The DnD Sanctuary

General => DnD Central => Topic started by: Banned Member on 2014-04-21, 12:21:18

Poll
Question: Should they assimilate culturally?
Option 1: No doubt. votes: 0
Option 2: Most certainly. votes: 0
Option 3: I'm not sure. votes: 1
Option 4: Partially, or maybe not.. ??? votes: 0
Option 5: They don't have to. :beard: votes: 1
Title: Immigrants
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-21, 12:21:18
Just recently, I was listening to a "community radio" from Gloucester. What was that community? For hours and hours it sounded as if I listened to a Jamaican radio. I have nothing against Jamaicans, even less against Reggae. But you know what?
I don't like a country with deep traditions, its own indigenous culture etc., I wouldn't like to see it boil into a sort of unintelligible vinaigrette, multicultural farrago!..
Sure, the USA is a different case, but what about those 'good ole' nations in Europe? Africa and Asia can be losing their "God given" cultural identity too, but for other reasons, I guess.
So, many people from different (and differing) cultures are allowed into and enter such a country. What then? Should they learn and adopt the host country's spirit? Because I tend to think that unless that, there's a possibilty to the people who've lived there for generations to get things the other way round. Dissolution? :rip:
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: rjhowie on 2014-04-21, 13:37:16
We have had a traditional welcome to immigrants in past times but nowadays it is something very, very different. The population is zooming up and at over 60 million and expected to go over 70  it is frightful. Utilities, schools, medical services, housing are all under strain - mostly in England although we are getting them up here gradually. They get houses dished out to them,furniture, bus passes and heaven knows what. Statisticians say that into the next century at the rate we are goiong the population will exceed 100 million eventually. As the indigenous have less children the framework of the nation changes and we are slowly becoming a hotch-potch rather than a shared sense of values.

This is an island and we are now ahead of the Netherlands on population cramming and is getting ridiculous. London, Birmingham and other centres of big populations are no longer traditional British. You can no longer have an open door and then start pandering to every lot of contradictory groups who want to be special cases. With so many places being swamped this relatively small island cannot go on as it is. All the guff about being a wide society is just that - guff. Instead we are developing apartheid and alienation and with a simmering militancy amongst many of the newbies the future will be bleak here.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-21, 13:44:08
So, you're concerned with the demographical and economical aspects too?
Do you travel within the UK?
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Colonel Rebel on 2014-04-22, 00:13:13
With the exception of Scotland, I think all immigrants should make a full effort to assimilate into their new home country, and if they do not speak the language of the country which has become their new home country, they should be required by law to have a working knowledge of the language.

Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2014-04-22, 10:02:44

With the exception of Scotland, I think all immigrants should make a full effort to assimilate into their new home country, and if they do not speak the language of the country which has become their new home country, they should be required by law to have a working knowledge of the language.

The American Indians would have loved that idea!

(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/MachineGunner.gif)
I grew up in a neighborhood filled with Slavic immigrants, many of whom had only a handful of English words. Somehow they managed to muddle through.

Now the area north of the city, Dearborn, is under Muslim control. This tongue-in-cheek link outlines the problems that have ensued.
Quote
In a surprise weekend vote, the city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to became the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law.  The tough new law, slated to go into effect January 1st, addresses secular law including crime, politics and economics as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet and hygiene.
The new law could see citizens stoned for adultery or having a limb amputated for theft. Lesser offenses, such as drinking alcohol or abortion, could result in flogging and/or caning. In addition, the law imposes harsh laws with regards to women and allows for child marriage.
- See more at: http://nationalreport.net/city-michigan-first-fully-implement-sharia-law/#sthash.dGtjmCVr.dpuf
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: rjhowie on 2014-04-25, 18:48:36
Josh may I say that i don't sit at a pc all the time and I travel. This island is overcrowded and the most so in Europe. England especially has changed it;'s whole lfe style. We have ghettoes right across England and although not so bad up here in the northern  part of the Kingdom (Scotland to you!) It is starting here. All the liberal talk about multicultural is a load of cobblers and is not working. Yes they should be required to have  our language and so on but they get far too much tolerance as if we  should somehow create a dumping ground of Europe and Asia. Small wonder the French are so happy for immigrants to come here so the Welfare State can be misused.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-04-25, 18:55:26
Small wonder the French are so happy for immigrants to come here so the Welfare State can be misused.

I do not have any practical experience with or knowledge of the UK, but Belgium might repatriate me if I so much as tried to even use its welfare system. That situation persists even while paying into the Belgian welfare state.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Belfrager on 2014-04-25, 20:26:02
but Belgium might repatriate me if I so much as tried to even use its welfare system. That situation persists even while paying into the Belgian welfare state.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=316.6;msg=18527)

Tin-Tin doesn't like you? or is it Poirot?
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-04-25, 20:37:45
The point is that although it's vaguely conceivable that the UK is different than most places, this idea of immigrants moving someplace and "abusing the welfare system" is fictional. Not too long ago I saw Vlaams Belang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlaams_Belang) trying to get votes by advocating for keeping things exactly the way they are. Of course, the way they phrased it they implied things are currently different.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Belfrager on 2014-04-25, 20:49:50
The point is that although it's vaguely conceivable that the UK is different than most places, this idea of immigrants moving someplace and "abusing the welfare system" is fictional.

It depends.
Gypsies are good on that. Very... creative.

A good place to live from welfare is France, it's the only one. You must go a little bit south.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Colonel Rebel on 2014-04-26, 02:10:23

The point is that although it's vaguely conceivable that the UK is different than most places, this idea of immigrants moving someplace and "abusing the welfare system" is fictional.

It depends.
Gypsies are good on that. Very... creative.

A good place to live from welfare is France, it's the only one. You must go a little bit south.

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-9U1MkZPUVfs%2FUw6v4UwmdwI%2FAAAAAAAAAhY%2FXJD_rsTsIDM%2Fs1600%2Fintrigued%2BGO%2BON.gif&hash=4ea11cbe295e42a09290a96c608fdf55" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9U1MkZPUVfs/Uw6v4UwmdwI/AAAAAAAAAhY/XJD_rsTsIDM/s1600/intrigued+GO+ON.gif)
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: jax on 2014-04-26, 07:40:34
To be resident there should be no requirements except the regular, follow the law, pay your taxes, kiss up, kick down... Next year you might be a resident of some other country.

To be a citizen there might be further civic ties, kiss the flag, be able to communicate, not being already a future liability like a career criminal, and so on.

If you get and raise children in a country there will be further responsibilities on their behalf.

Countries might in addition have their own people wish-list (university degree, half a million euros in small unmarked bills, no chewing gum). Many countries separate between short-term and permanent residency, the latter being a citizenship light with some limits and responsibilities.

In addition to the musts, there are some shoulds. The residents should learn the local languages early on, the earlier you learn it the earlier you benefit. The country should provide language lessons on attractive terms (relevant teaching, free or "learn now, pay later"), and access to  network for jobs and living. Immigrants bring to a country capabilities the natives often lack, but are often prevented from using them by the lack of contacts and local knowledge. The country shouldn't "promote" people (permanent residency, citizenship) without them showing the capability needed. You cannot "demote" a citizenship unless the person has another, but it is possible to do so both with no-longer-permanent and temporary residency.

Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2014-04-26, 11:33:51
If you're born there, you should become a citizen as you exit the amniotic sac.

Is that the case in the country where you ,or anybody else here, live.

Quote

The US Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, states:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2014-04-26, 11:48:02
Some people ain't never happy.
Right now, our big issue is with Mexicans crossing the border and heading North. There are parts of the city and suburbs here where English is definitely a second language-- when it's spoken at all.
Problem: Some of us can't be sure whether to be angry that Mexicans are taking our jobs-- or angry that Mexicans are applying for and receiving government aid.

Note: being something of a half-breed myself, I can never be quite sure whether to be happy that people from Europe-- specifically Scotland-- settled here, or be angry that Europeans took ancestral homelands and forced some of my ancestors onto reservations. Some of those reservations were none to secure if oil or gold would be discovered to be there, as White Man once again uprooted the original inhabitants to steal the mineral wealth of the land.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-26, 12:13:32
M., the two halves struggle within you, huh?:)
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-04-26, 12:37:53
Problem: Some of us can't be sure whether to be angry that Mexicans are taking our jobs-- or angry that Mexicans are applying for and receiving government aid.

Speaking the language properly is actually a marketable asset. That is, if I wanted to compete with e.g. Polish immigrants at the bottom of the labor market, all else being equal, my native-speaker Dutch should put me ahead of them. Also don't forget that another country already paid for the immigrant's education. If they receive some government aid after contributing for years, that's their right as much as anyone else's.

Quote from: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/high-school/top-10-myths-about-immigration
The net benefit of immigration to the U.S. is nearly $10 billion annually. As Alan Greenspan points out, 70% of immigrants arrive in prime working age. That means we haven't spent a penny on their education, yet they are transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our social security system over the next 20 years.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: string on 2014-04-26, 13:01:13
By "Immigrants" I presume it refers to those who come to a country to become it's citizens. In my view such people should most definitely learn the language and respect it's culture. But I'd not go so far as insisting that they loose their root culture as well for that would diminish the refreshing of the host country. For example no more St Patrick's Day in New York.

All too often the term immigrants is also used to describe people who come into a country to work, with the intention of returning to their original country or simply moving on. That's where the word "should" can come to the fore but that depends on what work they do and on the character of the host country. English speakers (whether from an English speaking country or not) are fortunate in that respect since learning the local language is not always a necessity.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-04-26, 13:06:24
For example no more St Patrick's Day in New York.
The States is a multicultural country by default.
Otherwise they'd have or should have assimilated to the Cherokee in the first place, themselves.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: ensbb3 on 2014-04-26, 13:25:16
Where the emigrant is from plays a big part.

European immigrants usually enter legally and contribute to the workforce with intentions on naturalization. Indian immigrants are more often intent on milking the government programs, educate their kids and use grants, for as much money to send back to India as possible until their visa runs out. Mexicans usually start out illegal sending money back until their family can acquire legal entry to use government money to educate their children and become citizens.

I'm not so sure immigration across the board is as beneficial as it should be.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: jax on 2014-04-26, 13:45:21

If you're born there, you should become a citizen as you exit the amniotic sac.

Is that the case in the country where you ,or anybody else here, live.

As an automatic citizenship I think that is very much the exception. Hong Kong and the US are the cases I can think of. However, someone born in a country generally have significant advantages over a child that arrives at e.g. 3 months of age.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-04-26, 13:47:17
By "Immigrants" I presume it refers to those who come to a country to become it's citizens. In my view such people should most definitely learn the language and respect it's culture. But I'd not go so far as insisting that they loose their root culture as well for that would diminish the refreshing of the host country. For example no more St Patrick's Day in New York.

But your Dutch isn't terribly good, even though you lived in the Netherlands for more years than I. I happen to think that's perfectly acceptable. You had a job, you paid your taxes, and you didn't cause any trouble. It's no different in principle from a Turkish man who's done much the same for 40 years, but is now suddenly asked to take some ludicrous language and culture test. A culture test that most natives would fail because culture is regional.

European immigrants usually enter legally and contribute to the workforce with intentions on naturalization. Indian immigrants are more often intent on milking the government programs, educate their kids and use grants, for as much money to send back to India as possible until their visa runs out.

How can you milk the system when the system first milked you for many thousands? It sounds more like rightful retribution to me. :devil: (I'm only somewhat kidding. Given all the fees involved in the process it'll probably take at least a year of welfare before you're remotely approaching being even. Legal immigration to the US and the Netherlands is for the rich.)
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: jax on 2014-04-26, 14:00:13

Where the emigrant is from plays a big part.

Where emigrating to, even when emigrating, seems to have a significant role.

It might be as simple as different cross sections of society. In Norway Indian immigrants do considerably better than the natives on education and other social scores (though Indians in India are less educated than Norwegians in Norway). When Vietnamese arrived in Norway in mass as boat refugees a generation ago (Norway had a lot of ships to pick them up, and Vietnamese were second to Pakistanis as most common non-European immigrants), Vietnamese youth crime was very high. Now again they do much better than other groups. Other groups that do poorly in Europe tend can do well in North America.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Belfrager on 2014-04-26, 14:08:04
Where the emigrant is from plays a big part.

So it does to where he goes.

In Europe, problems with immigration are more with the second and third generations than with the first generation of immigrants.
First generation are people that accepts low payments (but huge compared with those they had at their own countries) for having jobs that locals don't want to do but with their children things are different. Deep anti social behavior emerges at the second and third generations.

I don't know about the USA but I suppose the country is more socially open, things must be different.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: rjhowie on 2014-04-27, 00:26:33
It may appear more socially open because that is the standard propaganda but in practice somewhat different.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Macallan on 2014-04-27, 11:50:49

European immigrants usually enter legally and contribute to the workforce with intentions on naturalization.

To be fair though, they ( well, most of them ) also have a much easier time to actually get into the country legally and get a work permit. Still costs a pile of money and a lot of patience though.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Macallan on 2014-04-27, 11:59:13

By "Immigrants" I presume it refers to those who come to a country to become it's citizens. In my view such people should most definitely learn the language and respect it's culture.

I agree, at the very least they should be able to communicate with the authorities, potential employers etc. without too much hassle.
I'm not so sure about 'respecting the culture' though. Sure, when in Rome do as the Romans. To a degree.


But I'd not go so far as insisting that they loose their root culture as well for that would diminish the refreshing of the host country. For example no more St Patrick's Day in New York.

Berlin would be a much more boring place if all the Turks there suddenly became 100% germanized :right:
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Belfrager on 2014-04-27, 12:14:25
Still costs a pile of money and a lot of patience though.

It's totally absurd.
A friend of mine, working as a director for an American company here, was invited to direct some project in the USA for the same company. He showed me the size of the dossier that the company's lawyers had to prepare so he could get a residence and work permit there.
The easiest thing was to demonstrate that the work couldn't be done by any American...

I would never have patience for such a thing.
It doesn't surprise me at all. Such policies are what American consulting companies are selling to third world governments these days, as for example Angola. It seems that they also sell it to their own Government...
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Macallan on 2014-04-27, 12:27:56

Still costs a pile of money and a lot of patience though.

It's totally absurd.

Indeed. You should have seen the spanish inquisition I had to go through in 2003 in Amsterdam just to get on a plane to the US.
Typical american though - overreacting & security theatre. On my 2nd trip, this time from Frankfurt, things were much more relaxed.


A friend of mine, working as a director for an American company here, was invited to direct some project in the USA for the same company. He showed me the size of the dossier that the company's lawyers had to prepare so he could get a residence and work permit there.
The easiest thing was to demonstrate that the work couldn't be done by any American...

That's beyond ridiculous.


I would never have patience for such a thing.

Things certainly got worse. 10 years ago you could get on a plane to the US ( as an EU citizen at least ), fill in some ridiculous form on the way ( Did you take part in world war II on the axis side? Were you a member of the nazi party? Are you a dirty communist? Do you plan to overthrow the US government? Are you the world's dumbest wannabe terrorist? ) and get the equivalent of a tourist visa. Now everything has to be pre-screened.


It doesn't surprise me at all. Such policies are what American consulting companies are selling to third world governments these days, as for example Angola. It seems that they also sell it to their own Government...

Institutionalized paranoia. Security theatre. Harass regular travellers in order to somehow get the illegal ones.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-04-27, 12:42:20
I agree, at the very least they should be able to communicate with the authorities, potential employers etc. without too much hassle.

I don't know if this is still the case, but when I still lived in the Netherlands a few years ago, tons of former East German builders were working in the country. There was no work where they were from, but they were professional tradesmen. Communication went perfectly in extremely broken German coupled with hand gestures.

When my uncle led building projects in Saudi Arabia, do you think any of the mostly Filipino workers spoke Arabian, French, or even English? No, the foremen spoke some broken Engrish or Flench and that was good enough.

None of this is remotely as problematic as is claimed.

You want people to speak the language properly? Offer free language courses. And don't forget about night courses. Most of these people have work to do during the day.

Legal immigration is already practically impossible. Yet they want to make it even harder. It's insane and it would be our downfall if we didn't have intra-EU immigration.

Things certainly got worse. 10 years ago you could get on a plane to the US ( as an EU citizen at least ), fill in some ridiculous form on the way ( Did you take part in world war II on the axis side? Were you a member of the nazi party? Are you a dirty communist? Do you plan to overthrow the US government? Are you the world's dumbest wannabe terrorist? ) and get the equivalent of a tourist visa. Now everything has to be pre-screened.

It was still that way in 2008. I think it was in '09 when they changed things. They gave me a visa for free then, which expired two years ago. Next time I'll have to pay via credit card. Honestly, these people want to kill tourism. I'm not going to beg just so I can spend my money in the US.

The questions they ask are incredibly idiotic, myopic nonsense.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Belfrager on 2014-04-27, 13:01:48
Institutionalized paranoia. Security theatre.

That's half of the problem, the other half being consulting business.

People are not realizing how much consulting business is affecting their lives, rights and freedoms.
Policies, business and economical activities all over the world are being defined by consultant companies. The same consultant companies.
Banking, Insurance, Government processes, everything is being defined by the same guys.

The more institutionalized paranoia and security theater makes part of people's life the more governments hires consulting companies. Immigration regulations are the perfect place to do experiments, nobody has no one to complain about.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Macallan on 2014-04-27, 13:02:51

I agree, at the very least they should be able to communicate with the authorities, potential employers etc. without too much hassle.

I don't know if this is still the case, but when I still lived in the Netherlands a few years ago, tons of former East German builders were working in the country. There was no work where they were from, but they were professional tradesmen. Communication went perfectly in extremely broken German coupled with hand gestures.

When my uncle led building projects in Saudi Arabia, do you think any of the mostly Filipino workers spoke Arabian, French, or even English? No, the foremen spoke some broken Engrish or Flench and that was good enough.

None of this is remotely as problematic as is claimed.

Well, they were able to communicate with employers, authorities etc. in some way.
( you don't seriously expect me to disagree with you on this one, do you? :p )


Things certainly got worse. 10 years ago you could get on a plane to the US ( as an EU citizen at least ), fill in some ridiculous form on the way ( Did you take part in world war II on the axis side? Were you a member of the nazi party? Are you a dirty communist? Do you plan to overthrow the US government? Are you the world's dumbest wannabe terrorist? ) and get the equivalent of a tourist visa. Now everything has to be pre-screened.

It was still that way in 2008. I think it was in '09 when they changed things. They gave me a visa for free then, which expired two years ago. Next time I'll have to pay via credit card. Honestly, these people want to kill tourism. I'm not going to beg just so I can spend my money in the US.

These days you even need a passport to get to Canada. And not because the Canadians want it :faint:


The questions they ask are incredibly idiotic, myopic nonsense.

Yeah, I always wondered what the hell they tried to accomplish with these questions. Nobody in his/her/its right mind would check Yes, I do plan to overthrow the US government.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: jax on 2014-04-27, 13:14:14

I don't know if this is still the case, but when I still lived in the Netherlands a few years ago, tons of former East German builders were working in the country. There was no work where they were from, but they were professional tradesmen. Communication went perfectly in extremely broken German coupled with hand gestures.

When my uncle led building projects in Saudi Arabia, do you think any of the mostly Filipino workers spoke Arabian, French, or even English? No, the foremen spoke some broken Engrish or Flench and that was good enough.

None of this is remotely as problematic as is claimed.

You want people to speak the language properly? Offer free language courses. And don't forget about night courses. Most of these people have work to do during the day.

Some Norwegians were annoyed by an ad for construction workers where there was a language requirement, the applicants had to speak fluent Polish. That made perfect sense, Poles is probably the greatest group of construction workers in Norway, unfortunately very few Norwegians without Polish ancestry speak that language.

Then again, they were reconstructing my building in Oslo recently, the workers were Polish, Swedish, and Norwegian, and they got the job done just fine. The foreman was British I guess, but spoke fluent Norwegian with just a trace of an accent.

In Prague I've known foreigners over decades, a few get completely fluent, some get to a decent level, some pass by, many have just a rudimentary command of Czech, and a few don't even have that. European and North American immigrants mostly speak English well, but Asian immigrants may not necessarily (some of these speak Russian though). Ukrainians have the same roles in the Czech Republic as Poles have in Norway. The children are all speaking Czech well, and usually a couple more languages as well.

That said, not speaking Czech puts them at a significant disadvantage, and Czech Bureacratese is brutal.

Norway has reduced their language service, which I consider somewhat idiotic. If anyone is willing to learn Norwegian that should be encouraged, it's not exactly the most popular language in the world. Though in typical Norwegian fashion they have made the language classes as expensive for the state as possible.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-04-27, 13:19:54
Yeah, I always wondered what the hell they tried to accomplish with these questions. Nobody in his/her/its right mind would check Yes, I do plan to overthrow the US government.

Not just on the forms, but also at the border itself. How much money do you have on you? How many credit cards do you have? You answer truthfully (about $50, I think; one credit card), but what on earth is behind asking that? Everybody knows ATMs in the country of destination are the best way to get the local currency*, and only in the US do they have this ludicrous idea that credit is a good thing on general principle. Also, some of the questions seemed to imply I might want to remain in the US illegally. Why on earth would I want to stay illegally when in a worst case scenario I can get significantly better welfare at home?

Basically, there is this Visa Waiver Program (http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/visit/visa-waiver-program.html). If you charge me for this Visa Waiver, it's just a visa by another name. If you ask me all kinds of stupid questions, it's just a visa by another name. Visas themselves are probably a Bad Thing, but I suggest not giving me the visa experience if you claim to waive my visa.

* Although in the US the banks charge for it, so perhaps that's not actually true in this particular instance. On the other hand, why would I want to carry $1000 or more all at once.
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Macallan on 2014-04-27, 13:45:24

Yeah, I always wondered what the hell they tried to accomplish with these questions. Nobody in his/her/its right mind would check Yes, I do plan to overthrow the US government.

Not just on the forms, but also at the border itself. How much money do you have on you? How many credit cards do you have? You answer truthfully (about $50, I think; one credit card), but what on earth is behind asking that?

Probably just to make you uncomfortable and see how you respond. Then again, I'm probably giving them too much credit :right:


Everybody knows ATMs in the country of destination are the best way to get the local currency*, and only in the US do they have this ludicrous idea that credit is a good thing on general principle.

Indeed. Why pay exchange offices which likely charge more than an ATM?


Also, some of the questions seemed to imply I might want to remain in the US illegally. Why on earth would I want to stay illegally when in a worst case scenario I can get significantly better welfare at home?

And why would you tell them if you did?


* Although in the US the banks charge for it, so perhaps that's not actually true in this particular instance. On the other hand, why would I want to carry $1000 or more all at once.

Depends on the bank. Some charge more, others charge less, Washington Mutual used to charge nothing.
And of course you'd carry a wad of cash just to look suspicious :right:
Title: Re: Immigrants
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-04-27, 14:20:59
Probably just to make you uncomfortable and see how you respond. Then again, I'm probably giving them too much credit

Probably. :D

And why would you tell them if you did?

These underpaid near-minimum wage employees are obviously well-trained in microexpressions. :right: