I misconstrued your sarcasm, sorry. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 26/01/2011 10:24:40 AM
And because I'm not knowledgeable, for another.
That is a valid reason not to opine.
I am.
Fair enough, but in that case I'd likely be in trouble fast if I tried to debate it any length. Plus there may be little cause to do so; we don't seem to disagree as much as I initially thought.
If you were talking about what I think you were, however, bear in mind how often I've publicly said, regarding Americas immigration woes, that amnesty is a slap in the face to those who invest the time, money and energy to immigrate legally just because they aren't willing to introduce themselves to a new country with a criminal act. Then bear in mind that I coughed up $500 to get here, and succeeded in no small part due to indirect connections to an immigration lawyer who could literally explain the immigration laws to the woman who initially denied my visa (she actually thanked him for correcting her ignorance at one point. 
) Further consider that it'll be at least a year before I can even apply for university, because I need some kind of residence permit first and can't even apply for one until two weeks after next falls admissions deadline. Also consider that in my NATIVE country, if someone returns home via deportation the State Dept. revokes their passport and they'll never get another. Ever.
Now consider that, from what I'm told, someone who entered the country illegally, ignorantly or not, was made aware of her illegal status yet obtained a masters degree from the state university before declaring herself an illegal immigrant via a book that's reportedly selling quite well, and STILL THINKS SHE SHOULD BE ABLE TO STAY! In looking over the local universitys admissions process I noted a warning that limited space makes it "highly competitive", thus for all the hypothetical abstractions about illegal aliens abusing the system at taxpayer expense in America, someone who'd otherwise have received a university education here was instead denied one because someone here illegally took their spot at a taxpayer funded university. The penalty for that is a trip to Moscow and expedited legal reentry as a resident, or a lifetime without a university degree and commensurately higher earnings, depending on whom you are. What kind of hypocrite would I be if I said this is OK? If I'D pulled that the US would never allow me to leave again, let alone return to Norway. Maybe I should write a book....
Remember: I WARNED you!
) Further consider that it'll be at least a year before I can even apply for university, because I need some kind of residence permit first and can't even apply for one until two weeks after next falls admissions deadline. Also consider that in my NATIVE country, if someone returns home via deportation the State Dept. revokes their passport and they'll never get another. Ever. Now consider that, from what I'm told, someone who entered the country illegally, ignorantly or not, was made aware of her illegal status yet obtained a masters degree from the state university before declaring herself an illegal immigrant via a book that's reportedly selling quite well, and STILL THINKS SHE SHOULD BE ABLE TO STAY! In looking over the local universitys admissions process I noted a warning that limited space makes it "highly competitive", thus for all the hypothetical abstractions about illegal aliens abusing the system at taxpayer expense in America, someone who'd otherwise have received a university education here was instead denied one because someone here illegally took their spot at a taxpayer funded university. The penalty for that is a trip to Moscow and expedited legal reentry as a resident, or a lifetime without a university degree and commensurately higher earnings, depending on whom you are. What kind of hypocrite would I be if I said this is OK? If I'D pulled that the US would never allow me to leave again, let alone return to Norway. Maybe I should write a book....
Remember: I WARNED you!
Did you get the impression I was in favour of the popular point of view that her staying is unproblematic?
I did, yes; I mistook whom you were chiding, sorry.
I am not one to mindlessly follow the incoherent outrage of the masses, and I thought my comment made it clear that I found it bizarre that there is such a movement to make her stay while excluding others in a similar position.
But.
There is a difference between asylum and conventional immigration. You are doing the latter. She tried the former. Conflating them does nobody any good. And I will not pretend that the Norwegian bureaucracy is flawless in dealing with the legitimacy of asylum seekers. And being generally in favour of treating people as people, not as mindless "entities" that can be reduced to a statistic, I find our treatment of asylum seekers too restrictive.
(Ironically, this whole mass movement (as I indicated in my original reply) is due to people finally seeing a previous asylum seeker as precisely an individual, which I would like them to do in all cases.)
In this particular case, I do not have anywhere near enough information to take an unequivocal position. There are definite indications that the family was in serious danger, and that it was politically motivated, but that Norwegian immigration authorities failed to recognise that.
If so, that makes the staying illegally much more understandable, and I would much rather an illegal immigrant take a university education than turn to crime.
