Is Canada on this list of Third World Countries?

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

This is not without precedent. From the 1920s to 1960s we paused practically all immigration to give existing immigrants time to adapt and adjust.

---

Was that even a stated reason? Then by all means, yes, use that precedent immediately and re-invoke one.

---

Quote:

---

The 1924 act was passed due to growing public and political concerns about the country's fast-changing social and demographic landscape. It replaced earlier legislation by significantly reducing immigration from countries outside the Western Hemisphere. Immigrants from Asia were banned,[3] and the total annual immigration quota for the rest of the world was capped at 165,000an 80% reduction of the yearly average before 1914. The act temporarily reduced the annual quota of any nationality from 3% of their 1910 population, per the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, to 2% as recorded in the 1890 census;[3] a new quota was implemented in 1927, based on each nationality's share of the total U.S. population in the 1920 census, which would govern U.S. immigration policy until 1965.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

will be 100% undone day 1 next time the Demons get the WH

Sid Farkas said:

---

will be 100% undone day 1 next time the Demons get the WH

---

3 year hiatus is still helpful. Probably hundreds of fewer dead US citizens as a result. Not to mention the cost savings.

Harsh crowd in here. I believe we need much stricter immigration, but to cut it off altogether?

I've always been of the mindset that if someone is a net positive to society, non-criminal, and is willing to assimilate...I have no issues with them being allowed in. Not immediately handed a citizenship card, but if they're contributing and not on government subsidies, paying taxes, and otherwise an asset to us, I have no problem with that.

AJ02 said:

---

Harsh crowd in here. I believe we need much stricter immigration, but to cut it off altogether?

I've always been of the mindset that if someone is a net positive to society, non-criminal, and is willing to assimilate...I have no issues with them being allowed in. Not immediately handed a citizenship card, but if they're contributing and not on government subsidies, paying taxes, and otherwise an asset to us, I have no problem with that.

---

I'm willing to let individuals in who we have a very high confidence will be a value add and not another welfare check or malcontent. I would still have a list of countries that NO ONE would be allowed in from regardless of their individual resume though.

You can have a welfare state and you can have unfettered immigration, but you can't have both.

AJ02 said:

---

Harsh crowd in here. I believe we need much stricter immigration, but to cut it off altogether?

I've always been of the mindset that if someone is a net positive to society, non-criminal, and is willing to assimilate...I have no issues with them being allowed in. Not immediately handed a citizenship card, but if they're contributing and not on government subsidies, paying taxes, and otherwise an asset to us, I have no problem with that.

---

IMHO
The resources needed to vet immigrants is stretched thin, resources are being used to find & screen the illegal aliens the Biden Administration burdened the country with. And it's only 19 countries out of over 180 countries.

Perhaps I'm "too close" to it, but my employer (and specifically my team) is filled with immigrants. Out of the 6 people on my team, 4 are immigrants. And they're all great people, contributing to society, raising up nuclear families, paying their taxes, smart, good at their jobs. Literally the best group of coworkers I've had in my 20+ year career.

Only take in Christians fleeing genuine violent persecution. No one else.

If we truly scaled it down to just that, and maybe people like the Boers, we'd actually be able to properly vet these people to make sure they are who they say they are.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Only take in Christians fleeing genuine violent persecution. No one else.

If we truly scaled it down to just that, and maybe people like the Boers, we'd actually be able to properly vet these people to make sure they are who they say they are.

---

So that would be: Nigeria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Myanmar.

Edit...you could probably also add North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran to the list.

We should adopt the same immigration policy of Switzerland. You never hear a liberal whining about the Swiss.

AJ02 said:

---

Perhaps I'm "too close" to it, but my employer (and specifically my team) is filled with immigrants. Out of the 6 people on my team, 4 are immigrants. And they're all great people, contributing to society, raising up nuclear families, paying their taxes, smart, good at their jobs. Literally the best group of coworkers I've had in my 20+ year career.

---

There are other people that are too close to it also. People that had family members in a van that got slaughtered by an immigrant with a fake CDL. People that had their daughter raped or murdered. People that had a loved one die due to fentanyl poisoning. People that live in an apartment complex run by Venezuelan gang members.

Pause it all until we have control. You don't take a boat out on the water if it has a few leaks but the engine sure runs well.

AJ02 said:

---

Harsh crowd in here. I believe we need much stricter immigration, but to cut it off altogether?

I've always been of the mindset that if someone is a net positive to society, non-criminal, and is willing to assimilate...I have no issues with them being allowed in. Not immediately handed a citizenship card, but if they're contributing and not on government subsidies, paying taxes, and otherwise an asset to us, I have no problem with that.

---

Well, we just let in 10mm to 20mm and we don't know jack about them.

Seems harsh to make America take more before we have a chance to integrate the ones we got.

I'm fine with a complete stop.

Asked ChatGPT what would happen if the U.S. suddenly went cold turkey with a zero immigration policy for a significant period of time and AI said the effects would be pretty severe in the negative, hitting GDP, nuke investment portfolios/401(k)s, gradually expose depopulation and aging trends, hurt health care services (said approx. 30% of physicians in U.S. are foreign born) , rapidly accelerate Social Security funding implosion, and likely a bunch of other bad outcomes.

Strong border control, Fine. Don't let dangerous people in, Fine.
Legal documented immigration only, Fine.


But anyone advocating for a zero immigration policy, unless you could convince me you are a genius Nostradamus and make a compelling case that the U.S. economy and standard living would NOT go down the toilet with such an extreme position….and to be frank I am skeptical any poster here is such a Genius….then no thanks on that idea. Anyways, a moot debate. No U'.S. Administration would ever commit suicide trying to do that. A very unhappy population if the economy was suffering would quickly vote that administration out and install back a government that would open immigration back up.

Im curious what country would be the host to absorb all this unutilozed talent that America would be missing out on? The only way it hurts our economy is if it helps someone else rise up.

Europe. Not an option. Their energy prices are industry death.
China. Lol.
Japan / S. Korea. They basically have this policy.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Asked ChatGPT what would happen if the U.S. suddenly went cold turkey with a zero immigration policy for a significant period of time and AI said the effects would be pretty severe in the negative, hitting GDP, nuke investment portfolios/401(k)s, gradually expose depopulation and aging trends, hurt health care services (said approx. 30% of physicians in U.S. are foreign born) , rapidly accelerate Social Security funding implosion, and likely a bunch of other bad outcomes.

Strong border control, Fine. Don't let dangerous people in, Fine.
Legal documented immigration only, Fine.


But anyone advocating for a zero immigration policy, unless you could convince me you are a genius Nostradamus and make a compelling case that the U.S. economy and standard living would NOT go down the toilet with such an extreme position….and to be frank I am skeptical any poster here is such a Genius….then no thanks on that idea. Anyways, a moot debate. No U'.S. Administration would ever commit suicide trying to do that. A very unhappy population if the economy was suffering would quickly vote that administration out and install back a government that would open immigration back up.

---

I'm all for a major pendulum swing. Open borders has led us to the brink of disaster, I don't care what ChatGPT says.

techno-ag said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Asked ChatGPT what would happen if the U.S. suddenly went cold turkey with a zero immigration policy for a significant period of time and AI said the effects would be pretty severe in the negative, hitting GDP, nuke investment portfolios/401(k)s, gradually expose depopulation and aging trends, hurt health care services (said approx. 30% of physicians in U.S. are foreign born) , rapidly accelerate Social Security funding implosion, and likely a bunch of other bad outcomes.

Strong border control, Fine. Don't let dangerous people in, Fine.
Legal documented immigration only, Fine.


But anyone advocating for a zero immigration policy, unless you could convince me you are a genius Nostradamus and make a compelling case that the U.S. economy and standard living would NOT go down the toilet with such an extreme position….and to be frank I am skeptical any poster here is such a Genius….then no thanks on that idea. Anyways, a moot debate. No U'.S. Administration would ever commit suicide trying to do that. A very unhappy population if the economy was suffering would quickly vote that administration out and install back a government that would open immigration back up.

---

I'm all for a major pendulum swing. Open borders has led us to the brink of disaster, I don't care what ChatGPT says.

---

I second the motion.

Like I said. is a moot debate. Will never happen. So whether you care or don't care…is moot.

It's not moot. You cannot prove they are a benefit to our society. They won't even assimilate properly and adopt our American values. We can prove they are a net loss. Example 1 is all the fraud in MN being uncovered.

Hoyt Ag said:

---

It's not moot. You cannot prove they are a benefit to our society. They won't even assimilate properly and adopt our American values. We can prove they are a net loss. Example 1 is all the fraud in MN being uncovered.

---

'They' is all 50+ million foreign born people currently living in the U.S.? About 1/7 of the population. Net loss? All immigration?

Yeah, it is a moot debate in terms of real world U.S. politics… will never happen. Stricter immigration laws? Sure. But a zero immigration policy ever being pushed by any U.S. administration is pure fantasy. might as well be debating something like Texit or one of the other numerous fantasyland topics that occasionally pops up on this board.

AJ02 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Only take in Christians fleeing genuine violent persecution. No one else.

If we truly scaled it down to just that, and maybe people like the Boers, we'd actually be able to properly vet these people to make sure they are who they say they are.

---

So that would be: Nigeria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Myanmar.

Edit...you could probably also add North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran to the list.

---

Yep, Christians assimilate so much better. And they have good families and solid values. We know some incredible Christian Nigerians here in our suburbs. Virtually no one's leaving North Korea so we can nix that one though.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Only take in Christians fleeing genuine violent persecution. No one else.

If we truly scaled it down to just that, and maybe people like the Boers, we'd actually be able to properly vet these people to make sure they are who they say they are.

---

So that would be: Nigeria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Myanmar.

Edit...you could probably also add North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran to the list.

---

Yep, Christians assimilate so much better. And they have good families and solid values. We know some incredible Christian Nigerians here in our suburbs. Virtually no one's leaving North Korea so we can nix that one though.

---

Christians are persecuted in India; recent evidence below. So would you add India to your list?


https://www.opendoors.org/en-US/persecution/countries/

https://www.csi-int.org/news/attacks-on-christians-in-india-surge/

https://cbn.com/news/world/why-christians-india-could-face-persecution-sharing-their-faith-online-its-alarming

Set a quota of 25,000 immigrants per year max.

They must bring something of very high importance to the table - vast wealth, diplomatic, science/tech.

We do not need more people. Immigration should be like the NFL draft. Perform your ass off at the combine. Weather the vetting. Then maybe.

Wally World is closed. The moose out front should have told you.

Sid Farkas said:

---

will be 100% undone day 1 next time the Demons get the WH

---

Maybe, but with any luck if that happens the Union will be undone too and can get on to having some Singapore enclaves and the equivalent of Byzantium.

Shut it down to all countries.