h a l f b a k e r yYou think: Aha! We go: ha, ha.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Immigration Reciprocity
Ok Molvania, 150,000 immigrants to the US this year, that means you need to allow 150,000 Americans to become Molvanian citizens... | |
...with full property and most importantly, voting rights.
They might not choose to live there, perhaps they'll just
use
their new dual citizenship to invest in land for development
purposes but they WILL be voting in your next election. And
the more people we take in, the more power we have
in
the
country of origin to fix the problems that are making
people
want to leave in the first place.
Repeat for every other country full of people who can't wait
to get into the US. 100,000 Berzerkistan refugees? Great,
that's 100,000 Americans that get to vote in the next
Berzerkistan
election and have a say in the running of that country that's
become so uninhabitable for its people. We seem to be
pretty
good at running a country in a manner that makes
everybody
want to move here so we're obviously doing something
right.
Hey European countries, this would work of you too.
Who gets the dual citizenship? First come first serve or
determined by lottery.
[link]
|
| |
Dear Comrade, the election process of Molvania is sacred to the People and allowing foreigners to vote would upset the delicate balance of power commanded by Glorious Leader. |
|
| |
I like the dual-citizen aspect, but I don't know how well voting will go over. Only just over half of Americans vote in their own elections let alone a foreign one. |
|
| |
Any American wanting Molvanian citizenship would
have to respect the rules. Miss one vote, citizenship
revoked. Next person in line who wanted citizenship
takes over. |
|
| |
Now whether or not Generalissimo Krull, Grand
Imperial Poobah of Molvania would adhere to any
decree by these new expatriate voters is another
thing all together. But if he doesn't, the deal is void
and he's getting all his people back. |
|
| |
After getting a taste of the good life, I'm guessing
living under the Krullster isn't going to be something
this army of returnees is going to be very happy
about. |
|
| |
Which of course comes under the "Not my problem"
category. |
|
| |
hmm, that would just encourage checking any old random box without learning anything about the issues or parties in order to retain citizenship... also third-party collecting and counting of votes would then become necessary. |
|
| |
Well, why then would you want to become a voter
going through all that trouble to become a dual
citizen just to not vote or to vote without even
looking into the issues? Remember, this is voluntary. |
|
| |
And there's nothing in it for the American or
European citizen except for being able to be of
assistance to their chosen secondary country. |
|
| |
Election legitimacy aside, I think reciprocal citizenship would put pressure on Molvania et al., even if only as an inconvenient sticking point in political discourse. [+] |
|
| |
Hey, even if you use it as a bargaining chip to bring to
the table. |
|
| |
At least it opens up a two way dialog here. We pretty
much get preached to by countries sending us their
people about who, how, when, how many and under
what circumstances we're supposed to accept their
people. |
|
| |
If you put up a huge statue with lines like "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" prominently displayed, then you've only yourselves to blame. Some people are going to take it as a hint. |
|
| |
The French gave it to us. Just sayin'. |
|
| |
Let me get this straight... This country is
contemplating the virtues of the Donald and you
want us to start directing the fates of other
countries as well, most of which most Americans
can't even find on a map? |
|
| |
The French should ask for it back. We clearly don't
know what to do with it. |
|
| |
If we're as lame as you say, how come everybody
wants to move here? |
|
| |
And that same electorate that's considering Trump is
the one that put Obama into office twice. Little hard
to reconcile for the left wing/right wing club I
expect. |
|
| |
Punch or Judy?
Judy or Punch? |
|
| |
// how come everybody wants to move here? // |
|
| |
Because you have aircon, and cable TV ? |
|
| |
//Because you have aircon, and cable TV// - and guns.... lots and lots and lots of guns |
|
| |
You're going to have to try harder than that if you want the good life in Berzerkistan. We'll trade one-for-one immigrants plus a $1 million per. (Berzerki dollars of course). At that we'll have to see how it goes, not many Berzerkis are interested in going there. |
|
| |
The conceit in this idea is pretty thick and difficult to see past. |
|
| |
//You are deluded if you think “everyone wants to
move there”. There is no way on earth I would even
want to get near there.// |
|
| |
Doing a quick check I'm seeing that we allow 1 million
immigrants to come into the US every year. That's not
including un-documented immigrants of which there
are a lot. |
|
| |
Just stay in your own little corner of the world Ian.
Leave
the world
travel up to us adults. Safe to say I've probably been
to your country multiple times and I would never say
stupid
xenophobic stuff about it, not because it's better or
worse than other countries, but because there's
really no point in being nasty like that. |
|
| |
I think it would suffice to just say the contract was
broken if the other country doesn't hold up their end
of the agreement and to send them back. |
|
| |
It's in the interest of these countries to honor the
agreement. Many of these immigrants send money
that they make in America back to their home
countries. If they all get sent back that's a big loss of
revenue. |
|
| |
//Ah. You are talking about Mexico-type immigration
and I am talking about Syria-type immigration.// |
|
| |
I'm trying to keep it generic, but yea, that last
statement was more about Mexico. |
|
| |
I'd apply this to both types though with the overall
idea that since we're having to take care of people
leaving a particular country because of problems
there, let us at least have some say in fixing those
problems at the source. |
|
| |
//I don’t remember anything// |
|
| |
Yes, I've thought that something similar should be
applied within the EU. |
|
| |
At the moment, we have freedom of migration
between EU countries. This made sense when the
members (UK, France, Germany...) were all at
roughly the same level as regards standards of
living, unemployment etc. |
|
| |
But now that the EU includes some countries with
notably worse standards of living, net migration is
a huge issue. Some degree of "loose reciprocality"
(adjusted annually, and with a leeway of a few
thousand people either way) is needed. |
|
| |
Either that, or we should take a leaf out of the
German book, and all move into Poland while
they're all over here driving our taxis. |
|
| |
Yes, I've thought that something similar should be
applied within the EU. |
|
| |
At the moment, we have freedom of migration
between EU countries. This made sense when the
members (UK, France, Germany...) were all at
roughly the same level as regards standards of
living, unemployment etc. |
|
| |
But now that the EU includes some countries with
notably worse standards of living, net migration is
a huge issue. Some degree of "loose reciprocality"
(adjusted annually, and with a leeway of a few
thousand people either way) is needed. |
|
| |
Either that, or we should take a leaf out of the
German book, and all move into Poland while
they're all over here driving our taxis. |
|
| |
This is actually a pretty clever way of reducing limitations on the free movement of people worldwide. Some portion of the population of the "desired" country who accepted the "undesired" citizenship would visit or perhaps even move to the "undesired" country (obviously they would have some interest in this country to accept its citizenship). This would spread "desired" culture and maybe just improve the quality of life in the "undesired" country a teeny tiny bit. |
|
| |
Max, you can say that again. |
|
| |
(Both in the sense that I totally agree with you and in poking
fun as well because it did that double print thing on your
annotation that we've all experienced.) |
|
| |
Questions:
1. What does the ruling class of the non-US nation get out of this?
2. What does the ruling class of the non-US nation get out of this that it might actually want? |
|
| |
In other words, the ruling classes of any nation state tend towards the conservative, as they want to conserve the political infrastructure that keeps them in power. Similarly, the US has been AOK with supporting (or at least not toppling) morally questionable national leaders whose interests can be made, usually by means of financial inducement, to coincide with those of the US. To my mind, what this means is that for this idea to work - to be accepted by both the US executive & legislature and the non-US nation's ruling class - is (a) for the non-US nation to be in such dire need of money that it will accept this form of direct political interference and (b) for the non-US nation to be politically split, such that a relatively small contingent of voters / electors / warlords might be decisive and (c) for the non-US nation to have something that the US needs sufficiently badly that this idea (which jumps from the lofty peak of the post-Enlightenment thought and lands pretty much dead centre in British Imperial Management) looks like a cost effective way of getting it. To descend to reality for a moment, are there any nations that fit these criteria? And if there are, does the migration of the citizens of those nation to the US pose a problem for the US? |
|
| |
//net migration is a huge issue//
From a point of view of availability of employees who will work hard and not be too restive, it has been less an issue and more a smash hit. |
|
| |
//1. What does the ruling class of the non-US nation get
out of this?
2. What does the ruling class of the non-US nation get out
of this that it might actually want?// |
|
| |
Tell them we'll give them, the generalissimos and grand
poobahs
themselves, a suitcase full of cash representing 10% of
the
money we save on welfare by them keeping their people
home and trying to make their countries more livable. |
|
| |
I guess that's another idea, but the only way to get things
done is with graft and corruption. I was about to say that
the only way to get things done IN THE THIRD WORLD is
with graft and corruption then I caught myself. |
|
| |
// All very well until those that volunteered realise they’re being sent out to the Marshall Islands (although a relief for those going away from). |
|
| |
[Ian] your annos are usually thoughtful, entertaining, or on-point, but you're going way off the rails on this idea. Nobody's sending anyone anywhere. As far as I can tell this entire idea is voluntary at both ends. Even your example of the Marshall Islands is completely weird because it looks like a nice place to visit and perhaps do some diving. Is everything all right, bub? |
|
| |
// a suitcase full of cash representing 10% of the money we save on welfare //
I can't assess whether this is going to be enough to bribe a whole class in non-US nation X, because I have no idea what Americans mean by "welfare" - something to do with cheese, yeah? That said, I would think that even a percentage of the welfare costs attributable to the non-US nation's emigrants to the US would not be enough to sway the non-US nation's political class, as the non-US's nation's political class is likely already the richest in the relevant non-US nation. I mean, I am sure the ruling class would like as much as possible of the USD, but the amount would have to be sufficient to justify ceding political control to the US and this is unlikely to be popular with ruled classes, who tend not to have hardons for the imperial interference like the imperial interferers like to think they do. |
|
| |
Well, yea agreed. And the other downside of that is
that by putting a price on keeping these immigrants
home the price would immediately go up very
quickly. |
|
| |
Best to stick with the original idea of one for one
citizenship trade. Easy to do the book keeping. |
|
| |