That's something I'd like to see for Civ6, actually: the option to have City names that aren't in your own language (as defined by your computer and/or game settings) be displayed bilingually: large, in that civ's native script and language ... and below that, in smaller subtext, in your own language.Originally Posted by Shiav
I try to read page 2 of this thread, but I get a 403. I don't know if posting this will work.
Edit: Posting this made it let me see page 2. That was very weird.
If I click on Page 2 from Page 1, I get Forbidden. If I click the "go to last post" button from the forum listing, it works fine.
And either I misunderstood something, or I have to ask how immigration damaged this country's foundational ideals?
I'm having troubles seeing page two as well.
You did misunderstand, being an immigrant it would be rather stupid of me to say that, no?
What I meant were the US' current policies on immigration do not reflect the ideals of the nation. Everything from the immigration quotas and restrictions of the early 20th century to the war on illegal immigrants goes completely against everything that is America
This native-born American, for one, agrees wholeheartedly with Shiav's statements, above.
Ah! Right. I was on causes, you were on effects. (Of course after 200 years they start to blur.)
Too true.
Despite the monumental failure that is becoming the eurozone, it is a good concept. Where ☺☺☺☺ gets real is when you added in the euro. Everything about the freer movement of people and goods was a great idea.
Could someone private message me quick if they know why this is happening? I can't view the second page of this thread and for some reason it keeps saying I don't have permission to view this page. I can view all of the other threads on the forums though and their pages.
The Turks predate the establishment of the country of Turkey and, as far as I know, the usage of "Turkey" to describe that territory.
In the 1500-s and 1600-s the Native Americans fought tooth and nail to keep those barbarian Europeans out. They didn't like immigrants either. They failed and look what happened to THEM.
Requiring people to immigrate legally doesn't strike me as particularly unamerican.
It's not that there's some paperwork to do. It's that most people aren't allowed to do it.
Indeed, the issue seems pretty trivial for someone from Europe. It's easy for Europeans to immigrate to the US. I've known Brits and Russians who've sailed right through. The Indian and Egyptian I knew who did it took a while and were scrutinized much more thoroughly. If you're from Mexico, though... good luck. I've met Mexican's with dual Ph.D's who are stuck on waiting lists. The discrepancy between countries-of-origin really does border on many of the uglier forms of discrimination.
That said, we're running decidedly off-topic, here. It's an interesting discussion, but not really Civ-related. If I can be honest for a moment, I'd rather the thread either got back on topic or someone created a new one in Off-Topic. It'd be a pain to try and separate out the posts from this thread into a new one in Off-Topic, and my week hasn't left me with a lot of patience.
The problem with that, is that we make it too HARD to legally immigrate.
And though specific nation-of-origin quotas were (thankfully_) abolished in 1965, there were still whole-hemisphere restrictions: 120,000/year from the Western hemisphere (including all of Latin America), and 170,000/year from the Eastern Hemisphere. Sadly ... speaking about that Act, Senator Edward Kennedy (MA) said: ""The bill [...] will not upset the ethnic mix of our society", proving that ethnicity and lingering eugenics-inspired racism were to remain part of our immigration laws.
In the 1980's, the global ceiling for immigration was rduced to 270K/year; that limit was not relaxed until 1996, when it was raised to 700,000/year. However, other acts passed that same year made deportation against immigrants, legals included, much easier, much more common, and much harsher in nature.
And that pretty much remains the state of affairs even now.
...
As for being unamerican, or not? Tell me - how do you think the first dozen or so waves of European colonists came to be here? Do you think they asked permission, nicely and a year or more in advance, from the local native peoples? Or do you think they got off their boats, put up some walls, and - backed by firearms and maybe a cannon or two - simply refused to leave?
Lastly, answer me this: during the fundraising efforts to erect the Statue of Liberty the poet Emma Lazarus was asked to donate an original work. That work is inscribed upon a bronze plaque, originally housed inside the pedestal, but since the 1986 renovation on display in the Museum at the base of the pedestal. Part of her sonnet, "The New Collossus", are considered extremely iconic of the Statue:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
... where in there are the words "in small numbers", or the phrase "a very few at a time" ...? Or anything even remotely resembling either of those?
...
Face it, more people want to come here and work, leading productive lives, contributing to society, than our INS is willing to let through the door. If we removed those limits, if we let people immigrate legally, paying taxes, we wouldnot only save money currently spent finding, chasing, detaining, and deporting "illegal immigrants", we would GAIN:
- Taxes paid on their wages, by both worker and employer;
- No more jobs being "stolen" by illegals willing to work for less than minimum wage "under the table" out of fear that their employer might report them to the INS for demanding a fair wage;
- no more slums full of illegals living in squalor because they don't dare make waves with their landlords, for fear of being reported to the INS.
The Europeans who settled in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Hampshire, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia weren't held back by any "annual quotas" in the 16th through 18th centuries - they came, just as numerously as they pleased.
We celebrate them for doing so ... so, what makes it right, or even "American", for us to turn about and denigrate immigrants in the 21st century for wanting to do the same thing?
Hmm, my apologies. I was writing my post for long enough - doing fact-checking so I didn't sound off like an idiot with totally incorrect information - that yours, and the one immediately prior, hadn't shown up yet.
At this point, I'll drop the tangent-off-shoot topic of immigration (etc). If someone wants to respond to me by startign a new thread, great, I'll rejoin the discussion there (just, um, let me KNOW it's there, 'kay guys?)
Otherwise, I'll respect your clear wish, and leave it be.
My first site of your continent :')
Drifting offtopic for but another second (sorry slowtarget, I'll be back quick) immigration papers are ☺☺☺☺☺y as hell. Even coming from Europe, because I was a refugee, It was incredibly complex and bureaucratic. In New York. More immigrants come through New York than any other place in the world. It's the head quarters of the United Nations (who I had to deal with, unfortunately. They're more slow than the US) and it still doesn't have a streamlined immigration system in place.
Back on topic, the semantics of calling a nation by its cultural, historic, imperial or romanticized name are confounding. Rome? Italy? Senatae Populus Que Roma? Papal States? Vatican City? The Holy See? The Italian States? Italia?
I imagine that part of the reason people don't want an influx of immagrants is because then we would have to grant that many more entitlements (public schools, welfare, social security, etc.). If it was simply a matter of "Come to America and try your hand at making a living for you and your family", only the truely racist would deny them entry. But when the message is, instead, "Come to America and add more strain to our already overburdened government. Oh yeah, and everyone has to pay more in taxes because of you", it does tend to put a damper on the whole "Give me your tired, your poor..." sentiment.
Well we already know how you feel about said entitlements. With the exception of education it would be perfectly reasonable to remove said entitlements until said immigrants had found jobs and were contributing to the economy. But guess what? Immigrants find jobs far faster than Americans. And they keep them for longer too. So now whose not contributing?
That's pretty much how the free movement of labour rules work in the EU - people can move, but they aren't entitled to (most) state support until they've been supporting themselves for a certain length of time. That length of time varies by country, and countries get taken to the European Court of Justice about it being unreasonable, but the general principle is fine.
Education to any children who happen to be resident in the country is, I think, a universally acclaimed (if not, in practice, universally recognised) human right. Of course, I guess Steth thinks the UDHR is appalling interference, never mind the UNCRC, UNCRPD...
Oh God, I'd love to hear a rant on the WTO and IMF, Steth.
Uh, guys? A Moderator kind of DID ask us to try and stay on topic. Remember that?
Poppycock. It was more of a suggestion than anythingUh, guys? A Moderator kind of DID ask us to try and stay on topic. Remember that?
But seriously, once a topic has been completely worn down it's hard to stay on it. So we could either all pack up and got to OT or for sake of convenience etc. stay here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote