By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Political Spectrum quiz

Immigration is one area where I lean conservative.

I don't have a problem with people coming to Australia to start a new life per se, but we can't just open the floodgates and let everyone in or the quality of life for all will drop. Also, if you're going to come here, you need to assimilate, not form enclaves that are like little bubbles of your former country within ours.

I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask; if I were to emigrate to Germany for instance, I would learn German and abide by local customs.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 07 January 2021

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Around the Network



JWeinCom said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Not sure about anybody else, but I'd certainly fully support that kind of immigration (ie. asylum seekers) being legal. So it shouldn't be part of illegal immigration anyway.

Suppose it wasn't legal (I'm not an expert on asylum laws). Would you then favor illegal immigration?

No. I'd favour making it legal, but illegal immigration would still be dangerous.



Ka-pi96 said:
JWeinCom said:

Suppose it wasn't legal (I'm not an expert on asylum laws). Would you then favor illegal immigration?

No. I'd favour making it legal, but illegal immigration would still be dangerous.

So... if the asylum laws were not adequate, and someone was trying to sneak into a country because they feared for their lives you would not support them?



I felt that the quiz was okay, but that it felt dated to me. There are raging debates in America today about the proper role of police in our society, about gender identity and to what extent people and institutions should be legally forced to support its legal implications, about specific social issues that overlap with market politics like what public policy should be vis-a-vis the sex industry, and more, and these questions really do seem to be just ignored like it's 2005. The quiz even refers to same-sex marriage as "gay marriage", which hasn't been the generally preferred terminology in quite a long time now. Just the general mentality of it seems old to me. Precisely because so many of these topics that I care about a lot are simply ignored, the result is that, on balance, the quiz makes me appear a bit more socially liberal than I otherwise would.

In terms of economic policy, I'm a democratic socialist. I'm greedy. I'd like to eat without having to use food stamps and go hunting on occasion and think it might be nice to have a hospital in town again too and feel that that's more important than millionaires being able to vacation in low-Earth orbit in private space craft in a few years. In terms of foreign policy, I'm pretty moderate; I'm for high defense spending and active promotion of democracy and human rights abroad, but generally oppose the use of military force toward those ends (though there are exceptions; I completely agreed with our tacit military support for the Kurds' fight against ISIS for example). On social policy, I'm pretty permissive, except of exploitation and abuse. People as far as I'm concerned should have the right to say what they want with honesty and openness because that's the only way we can even understand each other. No one has the right to sell someone else's body for money though and no one has a right to buy anyone else. Police should be responding to violent crimes at most, not to mental breakdowns or just people walking down the street. Men should play on the men's athletic teams and use their own locker rooms and stay out of women's prisons and shelters for battered women. People have the right to defend themselves from physical attack with armed force, but not to own a military-grade arsenal with which to shoot up schools. The environment needs to be more aggressively protected. People should wear their goddamn masks. As far as same-sex attraction is concerned, I'm kind of offended that people even consider equal rights a political issue. As far as "religious liberty" is concerned, don't worry I have no interest in getting married at a church at all, let alone one that hates my guts. But frankly I think religious institutions just want to be above the law really. That's why a "religious exemption" to everything, everything, all laws, is demanded. No. Sorry, but being religious shouldn't render you exempt from the law or get you special treatment. You're an equal, not a superior like you seem to think you are! Hating me for being gay doesn't actually make you special and entitled to your own separate, weaker set of laws. Also, you don't get to blow up the Capitol and seize control of the government by armed force because your candidate lost. Hope I'm not setting the bar too high here.

Okay, so anyway, my results...

Last edited by Jaicee - on 07 January 2021

Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
Ka-pi96 said:

No. I'd favour making it legal, but illegal immigration would still be dangerous.

So... if the asylum laws were not adequate, and someone was trying to sneak into a country because they feared for their lives you would not support them?

You mean, would I trust that a complete stranger was telling the truth when they said they wanted to get into the country because they feared for their lives and that they intended to follow the laws of the country and pay taxes etc.?

No, I wouldn't trust a complete stranger full stop, the circumstances of them being an illegal immigrant isn't suddenly going to change that. That's why it should be done through the legal process. Then their claims can be verified, they'll be registered and known about to the authorities so they're much more likely to pay taxes etc. and they should receive support and education to get themselves set up in the new country and possible learn the language.



Ka-pi96 said:
JWeinCom said:

So... if the asylum laws were not adequate, and someone was trying to sneak into a country because they feared for their lives you would not support them?

You mean, would I trust that a complete stranger was telling the truth when they said they wanted to get into the country because they feared for their lives and that they intended to follow the laws of the country and pay taxes etc.?

No, I wouldn't trust a complete stranger full stop, the circumstances of them being an illegal immigrant isn't suddenly going to change that. That's why it should be done through the legal process. Then their claims can be verified, they'll be registered and known about to the authorities so they're much more likely to pay taxes etc. and they should receive support and education to get themselves set up in the new country and possible learn the language.

No, that's not what I mean. Never said anything about a complete stranger, that was something you added.

Let's suppose that you know of a person who you are convinced is in danger and who you are convinced is going to be a law abiding citizen. For argument's sake we'll say that this is a person who was on a work visa, and while working in your country, there was a civil war in theirs, and currently a group they belong do (religion ethnicity w/e) is subject to harsh discrimination and possibly could be killed. You have known them over the course of their visa, and believe them to be a decent law abiding and honest person. They will not be able to follow the process needed to extend their visa or legally immigrate in time, and they do not have any legal recourse.

In this circumstance would you support their efforts to stay in the country illegally?



For a non-American, the poll sure was... strange. I imagine some of the questions were ambigious even for Americans. Anyway, my results:

I feel like the poll puts me too far left because in my social media bubble, I feel like everyone is further left than me. That is, I feel like the poll has a fairly naive take on many issues, whereas I often recognize multiple dimensions in issues. If I have to choose just one side, it's often the left one, but that's often too simplistic to portray my stance accurately.



JWeinCom said:
Ka-pi96 said:

You mean, would I trust that a complete stranger was telling the truth when they said they wanted to get into the country because they feared for their lives and that they intended to follow the laws of the country and pay taxes etc.?

No, I wouldn't trust a complete stranger full stop, the circumstances of them being an illegal immigrant isn't suddenly going to change that. That's why it should be done through the legal process. Then their claims can be verified, they'll be registered and known about to the authorities so they're much more likely to pay taxes etc. and they should receive support and education to get themselves set up in the new country and possible learn the language.

No, that's not what I mean. Never said anything about a complete stranger, that was something you added.

Let's suppose that you know of a person who you are convinced is in danger and who you are convinced is going to be a law abiding citizen. For argument's sake we'll say that this is a person who was on a work visa, and while working in your country, there was a civil war in theirs, and currently a group they belong do (religion ethnicity w/e) is subject to harsh discrimination and possibly could be killed. You have known them over the course of their visa, and believe them to be a decent law abiding and honest person. They will not be able to follow the process needed to extend their visa or legally immigrate in time, and they do not have any legal recourse.

In this circumstance would you support their efforts to stay in the country illegally?

I'd argue that the majority of illegal immigration is not like that, but yeah, in those circumstances I'd support them.



Ka-pi96 said:
JWeinCom said:

No, that's not what I mean. Never said anything about a complete stranger, that was something you added.

Let's suppose that you know of a person who you are convinced is in danger and who you are convinced is going to be a law abiding citizen. For argument's sake we'll say that this is a person who was on a work visa, and while working in your country, there was a civil war in theirs, and currently a group they belong do (religion ethnicity w/e) is subject to harsh discrimination and possibly could be killed. You have known them over the course of their visa, and believe them to be a decent law abiding and honest person. They will not be able to follow the process needed to extend their visa or legally immigrate in time, and they do not have any legal recourse.

In this circumstance would you support their efforts to stay in the country illegally?

I'd argue that the majority of illegal immigration is not like that, but yeah, in those circumstances I'd support them.

That was obviously an extreme example. The point I was demonstrating was that there are circumstances where, if you found immigration laws to be unjust, you would support illegal immigration. Which is my position. So, I think we agree?