The Antithesis to Democracy and Western Values - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The Antithesis to Democracy and Western Values
in Immigration

By VaulkVaulk 560 Pts
Let's weigh in on what kinds or types of control measures should be in place for immigrants coming from Countries who's Government, Society and Economic system are counterproductive to Freedom, Democracy and the American way of life.

Do you think it's safe to go without any control measures at all?  Trust everyone that comes here that they will assimilate naturally and respect our way of life?

Do you think acclimation is necessary and if so, for how long and how severe?

Generally, immigrants are required to attend training, orientation and educational classes that have been standardized under local, state and federal departments to ensure that the American way of life is understood and subsequently respected.  These classes include education in civil rights, liberties, privileges and constitutional protections.  This training is designed to offer an understanding and perspective into Western culture and to assist immigrants with adjusting their values (If needed) to align with those that are prized in the United States (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness).
  1. Control measures are necessary

    4 votes
    1. Yes
      100.00%
    2. No
        0.00%
"If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".





Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 557 Pts
    The degree of assimilation an immigrant is required to be subjected to typically strongly depends on the nature of the immigration act, as well as on the immigrant's background. Different immigrants have done different amount of homework before moving to the new country, and they also had different initial conditions.

    For example, a former ISIS fighter who experienced a crisis of faith, turned on his comrades and fled to Switzerland - obviously needs much more educating and assimilating, than a researcher from India who had been working in a Western-based company for 10 years, interacting with Westerners daily, speaking multiple European languages and regularly doing business trips around the world.

    Some "control measures" are necessary, of course, but, in my opinion, they should be minimal, to the point and decided on the case-by-case basis in the court. While trying to preserve freedom and democracy and to protect it from threats coming from the poorly assimilated portion of the population, it is important to exercise these freedom and democracy. If the country is about freedom and liberty, then restricting the immigrants' freedom and liberty seems a bit counter-productive, does it not?

    VaulkPolaris95
  • VaulkVaulk 560 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Agreed, well said.  While it does seem counterproductive to impose restrictions upon an immigrant, would you agree, for instance, that immigrants from Countries where the legal age of sexual consent is 10-12 years old should be heavily vetted and methodically educated to understand that the very practice of sexual consent at that age is disgusting in our Country?
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 557 Pts
    @Vaulk

    I do not think any extra requirements based on the individual's previous country of residence are validated. I think it should be decide on the case-by-case basis, based on the immigrant's general background. One individual from Iran can be much more familiar with the US concept of sexual consent, than another individual from France, for example.

    I do think that some kind of exam on the US law is warranted when an individual applies for the Green Card, however. Just like we pass a theory exam on driving before being able to drive, it is reasonable to have to pass a theory exam on the country laws before being granted full resident rights.
  • VaulkVaulk 560 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    I understand where you're coming from.  How about this, let's use the example of Ebola. 

    If the U.S. receives immigrants regularly from countries A, B and C but Country C is well established by the CDC as having a serious and unchecked Ebola outbreak...do you believe that the United States government would owe it to its citizens to thoroughly and more heavily vet all incoming immigrants from Country C if the Ebola check wasn't already a standard practice?  When I say more heavily...I mean creating longer waiting periods for a more thorough check for the virus as well as implementing questionnaires for all immigrants coming from C to further assist in identifying people that may have come into contact with Ebola.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 697 Pts
    Vaulk said:
    @MayCaesar

    I understand where you're coming from.  How about this, let's use the example of Ebola. 

    If the U.S. receives immigrants regularly from countries A, B and C but Country C is well established by the CDC as having a serious and unchecked Ebola outbreak...do you believe that the United States government would owe it to its citizens to thoroughly and more heavily vet all incoming immigrants from Country C if the Ebola check wasn't already a standard practice?  When I say more heavily...I mean creating longer waiting periods for a more thorough check for the virus as well as implementing questionnaires for all immigrants coming from C to further assist in identifying people that may have come into contact with Ebola.
    I understand what you are getting at, and I agree, but Ebola isn't a good example.  Ebola is notorious because it acts so quickly, usually within 4 to 10 days, and recovery usually begins within 7 to 14 days.  Incidentally, this is why there won't be any mass Ebola outbreaks, it acts too quickly.  Recovery is complete and noncommunicable. The legal immigration process to immigrate takes much longer than the length of the disease.  Tuberculosis or Whooping Cough would have been better, and more relevant, examples.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 557 Pts
    With the general case of diseases easily spreading, I would say that at the periods when such a threat exists, additional health screening at the border should be conducted - and applied to everyone. Regardless of whether I am from the region where Ebola is abundant or not, I may have interacted with people from that region, hence I am also a potential threat.

    As always, I favor a case-by-case approach over splitting people into groups and employing special approaches to some of those groups. The more profiling is done, the easier it is for the non-profiled categories to break the system. In case of Ebola, if you assume that only, say, people from Africa can bring Ebola to the country, then you risk missing your fellow American visiting Switzerland, where he slept with a woman from Africa having Ebola, bringing the virus to the US.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 697 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    With the general case of diseases easily spreading, I would say that at the periods when such a threat exists, additional health screening at the border should be conducted - and applied to everyone. Regardless of whether I am from the region where Ebola is abundant or not, I may have interacted with people from that region, hence I am also a potential threat.

    As always, I favor a case-by-case approach over splitting people into groups and employing special approaches to some of those groups. The more profiling is done, the easier it is for the non-profiled categories to break the system. In case of Ebola, if you assume that only, say, people from Africa can bring Ebola to the country, then you risk missing your fellow American visiting Switzerland, where he slept with a woman from Africa having Ebola, bringing the virus to the US.
    You would screen every person who went on vacation outside of the US?  That seems a bit of an overkill, don't you think?
  • VaulkVaulk 560 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Indeed you are correct in your assertion that protective standards should be implemented and in certain cases...we do have checks in place for all immigrants to catch communicable diseases.  Now shifting the focus to ideology instead of communicable diseases, there are places in the world where broad ideology exists for certain beliefs and there are places where it is generally non-existent. 

    Case in point, pedophilia.  It would be irresponsible to suggest that there's somewhere in the world where pedophiles don't exist...but it would be equally irresponsible to suggest that there aren't countries where the practice is widespread and perfectly normal/legal.  

    I maintain that if an immigrant is identified as coming from a Country where the law broadly makes it perfectly acceptable to have consensual sex with a 10-12yr old...then the Government owes it to the citizens of the United States to take an approach to people from this Country with more caution and likely a more thorough vetting of the individuals from there.  You like to reference case by case, so let's call it the Case of Countries where pedophilia is acceptable and address this case by case.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 557 Pts
    @Vaulk

    Suppose a man from Saudi Arabia immigrates to the US. Back in Saudi Arabia, that man was an active human rights advocate, who criticized especially heavily the Saudi Arabian sex practices, including treatment of children and adult women. The man has a wife from, say, France, treats her extremely well. By all standards, he acts as a Western person, and his beliefs are those of a Western person. Would you discriminate against him by expecting more legwork from him than from other immigrants - simply because he happens to hold an official document with "Saudi Arabia" instead of "United States of America" at its cover? I would not.

    The case-by-case (applied solely to individuals, and not to groups of individuals) basis is a more thorough and, yet, more economical way to assure that the undesirable elements do not obtain the US permanent resident status, than the alternative the current administration advocates for - increased vetting of immigrants based on their country of origin. 

    Take me. I am an immigrant from the former Soviet territory. But aside from my accent and the words on my passport's cover, you would not be able to tell that I have not been born in America. I have strongly Libertarian values along the lines of the Founding Fathers' beliefs, I have always loved America and its culture, I have wanted to immigrate here since I was, at least, 10, I despise all dictatorships and I dislike nationalism. The government reasonably decided that I would be a good fit for the country, even despite having been born in the part of the world that used to be the biggest enemy of this country, with the values on the exact opposite end of the spectrum. This way, both I had an easier time getting started here, and the government did not have to waste resources providing unnecessary legal education for me.

    On the other hand, if, say, one of Lukashenko's friends, known for their anti-Western statements and involvement in corruption schemes and human rights abuse in Belarus, was applying for the US visa - then, of course, the approach would have to be completely different. That person does not seem to be a good fit for the country, and a long re-education program is required, should the government decide that the investment in this person's admittance to the country will pay off eventually.

    As you can see, despite @CYDdharta 's sentiment, this is actually less of an overkill than group vetting, in general: your resources are never wasted, you invest them exactly where they will be of use for the immigrant's integration. And in case of Ebola in particular, modern screening techniques are streamlined so much, that they probably can be easily integrated into the regular airport screening systems everyone has to go through in any case. No time is lost, not much money is invested, 100% success guaranteed.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 697 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    @Vaulk

    Suppose a man from Saudi Arabia immigrates to the US. Back in Saudi Arabia, that man was an active human rights advocate, who criticized especially heavily the Saudi Arabian sex practices, including treatment of children and adult women. The man has a wife from, say, France, treats her extremely well. By all standards, he acts as a Western person, and his beliefs are those of a Western person.

    How can you know with any certainty that such a person by all standards, acts as a Western person, and has the beliefs of a Western person without very thorough vetting?

    MayCaesar said:
    @Vaulk

    As you can see, despite @CYDdharta 's sentiment, this is actually less of an overkill than group vetting, in general: your resources are never wasted, you invest them exactly where they will be of use for the immigrant's integration. And in case of Ebola in particular, modern screening techniques are streamlined so much, that they probably can be easily integrated into the regular airport screening systems everyone has to go through in any case. No time is lost, not much money is invested, 100% success guaranteed.

    You seem to misunderstand.  Those weren't my sentiments at all.  Those were my understanding of your sentiments based on what you wrote.
  • VaulkVaulk 560 Pts
    edited July 4
    @MayCaesar

    You're actually on point for the most part.  My point was to gather the consensus that vetting is necessary and that it's critical to the point that circumventing the vetting process would be substantially detrimental to the whole of the Country.  In the example of Ebola, indeed we have a process for catching the contagion before the immigrant enters...IF the immigrant enters legally.  Illegal immigration however, completely circumvents the vetting process and subsequently the U.S. is left exposed to deadly communicable diseases that generally don't exist in the United States.  In the case of ideology I'm going to simply lean on Human error and deceit.  If we truly agreed that individuals shouldn't be subjected to additional scrutiny and vetting due to their origins being that of a Country with a value system (While not all encompassing) that serves as the antithesis to western democracy...then we would inadvertently let in people who simply claim to have no ties to the culture but very well could be lying.

    Take Mexico for instance.  The legal age of sexual consent in Mexico is 12yrs old.  The laws in Mexico support and allow pedophilia but the act itself being condoned among the people is part of the culture there.  Again there's no such thing as a cultural norm that affects everyone or is adopted by every single citizen but to ignore the fact that it is part of the culture is to invite unnecessary risk in regards to immigration vetting.  Should we simply take everyone's word at the border that they've never exercised their right to seduce a 12yr old while in Mexico or would it be more appropriate to insist upon additional integration training and education to people immigrating from Mexico to counter the well established cultural norm? 

    I don't think I can stress enough that I don't subscribe to the "Everyone" attitude when it comes to these matters, I don't think EVERYONE from ANY country is one way or the other and anyone who does...likely has a fundamental misunderstanding of individuality.  That said I'll address your question: Would you discriminate against him by expecting more legwork from him than from other immigrants - simply because he happens to hold an official document with "Saudi Arabia" instead of "United States of America" at its cover? 

    Yes I would.  We treat immigrants differently from U.S. Citizens from the beginning, subjecting them to rules, regulations, policies, procedures, tests and education that we as Americans are not subject to.  It is within my personal opinion that subjecting immigrants further to education and training, (Which I don't personally see as a detriment to them) depending on where they are immigrating from, is well within the scope of prudent and reasonable action.  
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch