don't think that's in doubt. But what seems to being demonstrated here is that the privilege can be withdrawn for any reason. If the charges were dropped then how can you fail a 'character test' unless you've been found guilty by association. Privilege sure - but there's surely an argument for simple fairness. Otherwise what does this suggest? That immigration can deny you for 'not liking your face?'. Surely not.

[Caladan 19]

immigration is a privilege.

Absolutely, but the grounds for denying a person should have something to do with them, not their distant relatives. How many people's spouses would be inadmissible because they had a cousin who got into fights or an uncle who was in jail or a poor cousin who works in a seedy massage parlor? Should my I-864 not count for C. because my sister is bad with finances and is in debt? What about my cousin who has his cell phone disconnected regularly? Would that be proof that I'm likely to be a poor sponsor?

If the guy's done something, then charge him and deport him. If they can't even hold enough evidence to press charges, then it seems like we have a good guy with bad relatives and no case at all.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Yes, failure to post on VJ should be taken as a sign of plotting terrorism. Sign you three up for the team of crack investigators....

sure thing, just as soon as you sign up for "sarcasm for dummies"

[trueimage 0]

[Nagishkaw 510]

We can sign it The BORING ANGLOS....

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

We can sign it The BORING ANGLOS....

yup, that's me

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Yes, failure to post on VJ should be taken as a sign of plotting terrorism. Sign you three up for the team of crack investigators....

sure thing, just as soon as you sign up for "sarcasm for dummies"

i've taken the liberty of including a pic to help you out

[trueimage 0]

OMG!!!!!!!! I think I just peed myself!!!!!

[Nagishkaw 510]

It's the WV vortex edition, too.

[peejay 327]

immigration is a privilege.

I don't think that's in doubt. But what seems to being demonstrated here is that the privilege can be withdrawn for any reason. If the charges were dropped then how can you fail a 'character test' unless you've been found guilty by association. Privilege sure - but there's surely an argument for simple fairness. Otherwise what does this suggest? That immigration can deny you for 'not liking your face?'. Surely not.

Nobody can ever claim that life is fair or that fairness in life comes with a guarantee. The harsh truth is that Muslims in particular are the cause of a proportionally high proclivity for terrorism toward civilians. Jews, Christians, Buddists, Athiests, Agnostics, etc. don't even come in a distant second to Muslims.

Since immigration to the West is a seller's market, why waste time with people that are more troubles than what they are worth? The USA should follow the lead of Austrailia and quit being PC to the point of stupidness.

A 28 year old Swedish female is not as equally potentially dangerous as a 28 year old Saudi male, but the PC crowd would have us treat both equally in this regard. Stupidity seems to trump reality.

[trueimage 0]

ditto

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

A 28 year old Swedish female is not as equally potentially dangerous as a 28 year old Saudi male, but the PC crowd would have us treat both equally in this regard. Stupidity seems to trump reality.

I understand your point and agree, BUT... Europe is much better off today than it was during the heydays of European immigration to this nation. With the exception of the former eastern bloc nations, I am highly doubtful you will find a sufficient number of European immigrants willing to move to this country in a manner that satisfies the requirements of our growing (and changing) economy. We are going to need to be open to people from all over the world simply because we now do business with the whole world in a way we never did before. We need the diverse workforce. Of course, we don't need terrorists and the challenge is going to be balancing the needs of our economy with keeping us safe.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

immigration is a privilege.

I don't think that's in doubt. But what seems to being demonstrated here is that the privilege can be withdrawn for any reason. If the charges were dropped then how can you fail a 'character test' unless you've been found guilty by association. Privilege sure - but there's surely an argument for simple fairness. Otherwise what does this suggest? That immigration can deny you for 'not liking your face?'. Surely not.

Nobody can ever claim that life is fair or that fairness in life comes with a guarantee. The harsh truth is that Muslims in particular are the cause of a proportionally high proclivity for terrorism toward civilians. Jews, Christians, Buddists, Athiests, Agnostics, etc. don't even come in a distant second to Muslims.

Since immigration to the West is a seller's market, why waste time with people that are more troubles than what they are worth? The USA should follow the lead of Austrailia and quit being PC to the point of stupidness.

A 28 year old Swedish female is not as equally potentially dangerous as a 28 year old Saudi male, but the PC crowd would have us treat both equally in this regard. Stupidity seems to trump reality.

As I see it - the question here seems very clear. Generally speaking if a person is charged or held in connection with a crime and are subsequently cleared by the investigation it generally doesn't impact them in terms of pursuing their everyday life.

The standard seems to be different for immigration, certainly when you consider that insubstantial/deliberately vague "Moral turpitude" B/S in the US immigration system. What this suggests is that through no fault of your own, being of the wrong race/nationality (in terms of your argument) or being in the wrong place at the wrong time - you can be denied immigration benefits in much the same way as if you had committed the crime you were accused of.

Hard to see how that is fair. Either the guy committed a crime, or he didn't. If he didn't - then (extremely loose) association doesn't make him of 'dubious character'. Nor does making a decision on an immigration based on little more than the law of averages. That's discrimination.

Edited July 29, 2007 by Number 6

[Caladan 19]

We can sign it The BORING ANGLOS....

Would make it easy to keep track of you.

[JODO 2]

J

Edited July 29, 2007 by JODO