170
More people from China seeking asylum at US border
(www.dw.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
170 points (92.1% liked)
World News
38575 readers
2282 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Good! The more immigration the better!
I only wish we could have a stipulation that additional immigrants must live outside of major cities, so they can help revitalize America's dying towns.
Ooh, interesting immigration policy: you can immigrate, but only to a rural area.
Rural America is better than a lot of places in the world.
I'm sure many immigrants would be ecstatic to have the opportunity.
I live in a rural town (1 hour+ drive in any drection to the next town) and I could see this being a good thing if implemented correctly. This town isn't equipped for an influx of any people, but has vacant lots that could be turned into a variety of housing. There aren't a lot of jobs, but I would think more people would mean more things could be offered. Potentially great way to invest in rural areas!
Heck yeah! Remember, the alternative would be these immigrants being unable to immigrate to the US!
If they would prefer to stay outside of the US rather than live in rural America, nobody is forcing them to come!
I was being genuine and said nothing about forcing people. It's an option to consider, but not one you will see when you lack compassion.
I think we should force you to live in South Dakota, since it needs a little revitalizing.
Seeing two of your comments now, I feel you have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about immigrants being forced to live places?
Care to share more? I don't mean to pre-judge you, I just feel there's more behind your feelings on the matter than I understand yet.
How about, and this might be a little crazy, not forcing people to live somewhere?
You're right. They can just stay in their current nations if they don't want to move to rural America.
I think forcing immigrants to live in bumfuck nowhere places because you like those places is stupid. You don't even have an actual argument for it. I think metal music and manual cars should be more popular, so let's force immigrants to only listen to metal and only drive manual vehicles lol.
Are you also gonna claim that you're pro-freedom and pro-small government while forcing people to live in your backwater hometown?
You still can't comprehend what you are reading and I'm done repeating myself.
Goodbye.
The level of dialog I expect from a hillbilly smh
I imagine they would; alas it gets a lot more complicated than that.
I'd like to see a renewed love for rural places generally, and especially in the developing world. There's so much potential there that I feel most people don't see.
What better way to open people’s eyes to the beauty of X, than to force X upon them!
Okay I saw this and first thought it was a reply to another thread about XWindows and exTwitter.
I'd like to see a renewed love of rural places - not by forcing people to live there.
But in this thread's hypothetical of immigration to rural parts, there's a difference that it's an invitation: you're invited to come to our country to live in certain areas. It's only "forcing X" if you think you're already entitled to immigrate.
Like, easing immigration for "skilled workers" isn't forcing anyone to be a "skilled worker".
People having to live in certain places aren’t being offered immigration. Immigration means becoming a citizen. Citizens of the United States are free.
That's a fair, and important point, I think. Though I only half agree. Gaining residency also counts as immigration, does it not? At least it's a step in the way to full residency; and those steps do come with a limited freedom.
If you're white
Oh we have a similar policy to that in Australia, it’s fucking awful.
New migrants have to uproot their lives to spend 3 years living in dead end towns with zero job prospects, it’s a huge career killer and ensures immigrants have less opportunities to advance compared to other Australians. It’s also a negative in their ability to form social connections due to the lack of people, or get help from ethnic communities who can share their experiences and knowledge navigating a new country compared to their previous.
But hey some shitty rural workplaces like abattoirs fucking love the captive workforce to exploit.
It would appear that humans, given the free choice, choose to live in cities. Forcing people to go where they’d rather not go is obviously going to be a negative.
Anytime you override people’s freedom to choose their own path, you make things worse.
And I'm sure many of them choose it over their previous nations.
I don't get what you're trying to say here. It's better these immigrants don't get to immigrate?
What I’m saying is pretty fucking obvious.
That forcing them to go to rural towns is bad.
Nobody is "forcing" them to go to rural towns.
They can choose to stay in their current nation or emigrate elsewhere if rural America is not good enough for them.
It's literally accepting people who otherwise would not be accepted.
Wow you’re so generous!
How about simply letting them live like everyone else instead of making them second class citizens with less freedoms just because they want to immigrate?
Because America's towns are still dying and this is a way to revitalize them.
If rural America isn't good enough for them, they can stay in their current nation or try to move to a different one.
The alternative would be them not having this option. This is literally nothing but gain.
The solution to dying towns isn’t to force people to go die in them as well.
The alternative would be to let people in without such stupid requirements.
Literally not at all what I suggested.
Please argue in good faith if you want to be taken seriously by rational people.
If that's what you want, that's fine. I would prefer additional immigrants help restore America rather than leech off of it in a major city.
This discussion is over. You may have the last word.
Removed, rule 5:
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
You need to calm down.
If America’s towns require human sacrifice in order to stay vital, they should die.
The most beautiful and vital thing about America is freedom. If you cut that down, like by forcing people to live in a particular place, to revitalize something else, you’ve gone downhill.
Ok. They can just stay in their current countries.
I think most will agree immigration is good, but this "let's let everyone in!" mentality is dangerous. China is not our friend...we need to be vetting these people, making sure that everyone who's trying to get in are properly screened.
I don't agree with "letting everyone in."
I agree with expanding immigration limits and making it easier for people to immigrate.