If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Metro)   Asylum seekers claiming to be gay told they have to back it up   (metro.co.uk) divider line 144
    More: Sad, UK Border Agency, immigration officer, Stonewall, refugees, Home Affairs Committee  
•       •       •

7960 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2013 at 5:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



144 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-10-11 11:51:47 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: gja: tinfoil-hat maggie: f you have the "T", then the "I" is already covered.

[www.i2symbol.com image 256x256]
/possible symbol?

There already is one thanks.
[si0.twimg.com image 240x280]


You left your sarcasm filter off dearie.
 
2013-10-11 11:53:28 PM  

12349876: ciberido: I'm saying TransGENDER includes a number of groups, including transSEXUAL and intersex. It's like Transgender is Asia, Transsexual is Japan, and Intersex is Mongolia.

The problem with this little debate here is gender doesn't have a universally accepted definition.  You're conflating gender and sex like some do, but others like to separate the two terms.  A little insight on this issue from Wikipedia.  I personally feel there are ample enough differences between those whose brains and bodies don't match (my definition of transgender) from those who have genitals with both male and female characteristics (my definition of intersex) to give them separate terms.



No offense, but you and Maggie both seem to be confusing the terms "transgender" and "transsexual."  They are different terms that mean different things.  And no, I am not ( as far as I know), conflating or confusing sex and gender:  I do understand that they mean different things, but I was trying to avoid getting into that for the sake of simplicity.  In any case, I'm just using the terms I was given.  I didn't choose them; I'm not trying to imply any special meaning inherent to the term itself; it's just a label.  If you don't think "transgender" is the right word for the umbrella term, then lobby for a different one.

Now, getting away from what the experts say (or what I think they say) and venturing into my own opinions, what transgender, transsexual, and interesex all have in common, that set them apart from being gay (or bisexual or lesbian or pansexual or asexual), is that they concern how you see (and how others see) your OWN sex and/or gender.  They deal with who YOU are, while gay, lesbian, bi, pansexual, and asexual all concern to WHOM you are attracted.

That said, I am not an expert on this topic and any or all of what I've said in this thread could be wrong.  If anybody really cares that much whether what I said is correct or not, I urge them to go read a book written by someone who actually is an expert on the topic rather than waste more time reading my drivel.
 
2013-10-11 11:55:46 PM  

Gyrfalcon: "Sure, turn around and bend over."


Well not for just anyone but for you ; )
/Um, do I get dinner first?
//Do you at least have the stuff to cook a good breakfast, the next morning?
 
2013-10-11 11:58:19 PM  

jjorsett: ariseatex: kvinesknows: "'People should accept the statement of sexuality by those who seek asylum. This practice is regrettable and ought to be stopped immediately.' "

why?  no one automatically accepts proof of marriage or birth.  They demand documentation of some kind.

how else are they supposed to prove they are homosexual?

Quote Steel Magnolias?

Seriously though, many of these asylum seekers are fleeing countries where they will "test" you to see if you're gay, then punish you if this "test" confirms it.  So they try to get asylum in a more "civilised" country, only to be told they have to be "tested" there as well?  It's making them re-live their trauma.

What would be the harm in doing away with the "gay test"?

The fact that you'd find yourself granting asylum to the entire world once people learned that saying, "I'm gay and fear persecution" is an automatic visa?


This. I doubt this is done to discriminate or intrude upon or humiliate gay people. They're just protecting against fraudulence. Of course, that would depend on what this means, precisely: applicants had even given photographic and video evidence of a highly personal nature to officials.
 
2013-10-12 12:09:09 AM  

gja: tinfoil-hat maggie: gja: tinfoil-hat maggie: f you have the "T", then the "I" is already covered.

[www.i2symbol.com image 256x256]
/possible symbol?

There already is one thanks.
[si0.twimg.com image 240x280]

You left your sarcasm filter off dearie.


I think you need to go to church young man : ) Link
 
2013-10-12 12:18:43 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: EmmaLou: Not in US.  If your story sounds pretty much legit, most of the time you're approved.  Even if the asylum officer thinks there's something hinky with your story (like they JUST heard the exact same story down to the details earlier that day) many immigration judges will just approve the asylum anyway.

Hooray America?

I have no problem with that.  I'd say we should open our borders more anyway.  Immigration was one of the driving forces that made our country great in the first place, let's keep it going.


I'm all for making legal immigration much easier.  But, at the same time, we should make the penalties for illegal immigration significantly tougher.  Slave labor camp tough.  And execution for the coyotes.
 
2013-10-12 12:24:18 AM  

Fafai: jjorsett: ariseatex: What would be the harm in doing away with the "gay test"?

The fact that you'd find yourself granting asylum to the entire world once people learned that saying, "I'm gay and fear persecution" is an automatic visa?

