Should immigration be completely unrestricted?

[TheReckoning]

Should immigration be completely unrestricted? Should any one person be allowed to move to another country without any government holding them back from doing so?

[Ferguson97]

Yes, this should be the end goal for society.

[TML]

There are some instances where I think restrictions are reasonable - for example, I agree with rules and regulations which prevent people directly involved in human rights violations from entering this country.

[dead0man]

no

[LBJer]

I voted no because of the word "completely."  There are genuinely dangerous people who should be kept out.  But I think it should be largely unrestricted.  That's how it originally was in the U.S., and the country wasn't exactly ruined as a result. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Immigration should be freer than it is now, but you need some kind of controls in the process.

[Dr. MB]

Of course. Borders are pretty arbitrary and shouldn't affect where someone is "allowed" to live.

[Aurelius]

No, and it should be stricter than currently. We can't even control our own borders as is.

[Beet]

I voted no because of the word "completely."  There are genuinely dangerous people who should be kept out.  But I think it should be largely unrestricted.  That's how it originally was in the U.S., and the country wasn't exactly ruined as a result. 

In fact it thrived. I've always thought it contradictory that Trumpists could claim the nationalist label while having opposition to immigration as one of their signature issues. Having more people generally strengthens a nation. If you want a stronger America then you want more immigrants.

[LBJer]

I voted no because of the word "completely."  There are genuinely dangerous people who should be kept out.  But I think it should be largely unrestricted.  That's how it originally was in the U.S., and the country wasn't exactly ruined as a result. 

In fact it thrived. I've always thought it contradictory that Trumpists could claim the nationalist label while having opposition to immigration as one of their signature issues. Having more people generally strengthens a nation. If you want a stronger America then you want more immigrants.

I've often thought that a reporter should start an interview with Trump by saying: "You don't look much like an Indian" (this was said, in a different context, by Silvio Dante in an episode of The Sopranos).  When Trump asks what the point of that comment is, the reporter can point out that Trump's ancestors were not among the peoples who were the original settlers of what is now the U.S. and ask him why, given that fact, he's so hostile to immigrants. 

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Let's just import 500,000 people from Iraq! Great thinking and all of those new refugees will be socially liberal and not at all anti-Semitic!

[Хahar 🤔]

Let's just import 500,000 people from Iraq! Great thinking and all of those new refugees will be socially liberal and not at all anti-Semitic!

weird unprompted racism, you seem to constantly be playing to some invisible audience so let me point out that your posting is not making anyone respect you

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No, but the legal immigration process should be less byzantine and unreasonable. Encountering it through my wife has made me understand better why people come here illegally.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We need campaign finance reform, we need to raise the cap on SSA and we need immigration reform, Rehniqust Crt and Burger Crt were anti CFR but we have seen unregulated dirty money into politics Ronald Reagan raised the cap and immigration reform that's why the Rs werent dying out like the Rs are now, the Rs are just a state and Federal Legislation body they can't win the Prez again due to the 303 FREIWALL

Rs will never get lucky and sweep MI, WI and PA again

[Battista Minola 1616]

Let's just import 500,000 people from Iraq! Great thinking and all of those new refugees will be socially liberal and not at all anti-Semitic!

weird unprompted racism, you seem to constantly be playing to some invisible audience so let me point out that your posting is not making anyone respect you

This is a poster who thinks Europe is obsessed with owning America by being excessively tolerant of Muslims.

[VPH]

No, you need to have some control over who enters your country. I support making legal immigration to the US easier and less complicated, but I would never support fully open borders.

[Schiff for Senate]

no

This. Obviously not completely unrestricted. Of course, Ferguson unironically makes a post that's amusing until you realise he truly means it:

Yes, this should be the end goal for society.

[Schiff for Senate]

I voted no because of the word "completely."  There are genuinely dangerous people who should be kept out.  But I think it should be largely unrestricted.  That's how it originally was in the U.S., and the country wasn't exactly ruined as a result.  

Immigration should be freer than it is now, but you need some kind of controls in the process.

No, you need to have some control over who enters your country. I support making legal immigration to the US easier and less complicated, but I would never support fully open borders.

Agreed.

[Schiff for Senate]

Let's just import 500,000 people from Iraq! Great thinking and all of those new refugees will be socially liberal and not at all anti-Semitic!

How do you intend to ban all social conservatives and anti-Semites from entering the country, any way? And the way you singled out one country as having anti-Semites and social conservatives is getting dangerously close to the way Trump banned immigration from those 7 Muslim-majority countries. There are plenty who come from Iraq who aren't anti-Semitic or socially conservative, and plenty who are anti-Semitic and/or socially conservative from all countries (including from across Europe and the Western World). It's impossible to differentiate who's 'socially liberal' (an arbitrary and practically meaningless term to begin with) from who's not, and impossible to determine who's 'anti-Semitic' (again, an arbitrary term with no clear or obvious definition - even if there is one, you can't necessarily just "figure out if somebody's anti-Semitic"), and frankly, both exercises are futile and unnecessary.

[Schiff for Senate]

Let's just import 500,000 people from Iraq! Great thinking and all of those new refugees will be socially liberal and not at all anti-Semitic!

weird unprompted racism, you seem to constantly be playing to some invisible audience so let me point out that your posting is not making anyone respect you

I have to say I agree with this. Flyingmongoose is an FF but this post is random, uncalled for, and ultimately a smidge racist/Islamaphobic.

[Schiff for Senate]

No, and it should be stricter than currently. We can't even control our own borders as is.

Do you know how difficult it is to legally immigrate to the US already? (And before you ask, yes, I do, since both my parents did so and it was a long-drawn process to get their citizenship and green card and whatnot). There's a reason that people who illegally immigrate to the US, and while illegal immigration is of course wrong, it's frustrating to make it next to impossible to legally immigrate (and for no good reason - I've heard from those who want to close our borders, like BG-NY, and each time he gives a 'reason' for his viewpoint, it's mind-numbingly stupid), leaving people with little choice but to illegally immigrate, and then crack down on them with God's fury and separate families and keep kids in cages. I mean, you don't need to take my word for it, listen to what a fellow conservative Republican says on the subject in this very thread:

     No, but the legal immigration process should be less byzantine and unreasonable. Encountering it through my wife has made me understand better why people come here illegally.

[Continential]

No, we shouldn't be like Canada.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Let's just import 500,000 people from Iraq! Great thinking and all of those new refugees will be socially liberal and not at all anti-Semitic!

How do you intend to ban all social conservatives and anti-Semites from entering the country, any way? And the way you singled out one country as having anti-Semites and social conservatives is getting dangerously close to the way Trump banned immigration from those 7 Muslim-majority countries. There are plenty who come from Iraq who aren't anti-Semitic or socially conservative, and plenty who are anti-Semitic and/or socially conservative from all countries (including from across Europe and the Western World). It's impossible to differentiate who's 'socially liberal' (an arbitrary and practically meaningless term to begin with) from who's not, and impossible to determine who's 'anti-Semitic' (again, an arbitrary term with no clear or obvious definition - even if there is one, you can't necessarily just "figure out if somebody's anti-Semitic"), and frankly, both exercises are futile and unnecessary.

Meaning is hard to convey in text, but it was meant to be mostly sarcastic. I was making fun of the left wingers who use latinx and demand 50 gazillion queer characters in Disney movies and then turn around and yell at people for being 'Islamophobic'.

The things about Islam I admire come from actual research and the like, something I don't think they bothered with.