What a great new law!!

[lolwatever]

ps.. and out of an entire post you decide to choose the first two words "I'm sorry" and make what now seems to have been a sarcarstic remark, and totally ignored the rest of it :uuh:

I'm sorry but when you're talking about law, you need to be specific. You can't make general statements and expect people to assume you're beign specific.

And as i mentioned, it's still a bad law in my opinion for the reasons i mentioned in my post that directly preceeds this.

chill sis... no need to get emotional over a discussion.

I was happy to let it be ignored when i thought you to be serious about no hradfeelings... but looks like you still need to face the pionts i made there.

 

[SUMMAYAH]

lol how am i being a stubborn?

You made a claim, you need to prove it. Now you're falling back on your statement and making claims about who needs what based on absolutely no emperical evidence.

I'm sorry but you seem to have bad communication skills... first its making general statements backed by flimsy "Islamic evidence".

Then you blame people for picking big holes in your statements which you made absolutely no effort whatsoever to fix up or put in context.

now it's attempting to discredit people's comments by making claims about travel based on the very little you've heard from some people.

subhanallah... :mmokay:

you've made your point. next time i'll break it down for you so you find it easier to understand.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

this law will be abused i tell u this right now, watch they wont let people they dont like in. i can tell, bah fat officers!!

 

[SUMMAYAH]

this law will be abused i tell u this right now, watch they wont let people they dont like in. i can tell, bah fat officers!!

I believe once people get the hang of it, they will find the loopholes and fit through them.
A bit like when the theory test for driving was introduced, someone else could easily go and take the test for you......

in other words it could be abused both ways

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I believe once people get the hang of it, they will find the loopholes and fit through them.
A bit like when the theory test for driving was introduced, someone else could easily go and take the test for you......

in other words it could be abused both ways

loopholes will eventually get sealed, bah fat officers!!!

 

[lolwatever]

you've made your point. next time i'll break it down for you so you find it easier to understand.

can you quit the arrogance and face reality. ^o)

Just like you can't say "Killing is good" and assume people to think that you only referring to self defence.

You simply can't say "Allowing english speakers only is good" and assume people to think you're only referring to non-refugees.

I'm sorry but that's reality.

I recommed you fix up your first post and back it up by sound Islamic evidence instead of personal opinion if you want to give it some islamic credentials.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

islams all about unity and good manners

 

[SUMMAYAH]

islams all about unity and good manners

Thankyou for the reminder brother. I'm willing to tone it down.

 

[SilentObserver]

first post which is a very general and dangerous statement.

Dangerous for whom? Not for the people that are citizens of the country. Laws are made to protect the citizens of a country, not people wanting to be.

As i mentioned previously, to think that someone won't be a friendly element in society just becasue they don't speak english is a psychological handicap in the one who thinks that.

Nobody has argued that this was a concern. 'Friendly' isn't the point. The point that has been made repeatedly, is that the inability to communicate effectively, creates many problems, and is a burden on the system.
Coincidently, it is an intellectual handicap to be inable to grasp the meaning of the spoken or written word in conversation, some that speak english well, seem unable to understand it.

It's the community that neesd to be re-habilitated and not the incoming member.

Rehabilitated? Who said anything about rehabilitating? Although it is completely irrelevent, I'll briefly comment. It depends on which community we are talking about. As for my community, it belongs to us, the people that are here now. If anyone wants to join us, they can adjust for us, not the other way around. They are free not to join if they wish. As for your "incoming member", again, it depends on who the person is. A blanket statement such as you have made, assumes all of these potential 'incoming members' are good people, worthy of being accepted. Some people are just bad people, no matter where they come from. Anyway, this is off on a tangent. The discussion is about language, not rehabilitation.

Just because two people don't share teh same language, doesn't mean one should be rejected.

If they don't speak the national language, then they need to take lessons. When thay can speak at an acceptable level, then they may apply for immigration.

It only shows that the community has an inferiority complex that needs to be adressed.

LOL! This is such an odd statement that it is difficult to decide what should be said and what should not. I 'll keep it brief. The community has an inferiority complex? I'm sorry, but it's just a nonsense statement. I'll humour you enough to ask this, inferior to what or who?
The community has esteem issues? Honestly, that's just a weird statement. There is no connection between the statement and the discussion about language.

 

[lolwatever]

and no need to get emotional, my opinion is based on the first post which is a very general and dangerous statement. Giving support to a law that doesn't take into consideration any of the effects i mentioned.

Dangerous for whom? Not for the people that are citizens of the country. Laws are made to protect the citizens of a country, not people wanting to be.

It's dangerous becasue you're assuming that only english-speaking immigrants are good for the economy, which is absolutely wrong, that doesn't provide any reasonable security measure what so ever.

It doesn't protect the society at all. It simply means you're discriminating and stereo-typing based on language and accepting any english-speaker even if he's a villain.

How is that protecting society :?

As i mentioned previously, to think that someone won't be a friendly element in society just becasue they don't speak english is a psychological handicap in the one who thinks that.

Nobody has argued that this was a concern. 'Friendly' isn't the point. The point that has been made repeatedly, is that the inability to communicate effectively, creates many problems, and is a burden on the system.

You clearly implied that cactus behaviour of non-english speakers is a result of their linguistic problem. Here,

Erm i'd rather a well behaved person who has no idea about my language be my neighbor rather than someone well spoken in english but with cactus behaviour.

That's a nice opinion. But I would rather have the guy that can't speak english learn it first, along with the culture courses I mentioned, so that he does know my language, and no longer has cactus behaviour because he feels more comfortable and can understand the situations he finds himself in.
That's for sure. A few in here speak english well ...

Not only did you totally ignore the point, but you're also associating bad behaviour with inability to speak english, which is something you can not prove. I can assure you that if I moved into indonesia i won't become a bad element just because i don't speak indo :uuh: or just because i didn't undergo a culture transformation.

I have friends who are english speaking and have visited China for example, and even though the lingusitic barriers whre huge, they still made friends and gained reputation even though their communication was a large part sign language.

What, so just because he didn't speak chinese (and didn't have the time to learn it) he should have been kicked out of there?:muddlehea And that, to you, is a "security measure"? :uuh:

Coincidently, it is an intellectual handicap to be inable to grasp the meaning of the spoken or written word in conversation, some that speak english well, seem unable to understand it.

so? and how is it a form of protection to banish handicapped people from society? :?

It's the community that neesd to be re-habilitated and not the incoming member.

Rehabilitated? Who said anything about rehabilitating? Although it is completely irrelevent, I'll briefly comment. It depends on which community we are talking about. As for my community, it belongs to us, the people that are here now. If anyone wants to join us, they can adjust for us, not the other way around. They are free not to join if they wish. As for your "incoming member", again, it depends on who the person is. A blanket statement such as you have made, assumes all of these potential 'incoming members' are good people, worthy of being accepted. Some people are just bad people, no matter where they come from. Anyway, this is off on a tangent. The discussion is about language, not rehabilitation.

Not only you evaded entire portion of that pargraph, You totally avoided the point, infact you decided to pluck a sentence out of an entire pargraph and go off topic and then blame me for beign irrelevent. Here's what i said:

It's the community that neesd to be re-habilitated and not the incoming member. Part of a multi-cultural society is that you have people from very different backgrounds with different langauges all living in same society. Just because two people don't share teh same language, doesn't mean one should be rejected.

If they don't speak the national language, then they need to take lessons. When thay can speak at an acceptable level, then they may apply for immigration.

That's very unpractical and unrealistic, people don't immigrate just to sit around and socialise. People have different motives, some need to immigrate immediatley for business or other valid personal reasons.

Rather than making language an entry criteria, the government should accept them based on their character/reasons and then provide langauge tuition facilities.

That way an economy can encourage immigration of useful members rather than turning them off the idea and diverting thier skills/benefits elsewhere. It also means that even english-speaking immigrants with moral/behaviour issues will be kept far away, since the system is indiscriminate.

The community has an inferiority complex? I'm sorry, but it's just a nonsense statement. I'll humour you enough to ask this, inferior to what or who? The community has esteem issues? Honestly

To believe that banning non-english speaking members is a protective measure is indicative of an inferiority complex.

 

[SUMMAYAH]

No comments...(although I can think of a few.......)

 

[SilentObserver]

It's dangerous becasue you're assuming that only english-speaking immigrants are good for the economy, which is absolutely wrong, that doesn't provide any reasonable security measure what so ever.

Continuing with your strawman arguing, it only works when people don't call you on it. I did not base my opinion on economy, read again. And why do you start your rebuttle with 'economy', and back it up with 'security measures'? You're all over the place. Anyway, my opinion was not based on 'security measures' either. Read again.

I'm getting a little tired of our discussion, as it is a waste of time to continue discussion with a person that doesn't seem to know what it is that we are discussing. EXAMPLE: Fred:"Gee Tom, I've really noticed how well your garden is growing this year." Tom: "What do you mean, Fred? My car is running great, why do say that my house needs painting?

It's dangerous becasue you're assuming

Again, who is this dangerous for?

It doesn't protect the society at all. It simply means you're discriminating and stereo-typing based on language

Strawman. No stereo-typing based on language was mentioned. Just learn the language first, then fill out your application for immigration. In english.

accepting any english-speaker even if he's a villain.

I don't agree with letting criminals in. Did I say that?

you're also associating bad behaviour with inability to speak english, which is something you can not prove.

You clearly are having a hard time understanding english in the written form. I actually (in that situation) associated bad behaviour with frustration from the problems stemming from inability to effectively communicate. This is just one of the problems that arise. I originally associated bad behaviour with a person not understanding the culture, and the social values, and ettiquette. This is why they should also be educated on the culture as well.
Before going to Japan, even for a visit, I think it best that I would brush up on Japanese culture and ettiquette. It's common sense. Why argue against common sense?

I have friends who are english speaking and have visited China for example, and even though the lingusitic barriers whre huge, they still made friends and gained reputation even though their communication was a large part sign language.

Visited or moved to?

Either way, it doesn't matter. I am very aware of the problems associated with the inability to effectively communicate for immigrants. These problems could have been minimized or avoided if they had learned the language before arriving.

And that, to you, is a "security measure"? :uuh:

Security measure? What are we talking about now? Please refer back to my comments about getting tired of our discussion, and why.

so? and how is it a form of protection to banish handicapped people from society? :?

LOL! I was referring to you and your inability to grasp the meaning of my words. And true to form, you missed the meaning. And again, "form of protection", what are we talking about? See earlier comments about our conversation again. I have not said anything about 'protection'.

Not only you evaded entire portion of that pargraph, You totally avoided the point, infact you decided to pluck a sentence out of an entire pargraph and go off topic and then blame me for beign irrelevent. Here's what i said:

Strawman arguement upon a strawman arguement, again. Rehabilitation was not part of the discussion, and completely off-topic. It was correct for me to point this out and steer the conversation back, such as I am doing now.
Remember the conversation. This law about language and immigrants. The discussion we have been having in relation to this was about the problems, and how to overcome them. By learning the language before arriving. Some cultural education would be an asset as well.

That's very unpractical and unrealistic, people don't immigrate just to sit around and socialise. People have different motives, some need to immigrate immediatley for business or other valid personal reasons.

There is nothing impractical about expecting people that desire to come to my country to know the language and something about how we live.

some need to immigrate immediatley for business or other valid personal reasons.

What they need is not the concern of me or my country. Our concern is what we value, and see as best for our country. If that person is accepted (after learning the language), then they will become one of 'us' in my country. Then they become part of our concern, not before.

Rather than making language an entry criteria, the government should accept them based on their character/reasons and then provide langauge tuition facilities.

That's very unpractical and unrealistic, governments don't allow immigration just to waste a bunch of resources on trying to figure out a person's character (how would the government even know?), and to waste OUR resources on tutoring them. If they want to come to my country, they can use their own resources in their home country, learn the language, and THEN apply. In english, of course.

That way an economy can encourage immigration of useful members rather than turning them off the idea and diverting thier skills/benefits elsewhere. It also means that even english-speaking immigrants with moral/behaviour issues will be kept far away, since the system is indiscriminate.

Instead of bringing in people that can't speak the language, and all the problems that brings. It is better to fill any void (if there is one) in skills, by training the people that already live in the country that do not have skills.

You have not stated how a government would keep out people with moral/behavioural problems. I believe most governments already watch for behavioural problems by not allowing people with criminal records in. This is nothing new. And of course fits perfectly well with insisting that people know the language, as well as have a clean criminal record.

To believe that banning non-english speaking members is a protective measure is indicative of an inferiority complex.

Protective measure? *sigh* Please refer to earlier comments about getting tired of discussion. It is that, or another strawman arguement. Nobody said anything about protective measures, or banning anyone. What was said, is that they should learn the language first. Then they are welcome to apply.

You seem to think that people have a right to immigrate to any given country. Make no mistake about it, it is not a right. It's a privilege. A person is asking for the privilege to move to my country. To come to my home. Just because someone knocks on my front door does not mean that I have to let them into my house. Just because they have money to rent a room does not mean I have to allow them to live with me. I may very well decide that there are enough people living in my house already. Or, I may also decide, a person that does not speak english needs to learn it before they are allowed to rent a room. Why? Because it's my house.

 

[lolwatever]

Continuing with your strawman arguing, it only works when people don't call you on it. I did not base my opinion on economy, read again. And why do you start your rebuttle with 'economy', and back it up with 'security measures'? You're all over the place. Anyway, my opinion was not based on 'security measures' either. Read again.

I'm getting a little tired of our discussion, as it is a waste of time to continue discussion with a person that doesn't seem to know what it is that we are discussing. EXAMPLE: Fred:"Gee Tom, I've really noticed how well your garden is growing this year." Tom: "What do you mean, Fred? My car is running great, why do say that my house needs painting?

Again, who is this dangerous for?

Security measure? What are we talking about now? Please refer back to my comments about getting tired of our discussion, and why.


Protective measure? *sigh* Please refer to earlier comments about getting tired of discussion. It is that, or another strawman arguement. Nobody said anything about protective measures, or banning anyone. What was said, is that they should learn the language first. Then they are welcome to apply.

Dangerous for whom? Not for the people that are citizens of the country. Laws are made to protect the citizens of a country, not people wanting to be.

I rest my case.

Before resorting to silly terms and regurgitating them so immaturely, it might help to realise that emotions only make you look foolish.

Next time, read your own comments.

I'm sorry but laws are also designed for the benefit of the economy, a country is an economy... might help to read about how fundamental economics is to legislation before you come and try seperate the two. Just becasue you're illiterate in economics shouldn't mean that others need to ignore the economic effects of such policies. :uuh:

The rest i'll reply to in a moment.

 

[lolwatever]

also, might help to reply to things in the context they where mentioned in, rather than tryign to pick a sentence and reply to it out of its context :thankyou:

 

[SilentObserver]

Originally Posted by SilentObserver

Continuing with your strawman arguing, it only works when people don't call you on it. I did not base my opinion on economy, read again. And why do you start your rebuttle with 'economy', and back it up with 'security measures'? You're all over the place. Anyway, my opinion was not based on 'security measures' either. Read again.

I'm getting a little tired of our discussion, as it is a waste of time to continue discussion with a person that doesn't seem to know what it is that we are discussing. EXAMPLE: Fred:"Gee Tom, I've really noticed how well your garden is growing this year." Tom: "What do you mean, Fred? My car is running great, why do say that my house needs painting?

Again, who is this dangerous for?

Security measure? What are we talking about now? Please refer back to my comments about getting tired of our discussion, and why.


Protective measure? *sigh* Please refer to earlier comments about getting tired of discussion. It is that, or another strawman arguement. Nobody said anything about protective measures, or banning anyone. What was said, is that they should learn the language first. Then they are welcome to apply.

Originally Posted by SilentObserver

Dangerous for whom? Not for the people that are citizens of the country. Laws are made to protect the citizens of a country, not people wanting to be.

I rest my case.

Why rest your case? On one point, the discussion was about a very specific law, in the other, a statement was made about laws in general. A weak arguement has been made here. This is not a good time for you to rest your case.

Before resorting to silly terms and regurgitating them so immaturely, it might help to realise that emotions only make you look foolish.

As I told you before, strawman arguements only work when people don't realize you are using them, and don't call you on them.
Silly terms? Regurgitating? Immaturely? Very colorful dialogue, but accusations that lack substance. It's ok, I imagine you are only speaking this way because you are upset. All is forgiven.

it might help to realise that emotions only make you look foolish.

Emotions? No. I'm really not that passionate about immigration laws. But you are right, emotions do make you look foolish.

Next time, read your own comments.

I do. There is nothing to refute.

The rest i'll reply to in a moment.

Ok. Please stay on topic this time if you don't mind. Oh, and please refrain from the strawman arguements. They really don't work, and only waste time.

 

[lolwatever]

^ more verbal dihorrea.

you clearly said it was a security measure, here:

Dangerous for whom? Not for the people that are citizens of the country. Laws are made to protect the citizens of a country, not people wanting to be.

That very vague law metnioned in the first post is not a protective measure. It's a discriminatory law. And the erst of my argumetns where defending that point.

Strawman? How so?

 

[SilentObserver]

^ more verbal dihorrea.

Actually, it's spelled 'Diarrhea'.

you clearly said it was a security measure, here:

I was actually stating "who" the laws were made for, and only pointed to one of the reasons for laws. But the point was to state the laws were for the existing citizens, not wannabe immigrants. But pardon my unspecific wording. You are right, I can see how that might be misleading. I'll rephrase, in fact I'll expand to the three main reasons for laws: 1)laws exist because they promote the health or safety of everyone in the society.
2)A law exists because a majority of the people in the society agrees with it. (example: public nakedness, excessive noise, etc)
3)A law exists because it helps the society to function more smoothly.

Notice that all three talk about "the society". Not people from "another society", but "the society" and the people "within" it.

That very vague law metnioned in the first post is not a protective measure. It's a discriminatory law. And the erst of my argumetns where defending that point.

Defending a point that is wrong, sorry to say. This type of law falls under reason #3, A law exists because it helps the society to function more smoothly.

Strawman? How so?

LOL! Each and every time you misrepresent my position throughout the posts. Example: suggesting I am saying to keep out refugees, in order to refute this opinion, thus strengthening your own position. Of course I removed the strength behind this tactic by stating my real position, which is of course that refugees need to be dealt with differently.

 

[lolwatever]

^ where did you get those 3 conditions from, well atleast it seems you've retracted your support for the quote in red which i based my arguments upon (not strawmen, as you claimed).

I've completed the economics component of my commerce degree and i knwo for fact that you're reasons are baseless. They are not the fundamental reasons behidn laws, they're only a consequence of the fundamental reason behind a law.

Laws are created for the benefit of the economy, By the law of opportunity cost. Nothing else.

Legislating that only english speakers can immigrate is an economically miserable policy. It goes against almost every field of economics (welfare, labour, international etc...) economcis

No more no less, if i'm wrong, prove it.

 

[SilentObserver]

^ where did you get those 3 conditions from, well atleast it seems you've retracted your support for the quote in red which i based my arguments upon (not strawmen, as you claimed).

I've completed the economics component of my commerce degree and i knwo for fact that you're reasons are baseless. They are not the fundamental reasons behidn laws, they're only a consequence of the fundamental reason behind a law.

Laws are created for the benefit of the economy, By the law of opportunity cost. Nothing else.

Legislating that only english speakers can immigrate is an economically miserable policy. It goes against almost every field of economics (welfare, labour, international etc...) economcis

No more no less, if i'm wrong, prove it.

I've heard many definitions of the reason(s) for law, some idealistic, and some very cynical. But I've never heard that one. I would consider that one of the cynical ones. Of course, the reason behind laws depends on who's laws we are speaking of. If we are speaking of current laws for some of the countries today, then unfortunately I partially would have to agree with that definition. The truth is though, most countries have different types of law. Some govern things that have little to do with economics. Corporate law obviously deals with economics. There are varying arguements to what extent administrative law and constitutional law have to do with economics, and it depends which country, many americans will grumble that it has plenty to do with it. Property law also has much to do with economics, but the intent is supposed to protect the individual ownership, in other words, 'what's mine is mine'. The list of types of laws is endless. Some countries have many types, while others have one system only.

Anyway, considering all countries everywhere, to sum up the purpose of law, I would disagee with

"Laws are created for the benefit of the economy, By the law of opportunity cost. Nothing else."

The purpose of law is different from country to country, and is somewhat abstract really. But to define it in the most cynical terms is less beneficial than defining it in the most idealistic terms.
There is some valid arguement that every individual law in every country has it's own individual purpose.

well atleast it seems you've retracted your support for the quote in red which i based my arguments upon

How did you draw this conclusion? I have not retracted this as you have suggested. Please read again what was said. Laws are indeed created (in most countries) to protect citizens in addition to the other to reasons I mentioned.

I've completed the economics component of my commerce degree and i knwo for fact that you're reasons are baseless. They are not the fundamental reasons behidn laws, they're only a consequence of the fundamental reason behind a law.

That's very nice, but only proves the worth of a more rounded education. You have not expanded your thinking past the laws of commerce and economics to realize that there are many other types of law in most countries. Why do you think there are so many types of lawyers? The law that they taught you in your commerce courses was not meant to apply to all fields. Was this not explained to you?
Economics courses does not make you an expert on law. Unless of course you are about to tell me that you also have finished law school as well. So, you know nothing for fact. You are basing your arguements on a flawed structure. The basis of your arguement is not relevent as economic law does not apply. The house of cards collapses.

Legislating that only english speakers can immigrate is an economically miserable policy.

This depends on the country and what they are trying to acomplish economically. Usually a labour shortage. This is better overcome by training the people that exist already. In other words, increase funding for education, tuition, schools, universities, etc. Bringing people in to fill a labour void is a bandage solution that is doomed to fail, as it only prolongs the situation.

No more no less, if i'm wrong, prove it.

Neither of us can prove anything without a working model. The closest we can come to this is look at countries that do "look out for their own". Typically they do better. If our debate is proof enough, then I already have proven you wrong. You have been defeated long ago. You just have not seemed yet to realize this.
But it's ok, I'm enjoying this.

 

[lolwatever]

I've heard many definitions of the reason(s) for law, some idealistic, and some very cynical. But I've never heard that one. I would consider that one of the cynical ones. Of course, the reason behind laws depends on who's laws we are speaking of. If we are speaking of current laws for some of the countries today, then unfortunately I partially would have to agree with that definition. The truth is though, most countries have different types of law. Some govern things that have little to do with economics. Corporate law obviously deals with economics. There are varying arguements to what extent administrative law and constitutional law have to do with economics, and it depends which country, many americans will grumble that it has plenty to do with it. Property law also has much to do with economics, but the intent is supposed to protect the individual ownership, in other words, 'what's mine is mine'. The list of types of laws is endless. Some countries have many types, while others have one system only.