But.
There is a difference between asylum and conventional immigration. You are doing the latter. She tried the former. Conflating them does nobody any good. And I will not pretend that the Norwegian bureaucracy is flawless in dealing with the legitimacy of asylum seekers. And being generally in favour of treating people as people, not as mindless "entities" that can be reduced to a statistic, I find our treatment of asylum seekers too restrictive.
(Ironically, this whole mass movement (as I indicated in my original reply) is due to people finally seeing a previous asylum seeker as precisely an individual, which I would like them to do in all cases.)
In this particular case, I do not have anywhere near enough information to take an unequivocal position. There are definite indications that the family was in serious danger, and that it was politically motivated, but that Norwegian immigration authorities failed to recognise that.
If so, that makes the staying illegally much more understandable, and I would much rather an illegal immigrant take a university education than turn to crime.
Well, an illegal immigrant has already turned to crime if they remain in the country after learning of their illegal status, the moreso if they then obtain first a Bachelors and then a Masters degree at a university that requires students to be legal residents. I'm not unsympathetic here either, but if she sincerely felt as bad as claimed and genuinely wanted to do the right thing, "the right thing" would have been to go to the police, explain her situation and then seek asylum independently from her parents since they remained in the country with their minor child even after being refused asylum. Informing the authorties via a sensationalistic book then waiting for them to arrest her with the expectation allowing her to stay would be a mere formality seems a bit like political extortion: The fact there IS a "popular" view is no accident and, while I have no great love for UDI, in their place my reaction would probably have been something like "GTFO and STAY TFO!" If I broke into a jewelry store, cleaned it out and then wrote an exciting captivating novel about my exploits I wouldn't be too indignant or surprised that the cops who subsequently arrested me wouldn't let me keep the gems.
Now, you're quite right that asylum is different from other forms of immigration, and if there's a legitimate danger of political violence against her I think she ought to get asylum, though, as you note, she shouldn't get special treatment not accorded those who lack her public relations skills but are in precisely the same predicament. One difference is that while I'd never be allowed out of the US again if I was deported for being here illegally, it seems that asylum seekers are repatriated with a significant sum of cash, more than enough to travel to, say, Germany, or Britain, etc. and seek asylum there. A case of "you don't have to go home but you can't stay here". That seems a lot more ethical than simply using public opinion to bully the government into giving you what they refused to grant when you publicly proclaimed you'd been enjoying it for seven years. As it stands it sounds like she won't even have time to unpack before returning on a work permit, but while she may have "put a face" on the problem, most asylum seekers won't have the luxury of being a charismatic cause célèbre to let them circumvent the system. If you're a semi-literate 50 year old male refugee from Mogadishu... well, hopefully you have cute kids to put in front of the camera (makes me wonder where mom and dad are during this little media blitz).
So I guess the comparison to the American situation fits rather well if we bear in mind that political asylum IS a different thing than more standard immigration; I'm sympathetic in both cases, but the technical term for ignoring laws one deems inconvenient is "crime" and if the authorities decide to simply look the other way because a confessed criminal is likeable that's a tremendous slap in the face to all the people who ACTUALLY did the right thing and went through the proper legal channels AS WELL AS accepting the results of that. I mean, really, what kind of idiot would waste years of their life and large amounts of money on a process that very well might STILL fail when they could instead be living and working in the country illegally, secure in the knowledge that if they're ever caught the government will just retroactively rubber stamp their legal residence? Amnesties are a bad idea for the same reason the US won't let people leave the country again if it have to pay for their repatriation: Rewarding bad behavior only encourages it.
Whoever told you getting into the local university is hard was ... exaggerating. You pretty much only need to have passed high school.
Well, that's reassuring, thanks, but the person that told me admission to the local university is "highly competitive" was the admissions section of said universities website. Given how much harder than expected finding a job has been I'm inclined to take them at their word.
I'm told they type of class makes a big difference, that as long as there's space left in a given course registering for it is no problem, but if there's more demand than supply then the competition begins. Something to ask our bridemaid about, me thinks (though any advice or info you have is certainly welcome), since I'll most likely be pursuing the degree she completed a year or so ago.Still, before I set about trying to teach Norwegians my language and culture (and maybe the Brits, I guess, if it's necessary
) I suppose I should learn more of theirs.