This. I doubt this is done to discriminate or intrude upon or humiliate gay people. They're just protecting against fraudulence. Of course, that would depend on what this means, precisely: applicants had even given photographic and video evidence of a highly personal nature to officials.


There are certain physical traits that are (or might be) correlated with homosexuality, like hair whorl and finger length, but so far as I know there isn't any scientific test that could "prove" a person was gay or, conversely, prove that a person WASN'T.  There seem to be some differences in brain structure that would show up on an MRI or other brain scan, but again, nothing that has any strong statistical validity yet.

I suppose, for practical purposes, you'd need to prove that you had been in a homosexual relationship, and I'm not sure how you would do that except for photos or videos of you actually having sex.  And that's a disquieting thought.
 
2013-10-12 12:24:45 AM  

hasty ambush: TuteTibiImperes: think the better solution would be to offer amnesty for everyone here, require that they complete the path to citizenship within a set period of time, ease restrictions making it easier for new people to come here legally, but require that they also complete the path to citizenship within a set number of years after coming over, or else they have to leave.

I think just issuing a work visa is a better way,.  Believe or not not everybody, including illegals, who comes here wants to be a citizen.  They send a lot of money back home and are building houses back the home country.

Those that want citizenship got the back of the line behind all those who first arrived legally and they have to met the same requirements

Also we need to do away with the option of dual citizenship in this country-pick one, no hedging you bets.


It's incredibly hard to get dual citizenship. It's actively discouraged. Which is pretty stupid. Citizens who are able to be movers and shakers in other nations ought to be highly sought after.

Even worse is trying to give up your U.S. citizenship. You can't just say so, the government has to agree to let you go, there are various fees and financial requirements, you have to prove you have citizenship elsewhere (the idea of people who are free from any government control is evidently the worst thing the fed gov can think of), and you will still have to pay U.S. taxes for up to ten years. The average american citizen is very much an owned commodity in the eyes of the government.

Don't be so quick to remove your own options, peasant.
 
2013-10-12 12:27:55 AM  

wallywam1: 0z79: you_idiot: LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex)


Wait, there's an "I" now? What's intersex? Is it fun?

Intersex is when someone is born with any combination of both male and female sexual characteristics, such as hermaphrodites (both a penis and a vaginal opening) with varying degrees of maleness/femaleness.

/is intersex
//born that way
///if it freaks you out, block away
////I have no time for you

I think it's fascinating. Western society on a foundational level defines sex assignment in binary terms. Intersex is relatively rare, so many people are never introduced to the concept until well into adulthood. I can only imagine how marginalized that would make someone feel. Mr. and Mrs., men's and women's restrooms, M or F on forms and on and on. The constant message that they are fundamentally flawed. That's a horrible way to be treated.


CSB: When I was fifteen or so, I explained (in non-vulgar, scientific terms) what a hermaphrodite was to a couple of kids who were maybe thirteen. An authority figure overheard and berated me for discussing something "obscene".

Good thing there were no intersexed kids listening, I guess. Shame to find out you're obscene that way.
 
2013-10-12 12:30:10 AM  
Back it up into the interviewer's crotch? I saw a video kinda like that, but I think she and her friend were bi.
 
2013-10-12 12:31:29 AM  

ciberido: No offense, but you and Maggie both seem to be confusing the terms "transgender" and "transsexual."  They are different terms that mean different things.  And no, I am not ( as far as I know), conflating or confusing sex and gender:  I do understand that they mean different things, but I was trying to avoid getting into that for the sake of simplicity.  In any case, I'm just using the terms I was given.  I didn't choose them; I'm not trying to imply any special meaning inherent to the term itself; it's just a label.  If you don't think "transgender" is the right word for the umbrella term, then lobby for a different one.

Now, getting away from what the experts say (or what I think they say) and venturing into my own opinions, what transgender, transsexual, and interesex all have in common, that set them apart from being gay (or bisexual or lesbian or pansexual or asexual), is that they concern how you see (and how others see) your OWN sex and/or gender.  They deal with who YOU are, while gay, lesbian, bi, pansexual, and asexual all concern to WHOM you are attracted.

That said, I am not an expert on this topic and any or all of what I've said in this thread could be wrong.  If anybody really cares that much whether what I said is correct or not, I urge them to go read a book written by someone who actually is an expert on the topic rather than waste more time reading my drivel.


I think I understand this a bit better than you do Cib. Ya, I love your links and mostly you are correct. Now (sorry) I'm gonna hit you with a hypothetical so you may understand.

A child is born with ambiguous genitalia. The DR decides to make the child female as far as sex characteristics go. No on can determine the child's true gender yet. Time goes on the little girl starts growing up happy (hey it's a 50/50 chance right? Well as far as I know) but then when she hits puberty she starts having problems. It turns out her body isn't that of a girls but a boys and her brain was as she was designated at birth female. Is she transgender? Sure it could be vice versa.
 
2013-10-12 12:48:20 AM  

ciberido: Fafai: jjorsett: ariseatex: What would be the harm in doing away with the "gay test"?

The fact that you'd find yourself granting asylum to the entire world once people learned that saying, "I'm gay and fear persecution" is an automatic visa?

This. I doubt this is done to discriminate or intrude upon or humiliate gay people. They're just protecting against fraudulence. Of course, that would depend on what this means, precisely: applicants had even given photographic and video evidence of a highly personal nature to officials.

There are certain physical traits that are (or might be) correlated with homosexuality, like hair whorl and finger length, but so far as I know there isn't any scientific test that could "prove" a person was gay or, conversely, prove that a person WASN'T.  There seem to be some differences in brain structure that would show up on an MRI or other brain scan, but again, nothing that has any strong statistical validity yet.

I suppose, for practical purposes, you'd need to prove that you had been in a homosexual relationship, and I'm not sure how you would do that except for photos or videos of you actually having sex.  And that's a disquieting thought.


Especially for anyone who may be in an asexual relationship, yes. I'm going to assume by "highly personal nature" they mean just like documented photos of the couple in question being together in various settings over the years. If they were asking for photos of sex I think the article would be all over explicitly saying so.
 
2013-10-12 01:47:41 AM  
farking assholes?
 
2013-10-12 02:02:09 AM  

Bandito King: It's incredibly hard to get dual citizenship. It's actively discouraged. Which is pretty stupid. Citizens who are able to be movers and shakers in other nations ought to be highly sought after.


Currently (and it changes every decade it seems), it's relatively easy to have dual citizenship if one is American. The viewpoint, as it was explained to me, was that you're an American citizen at all times, in America and abroad. If you choose to whip out some silly paperwork from another country* to talk to some silly bureaucrat who isn't American, then go right ahead. But for all intents and purposes legal and monetary, you are American.

Now renouncing American citizenship is still a complete nightmare, from what little I've heard.

*Unless that country is one we don't like.
 
2013-10-12 02:17:43 AM  
People should accept the statement of sexuality whatever by those who seek asylum.
FTA / FTFM

Asylum should be easier for all and here too, but some proof of reason is reasonable.

Fear of loss of life isn't enough for the USofA.
 
2013-10-12 02:29:47 AM  

ReverendJynxed: TuteTibiImperes: EmmaLou: Not in US.  If your story sounds pretty much legit, most of the time you're approved.  Even if the asylum officer thinks there's something hinky with your story (like they JUST heard the exact same story down to the details earlier that day) many immigration judges will just approve the asylum anyway.

Hooray America?

I have no problem with that.  I'd say we should open our borders more anyway.  Immigration was one of the driving forces that made our country great in the first place, let's keep it going.

That was also at a time when the land was pretty empty after the government had done a fair amount of ethnic cleansing of the indigenous nations as official policy and the hunting were a plenty was formerly decent but was rapidly becoming a relic of bygone days by the time the US had an official immigration policy--in no small part because targeted extirpation of entire species was part and parcel of aforementioned policy of ethnic cleansing of indigenous nations. We're running out of room what with all the private land ownership and government owned bits actually doing OK as far as room for new immigrants who want to stay go--what we have serious issues with are companies using H1B work visas as a form of indentured servitude and unskilled and semiskilled workers coming in as undocumented immigrants thanks to the official immigration policy not really having a legal way in for those people.


Fixed that for you in spades:

a) The US, as a nation, did not have an immigration policy per se up until after the Civil War; the first act that really defined citizenship in the modern sense was the 14th Amendment (which is the basis of jus solis citizenship in the US); until then, citizenship by naturalisation was (by and large) explicitly restricted to free white persons of "good moral character" (under the Naturalization Act of 1790 and its subsequent amendments) who had been landed immigrants for a considerable amount of time--by 1798 until 1865, the limit was up to fourteen years that one had to be a landed immigrant before one could THINK of applying for citizenship.  Technically, until 1865 there WAS no real path to citizenship for anyone who would be considered a Brown Person, and even Irish Catholics sometimes had issues in getting citizenship as Catholics were often considered to not be of "good moral character" (in that they tended to be of the wrong kind of Christianity); freedmen African-Americans and (as we'll get into) "non-registered" First Nations people were legally and effectively stateless.

b) The US had a policy--at first semiofficial and then blatantly so--of ethnic cleansing against First Nations despite treaties that recognised them as sovereign (even to the point that US citizenship was EXPLICITLY denied, both on a Constitutional and Congressional-act basis, to people of First Nations descent until 1924; full citizenship rights including the right to vote in federal elections were not granted to people of First Nations descent until 1940...yes, you're reading this right: Puertorriquenos were considered citizens before the Lakota or Dine) that persisted WELL into the modern era.  This ranged from blatant disregard of Supreme Court precedents ruling that First Nations were sovereign (the Trail of Tears was the direct result of Andrew Jackson deciding he had a Unitary Executive) to destroying food sources used by First Nations reliant on hunting and gathering (traditional hunting and fishing lands were not only explicitly opened to development but buffalo herds were explicitly wastefully hunted in a deliberate attempt to starve out First Nations reliant upon buffalo hunts) to essentially making First Nations culture illegal (children were sent to boarding schools where any expression of traditional culture was severely punished--even speaking in indigenous languages; First Nations religious practices were largely illegal until the 60s and even now sacraments in the Native American Church have been under legal threat) to even the equivalent of "sundown town" laws that literally created the crime of Existing While NDN (most Southeastern states promptly passed laws after the ethnic cleansing of the Five Civilised Tribes prohibiting First Nations people from being within the state or owning property within it; the laws are still technically on the books in many cases, and it's a big reason why there are a disproportionate number of "Non Dawes Act" people of First Nations descent in areas where the Five Civilised Tribes once existed...with a few exceptions, most remnant groups and escapees from ethnic cleansing had to hide out as "Black Irish" or "Black Dutch" or even as free "high-yellow" multiracials because laws still provided for people to be forcibly evicted at gunpoint and marched out of the state).

(And no, I'm not going into the controversy over whether biological warfare was attempted against First Nations peoples--I'm just going on the shiat that is documented and was explicitly admitted to by the US government at the time.)

c) In addition to First Nations peoples (well into the modern era) and Insufficiently White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Folks in general (well up until 1870), immigration policies in the Golden Age of Ellis Island actually tended to restrict a LOT of categories of immigration.  Citizenship was outright prohibited to people immigrating from East Asia until the mid-40s (and THIS was only changed because of the Chinese civil war); immigration was effectively only allowed for labour purposes in these populations (in what amounted to a predecessor of the present H1B program), was outright prohibited in 1883 (when Chinese immigration was shut down), and persons remaining in the US could not apply for citizenship but essentially had to apply for proto-H1B-visas to remain in the country.  There were also similar restrictions on Southern Asians in that they could only apply for the equivalent of H1B visas, and this even proceeded to the direct equivalent of "sundown towns" and similar racist institutions restricting persons of Malay or Indian (naan, not frybread) descent from certain areas and industries.

(Ironically, the Supreme Court judgement establishing jus solis citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants happened around this period--concerning the case of a Chinese-American man (born in the US to Chinese immigrants who--thanks to a bit of a Racist Moral Panic at the period--HAD no legal path to citizenship and were basically H1B workers) who was blocked at the border from returning home by Customs and Immigration on the grounds that Asian People Could Not Be Citizens Even If Born Here.)

Similar restrictions were in place for pretty much every country known for Brown People and even for non-Blah-People of disfavoured groups; Africans were generally not allowed to immigrate or to become citizens until the 1950s, Jewish immigration was severely restricted after 1920 (and even well into the period of the Holocaust, to the eternal shame of all).

Particularly interesting is the treatment of Mexican-Americans--and the discovery that there actually used to be a legal means for the sort of "work for hire" now done by undocumented immigrants. Mexican-Americans were only allowed in the US (not for a path for formal citizenship--just as guest workers) for a brief period in the 40s where they served much the same purpose as undocumented immigrants do now--only as part of an official government "farmhand H1B" program known as the bracero program instituted due to extreme labor shortages due to the war effort.  (This was--notably--just after a massive deportation of Mexican farm workers during the Great Depression.)  Bracero visas actually continued on after World War II up until 1967 (when the program was discontinued)--and arguably the use of undocumented immigrants on farms is a de facto continuation, only with far less government controls and safety measures for los braceros.

d) There has not really been a legal means for the sorts of folks coming in as undocumented immigrants and asylees to enter the US UNTIL the post-Immigration-and-Naturalization-Act era.  In general, even asylum seekers seen as Insufficiently Pale and/or Insufficiently Christian would be routinely turned back to their home countries in past (in one of the more infamous instances, the US government explicitly denied asylum to Jewish passengers aboard the MS St. Louis who were attempting to escape Nazi persecution; the ship eventually did find countries in Europe willing to take the asylees, but a fourth of the passengers were eventually murdered in the Holocaust as those countries were subsequently invaded by Nazi Germany...it should also be noted that well up to World War II there was a very strong streak of anti-Semitism in the US promoted by the likes of such well known people as Charles Lindberg and Henry Ford, and it was routine for neighbourhoods to explictly include "no Jews" along "no blacks" in their redlining).  Even H1B work visa equivalent programs have been periodically under attack (as noted above), and there is not and has not been any path for work visas much less citizenship for semiskilled and unskilled workers save via marriage and asylum programs.  (H1B is considered "skilled labor", despite the fact most of the "skills" tend to be taught in what amount to cram schools.)  We definitely don't have an equivalent to the bracero program anymore, so now farms tend to do the same thing with considerably less regulation.
 
2013-10-12 03:15:37 AM  

jaytkay: hasty ambush: Fine as long as we go back to the same level of Federal social welfare programs that we had "back then". Immigrants can get expensive.

Cuz immigrants never work and never pay taxes.


Canada -IMHO- does a good job of targeting professionals and people with specialized jobs/skill sets.
I think they fast track them or give them priority. Something along those lines.

Policies like this are especially important in places where you have an aging population and know that pretty soon social security/social programs will end up with more people taking their dues than putting in.
 
2013-10-12 03:31:37 AM  
jjorsett:
What would be the harm in doing away with the "gay test"?

The fact that you'd find yourself granting asylum to the entire world once people learned that saying, "I'm gay and fear persecution" is an automatic visa?


I'm gonna say that if fear of gay persecution in one's native culture is proven to be a legit concern worthy of asylum, (they kill gays there), then the likelihood of a person from that culture falsely claiming to be gay in an attempt to game the system is pretty low. What if they fail? Even if they succeed, what do they tell the extended family back home?

Another problem, one can be killed for being "gay" without actually being gay. If the accusation is there, and the death threats are there, prove that, and asylum should be given. Requiring a something like a porno submission in that case would be absurd and inhumane.
 
2013-10-12 03:42:23 AM  
rumpelstiltskin:
I think the best solution is, let's let people compete for their citizenship. You say you're an accountant, let's line all you farkers up, and see who's the best at bean counting. The best get to stay and work, the rest of you, get the fark out.

And send them where exactly?  I can see the proposed treaty now,"Send us the very best of your accountants, scientists, and engineers, we'll take a few, and ship you a box of whinymorons in return."
"Ohhhkay, US of A, so to sweeten the deal, you're adding WHAT exactly?"
 
2013-10-12 05:03:44 AM  

TheGreatGazoo: Are they going to give a plethysmograph test to men claiming to be gay?


How would a PFT prove anything?
 
2013-10-12 05:34:33 AM  
tinfoil-hat maggie:I think I understand this a bit better than you do Cib. Ya, I love your links and mostly you are correct. Now (sorry) I'm gonna hit you with a hypothetical so you may understand.

I didn't invent these definitions, damnit.  Take it up with Wikipedia if it matters that much,

I'm out.  Once people are arguing about the definitions of words, the conversation is truly pointless.
 
2013-10-12 05:58:09 AM  

Krieghund: hasty ambush: Fine as long as we go back to the same level of Federal social welfare programs that we had "back then". Immigrants can get expensive. That is why most Europeans nations are even tougher on immigration than we are. Those social welfare programs they have for citizens are expensive enough without the added expensive of non-citizens. Many EU countries require you to have private medical insurance, as an immigrant, for a period of time before you are allowed to use the government one.

So you're suggesting we increase our social welfare programs to where they were before the Republicans gutted them, then open the borders and require immigrants to have the same medical insurance that is currently required under Obamacare?





Show me where mean tested welfare spending has decreased. It is the fastest growing component of Federal spending.

In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, was about $940 billion per year. The federal share was around $695 billion, or 74 percent, while state spending was around $250 billion, or 26 percent.


Welfare Spending: The Fastest Growing Component of Government Spending

For the past two decades, means-tested welfare or aid to the poor has been the fastest-growing component of government spending, outstripping the combined growth of Medicare and Social Security spending, as well as the growth in education and defense spending. Over the 20-year period between FY 1989 and FY 2008, total means-tested spending increased by 292 percent. The increase in combined Social Security and Medicare spending was 213 percent over the same period.


Means-tested spending on cash, food, and housing increased more rapidly (196 percent) than Social Security (174 percent). The growth in means-tested medical spending (448 percent) exceeded the growth in Medicare (376 percent). The growth in means-tested aid greatly exceeded the growth in government spending on education (143 percent) and defense (126 percent). Aid to the poor is likely to continue to grow rapidly for the foreseeable future.

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).

I refer back to a time of high immigration and there was no Federal level social/welfare system
 
2013-10-12 06:28:40 AM  

TheGreatGazoo: Are they going to give a plethysmograph test to men claiming to be gay?


I must thank you for teaching me a new word today. +1 Internets to you!
 
2013-10-12 06:52:35 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: EmmaLou: Not in US.  If your story sounds pretty much legit, most of the time you're approved.  Even if the asylum officer thinks there's something hinky with your story (like they JUST heard the exact same story down to the details earlier that day) many immigration judges will just approve the asylum anyway.

Hooray America?

I have no problem with that.  I'd say we should open our borders more anyway.  Immigration was one of the driving forces that made our country great in the first place, let's keep it going.


Yes, indeed. America is built on immigration.
 
2013-10-12 06:52:50 AM  

trappedspirit: You should just take people's word on stuff.  People are trustworthy and have no unethical motivating factors.


Hey that is exactly what my God says.
 
2013-10-12 06:54:45 AM  

brap: My jaw is sore, do you accept old Donna Summers ticket stubs?


Didn't Donna Summer disapprove of gays? Some quote I read from her about 20 years ago. She may have moderated her opinion since I suppose.
 
2013-10-12 07:02:45 AM  

hasty ambush: TuteTibiImperes: think the better solution would be to offer amnesty for everyone here, require that they complete the path to citizenship within a set period of time, ease restrictions making it easier for new people to come here legally, but require that they also complete the path to citizenship within a set number of years after coming over, or else they have to leave.

I think just issuing a work visa is a better way,.  Believe or not not everybody, including illegals, who comes here wants to be a citizen.  They send a lot of money back home and are building houses back the home country.

Those that want citizenship got the back of the line behind all those who first arrived legally and they have to met the same requirements

Also we need to do away with the option of dual citizenship in this country-pick one, no hedging you bets.


I once looked into immigrating to the US (pre Tea Party).

There was no way I would ever qualify even with many years ecperience as a software developer because I don't have a degree. No degree means no chance of getting a US employer to sponser me.

There is also the visa lottery but UK citizens are ineligible because the UK already sends to many immigrants to the US.
 
2013-10-12 07:04:36 AM  

you_idiot: LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex)


Wait, there's an "I" now? What's intersex? Is it fun?


I think it is someone born with ambiguous genitalia.
 
2013-10-12 07:14:16 AM  

kg2095: you_idiot: LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex)


Wait, there's an "I" now? What's intersex? Is it fun?

I think it is someone born with ambiguous genitalia.


Band name!
 
2013-10-12 07:21:38 AM  
Sounds to me like some immigration officers are just looking for BJs
 
2013-10-12 08:02:20 AM  

brap: My jaw is sore, do you accept old Donna Summers ticket stubs?


Making me spit out whiskey at 7am was bad and you should feel bad. Also, snert.
 
2013-10-12 08:12:32 AM  

E5bie: jjorsett:
What would be the harm in doing away with the "gay test"?

The fact that you'd find yourself granting asylum to the entire world once people learned that saying, "I'm gay and fear persecution" is an automatic visa?

I'm gonna say that if fear of gay persecution in one's native culture is proven to be a legit concern worthy of asylum, (they kill gays there), then the likelihood of a person from that culture falsely claiming to be gay in an attempt to game the system is pretty low. What if they fail? Even if they succeed, what do they tell the extended family back home?

Another problem, one can be killed for being "gay" without actually being gay. If the accusation is there, and the death threats are there, prove that, and asylum should be given. Requiring a something like a porno submission in that case would be absurd and inhumane.


That's rational enough, but you've got to keep in mind on what technicality/law they are applying for refugee status from. It may just be a gay rights advancement law and therefore people lying to get approved are hurting the very intent of the law.

Asylum laws in general are all well and good, right up until you realize that you can't just take every person with a complaint. There is only so much room and economy, especially in the UK. More people is not always better.

I didn't even read the article. Just sayin'.

Depending on the laws and such, there are a couple of different stances to be taken. It would be nice to grant anyone asylum as an ideal, but it just isn't always feasible. An advanced and balanced society would end up sacrificing, and there's a limit as to what society should have to give up to play moral caretaker for the entire planet.

Give up too much and you run a real risk of having your own refugees trying to leave in the future, of becoming what you once thought to try and protect people from.
 
2013-10-12 09:29:54 AM  
Hmmm, so by asking them to "prove it" they are asking for a bj at least. Which makes them have teh ghey as well. I guess its time for them to leave too.
 
2013-10-12 09:33:45 AM  
Should have just had a gay parade up to the border, wearing the "attention whore" costumes that some do during such parades. They would have let them in so they wouldnt have to look at them anymore.

/you know it's true, dont hate.
 
2013-10-12 09:40:13 AM  

kg2095: hasty ambush: TuteTibiImperes: think the better solution would be to offer amnesty for everyone here, require that they complete the path to citizenship within a set period of time, ease restrictions making it easier for new people to come here legally, but require that they also complete the path to citizenship within a set number of years after coming over, or else they have to leave.

I think just issuing a work visa is a better way,.  Believe or not not everybody, including illegals, who comes here wants to be a citizen.  They send a lot of money back home and are building houses back the home country.

Those that want citizenship got the back of the line behind all those who first arrived legally and they have to met the same requirements

Also we need to do away with the option of dual citizenship in this country-pick one, no hedging you bets.

I once looked into immigrating to the US (pre Tea Party).

There was no way I would ever qualify even with many years ecperience as a software developer because I don't have a degree. No degree means no chance of getting a US employer to sponser me.

There is also the visa lottery but UK citizens are ineligible because the UK already sends to many immigrants to the US.


This college degree nonsense needs to stop. We need trade/skills exams that measure actual ability. that allow for a substitution of experience in place of a diploma that may not be worth the  paper it is printed on.

Prefer immigrants from UK they have less problems learning the language/terminology and they readily adapt to drinking beer at the correct temperature.  It takes them longer to adapt to the increased sunlight though.
 
2013-10-12 09:59:39 AM  

ciberido: I suppose, for practical purposes, you'd need to prove that you had been in a homosexual relationship, and I'm not sure how you would do that except for photos or videos of you actually having sex. And that's a disquieting thought.


Not to mention unfair to those who simply have never had a chance to be themselves and have any real relationships where they're from, because there's no opportunity to do so without fear of getting caught and beaten/arrested/killed... And, I'd think those would be the ones most in need of asylum! The ones who have managed to get away with being themselves without getting caught arguably have less need of asylum...
 
2013-10-12 10:36:58 AM  

kg2095: There is also the visa lottery but UK citizens are ineligible because the UK already sends to many immigrants to the US.


You don't need a visa.  Fly to Mexico, then cross in the US from Mexico, it is relatively unguarded.  If you go into California they will issue a drivers license, health care and everything.  Way things are going you will get amnesty and everything, becoming a US citizen faster than those foolish idiots in the UK trying to do things legally.
 
2013-10-12 10:44:14 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Should have just had a gay parade up to the border, wearing the "attention whore" costumes that some do during such parades. They would have let them in so they wouldnt have to look at them anymore.

/you know it's true, dont hate.


Or maybe they could just require them to sing show tunes and color coordinate random items of clothing at immigration
 
2013-10-12 12:58:11 PM  
(accidentally cross-posted)

Exactly how do you prove your sexual orientation one way or another?
Speaking for myself, I don't read or watch a lot of porn and never have. Couldn't whip up a suitcase full of porn, or a discount card at FourX Kangaroo Pron Shoppe, or web records, because there aren't any.
Having sex with a member of your own sex is something that even straight people can do. In fact, there's a reason why AIDS and VD propaganda says "men who have sex with men" instead of "gay". Most of the men having sex with men are 1) bisexuals; 2) in the closet to themselves or others; 3) prostitutes; 4) unwilling victims such as young straight prisoners; and 5) guys who just don't give a damn about labels or who don't much care how they get their rocks off. A lot of them meet every criterium for being gay except accepting the label. Why do you thing the Republicans and Right Wing Christians are so deep in denial and so frequently being caught with their pants down, often literally?

You can't prove you are gay by saying so, brainscans might do it but would be prohibatively expensive, and so far the genes or physical traits associated with sexual orientation are very loosely associated.

Clichés about transvestism and feminine attributes are horribly unreliable. 70% of transvestites are heterosexual, while 30% are bisexual or gay. That's probably bang on the general population so there's no relationship between orientation and transvestite urges at all.

Studies have shown some evidence of genetic links, physical traits (such as left-handedness and relative finger-lengths) but these are merely probablistic. More gays may be left-handed, but most left-handed people are not gay. It's statistics, not legal or moral or scientific proof. Even the scientists who produce these studies would admit that they prove nothing very strongly and that more research is needed even to speak of high probability.
In short, you can't prove that you are straight (one in four gay men have been married and have children to prove it), while a large number of ostensibly straight men have sex with men regularly or wish they could.
Meanwhile, about one in five American men haven't had any sex in the last year and a lot of them must be latents or sexually repressed or simply fuglies.

And bisexuals queer the deal for everybody by being able to think, feel, say, or do anything that any of the sexual orientations can.

It is legal nonsense to demand a proof of orientatio, guilt or innocence that can not be given and confirmed. It is like asking Christians to prove the existence of Buddy Jesus by throwing themselves off of high buildings and flying safely to the roof of a distant building. I'm an atheist but I'm not a bully, fool, or fanatic--I would never ask a Christian to proof the existence of God because I believe it is impossible regardless of what role God plays in your life or whether he does exist or not.

I am appalled by the number of things I can not prove although they are absolutely true. If a store clerk charges me with stealing something I just bought elsewhere withoutt getting a receipt and keeping it without losing it immediately, no proof can be had. Anything I say to defend myself, no matter how true, can not be proven and is precisely what you would expect a shoplifter to say in their (guilt assumed) defence.

And let me add that sexual orientation has very little to do with being hit by trains, although admittedly there has been no research on the connection.
 
2013-10-12 01:10:06 PM  
I remember a case in Canada where an allegedly gay refugee claimant from Mexico (where gays are treated the way they were in the 1960s, if not earlier) was sent back unless he could prove he was gay.

Cute guy, too.

I can see why the authorities would want to prevent straight claimants from getting in by claiming they are gay without having any supporting evidence. Homophobia is still violent enough and prevelant enough that even real gays could reasonably flee their country to a more gay-positive country. It is not always clear, either, how homophobic a country has to be before this is a legitimate decision--can't gays just flee their city, county or state?

They'd probably be just as safe unless they are really bad at concealment--a few very obvious gays who can't help being "queeny" might truely have no where to hide.

But basically, there's no good way to prove you are gay, so putting the onus on the claimant exposes many claimants to the kind of violence that they are fleeing. You can't send them all back without being resposible for exposing them to unacceptible risks of hate crimes and oppression.

So the only way to keep out fake gay refugees is to declare a country "safe" even though it is only "safe" for some and only in some places and times.

Canada probably does not accept a lot of gay refugees from San Francisco, or even Florida or Texas. There are no doubt gays at risk--we lear about their heinous murders in the media all of the time.

Common sense must prevail.

Take the smart, cute, productive gays and let the fugly stupide straight-looking gays take their chances. It's not like they breed. Much.

We can sort them out later--if they start acting too hetero, deport 'em to a safe country. Like the USA. That'll teach you to be homophobic right wing Christian nutters.

Just kidding. The onus should be on the board, not the claimant. If they can prove the claimant is lying, good. We don't want any more homophobic liars. We already have a Government.
 
2013-10-12 02:44:13 PM  

gja: you_idiot: LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex)


Wait, there's an "I" now? What's intersex? Is it fun?

You all better chose a different letter. You KNOW how Apple feels about anything prefaced with an "i".

"iSex, from Apple. Go f$#K yourself."


itsfunnycuzitstrue.jpg
 
2013-10-12 09:33:35 PM  

ciberido: Fafai: jjorsett: ariseatex: What would be the harm in doing away with the "gay test"?

The fact that you'd find yourself granting asylum to the entire world once people learned that saying, "I'm gay and fear persecution" is an automatic visa?

This. I doubt this is done to discriminate or intrude upon or humiliate gay people. They're just protecting against fraudulence. Of course, that would depend on what this means, precisely: applicants had even given photographic and video evidence of a highly personal nature to officials.

There are certain physical traits that are (or might be) correlated with homosexuality, like hair whorl and finger length, but so far as I know there isn't any scientific test that could "prove" a person was gay or, conversely, prove that a person WASN'T.  There seem to be some differences in brain structure that would show up on an MRI or other brain scan, but again, nothing that has any strong statistical validity yet.

I suppose, for practical purposes, you'd need to prove that you had been in a homosexual relationship, and I'm not sure how you would do that except for photos or videos of you actually having sex.  And that's a disquieting thought.


A person who is seeking asylum based upon a claim that he/she is being persecuted for being gay should not have to show that he/she is gay. He/she should only have to show that they were being persecuted for it. It could be the case that somebody was being persecuted for being gay but is in fact a straight person. The same standard could be applied for anybody else seeking asylum for persecution for other things. The pertinent fact is the persecution, not the underlying reason for the persecution.
 
2013-10-12 11:55:07 PM  

ciberido: tinfoil-hat maggie:I think I understand this a bit better than you do Cib. Ya, I love your links and mostly you are correct. Now (sorry) I'm gonna hit you with a hypothetical so you may understand.

I didn't invent these definitions, damnit.  Take it up with Wikipedia if it matters that much,

I'm out.  Once people are arguing about the definitions of words, the conversation is truly pointless.


Sorry, I had a point at the beginning and well the more I posted the further I got from it. First off, yes you are right transgender can and does include intersex people. I started of by saying if they want the I in LGBTI I wouldn't begrudge that. Well I got drunk and well sorry I'm just gonna be weird this month through part of November more than likely it sometimes happens. Oh and just because some people say another category of people belong in a certain group doesn't make it so. A lot of intersex people don't wanna be included in the trans label. Right or wrong it's not for me to say but being bi you might understand a bit of that..
 
2013-10-13 03:13:14 AM  
Anyone (gay, straight or otherwise) looking to get out of a country where homosexuality is illegal should have it granted automatically. Any such country is a hellhole in my book and wanting to leave is simply a sign of sanity.

So I don't really care if a straight person "acts gay" to get into the UK (or USA or wherever).
 
Displayed 44 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report