Anyway, considering all countries everywhere, to sum up the purpose of law, I would disagee with

i'm sorry but you havn't proven to me that my claim is false.

Regardless of the economy you're talking about, economics is what governs any countries legislations. Whether its a corrupt regime or not, it's economics that governs peoples behaviours.

I think the problem lies with your understanding of what exactly economics is... perhaps you're one of those who think its to do with materialism or money or thing slike that?

Perhaps if you define what economics is we'll be able to clear up a few of your misunderstandings.

The purpose of law is different from country to country, and is somewhat abstract really. But to define it in the most cynical terms is less beneficial than defining it in the most idealistic terms.
There is some valid arguement that every individual law in every country has it's own individual purpose.

I wasn't being cynical, i was being very serious. What is at the core of economic reasoning is "The principle of Opportunity Cost", if you understood the law you'd agree with me that it is what exaclty governs legal systems and societies.

You aren't making any point by labelling what you don't understand as 'cynical'.

How did you draw this conclusion? I have not retracted this as you have suggested. Please read again what was said. Laws are indeed created (in most countries) to protect citizens in addition to the other to reasons I mentioned.

i don't see any 'addition' term in your new definition 2 posts above, nor did i see the protection measure phrase in the 'expanded version' :giggling:

That's very nice, but only proves the worth of a more rounded education. You have not expanded your thinking past the laws of commerce and economics to realize that there are many other types of law in most countries. Why do you think there are so many types of lawyers? The law that they taught you in your commerce courses was not meant to apply to all fields. Was this not explained to you?

i really think the issue is that you don't seem to know what economics is. It extends faaaar far far beyond monetary concepts, at the crux of economics is the principle of opportunity cost which is exactly what governs the behaviour of human beings subconciously.

Economics underlies everything we do. It lurks behind such questions as why recessions take place, why interest rates change, why there was a fuel crisis, and when is the best time to buy a house or take out a loan. But economics is a great deal more than money and jobs. It crosses every aspect of our society – drawing on other disciplines such as politics, psychology, sociology and ethics.

source


This isn't a discussion about economics, but the
reasonableness of that law can be easily deduced via simple economic analysis.

Economics courses does not make you an expert on law. Unless of course you are about to tell me that you also have finished law school as well.

I'm glad there's a few people here that can witness to my claims. No I'm not a law student, but as other academics would say, economisc is what underlies that discipline as well.

It's unfortunate that people who have no idea about economics want to limit it's applicabiltiy to money and jobs. I hope you're not one of those.

So, you know nothing for fact. You are basing your arguements on a flawed structure. The basis of your arguement is not relevent as economic law does not apply. The house of cards collapses.

lol not so fast... i quoted one of many books out there that are exactly designed to refute your beliefs.

Legislating that only english speakers can immigrate is an economically miserable policy.

This depends on the country and what they are trying to acomplish economically. Usually a labour shortage. This is better overcome by training the people that exist already. In other words, increase funding for education, tuition, schools, universities, etc. Bringing people in to fill a labour void is a bandage solution that is doomed to fail, as it only prolongs the situation.

i'm sorry but you seem to have a very poor understanding of what economics is, why are you all of a sudden trying to limit the economic effects of such a policy to labour shortage, as if economics is the study of labour markets and money or something. ffended:

Please.. before you start designing economic policies, perhaps get a better idea of what economics is in the first place :heated:

Neither of us can prove anything without a working model. The closest we can come to this is look at countries that do "look out for their own". Typically they do better. If our debate is proof enough, then I already have proven you wrong.

more formally, countries "would legislate something if the marginal benefit of that law is greater than the marginal cost". Which is exactly the law of opportunity cost.

The question is, based on whose marginal cost/marginal benefit is this law based upon. To me, this law is being measured against hte opportunity cost of a select few, rather than the society as a whole. which is very unfair.

You have been defeated long ago. You just have not seemed yet to realize this.

reminds me of the adage "when facing defeat, claim victory" kay: