Yeah, maybe they can make it some place nice, like Echo Park. No homeless people or drug dealers ever set up shop there!

More parks, fewer homes -- just what Los Angeles needs.

Yeah, and they don't make any profit. They reinvest all that money back into the university.

That doesn't mean they don't care about money.

If you want to test this, here's a nifty experiment -- go swing by a non-profit hospital, whichever is closest to you, and ask them to give you all their money. See what they say.

>Legacy admission and pay to play admissions is broad day life corruption

Pretty sure you're just describing capitalism.

No one is surprised when the Ferrari dealership doesn't care about your grades. They'll take a check, thanks.

>You're making the assumption that every illegal immigrant speaks fluent English and nothing else, and has family in the UK, which isn't true. So why are you so bent out of shape?

I dont think I am. I'm saying that people who flee a country might be logically resettled somewhere that isn't the first safe country they set foot in. I don't see the point in discussing anything further if you're going to attribute things to me that I haven't written.

Nowhere did I say that "every illegal immigrant speaks fluent English." Or anything remotely similar.

If you want to know if thats what I'm assuming, ask. Don't just attribute things to me that I haven't written.

>That's a lie English speakers tell ourselves because we're largely monolingual.

Israel blocks out 5 months of daily language studying for people who just moved there. They still do manual labor, but they're not going to get an office job until they understand the language. So hey, maybe tell Israel that they're doing it wrong, lol.

>Sure, depending on just how close their familial ties are and what the immigration quota is.

Quotas defeat the entire purpose of asylum. In 2020, you would have had virtually no asylum seekers from Ukraine. Today you have millions. A quota makes no sense.

>So your argument is essentially then that all immigrants to Europe go to the UK or France?

Or whatever country works best for them. I see no benefit in making them stay in places where they can't be productive and where they have no family.

As for the number of immigrants, France lets anyone from the EU move there without permission. That means tomorrow 100+ million people could move to France and it'd be perfectly legal. If they're okay with that, I don't see why they'd object at having a couple hundred thousand people who can't go home because they'll be killed.

Those are emotionally harder, sure. And physically harder -- learning a new language doesn't take much upper body strength.

But in time and effort required? Language learning takes years. During those years, you can't contribute productively in most jobs.

But let's take family -- if someone has family in the UK and speaks English, wouldn't it be much easier to resettle them there than in Greece or Turkey? Particularly if they have no family in those places and don't speak the language.

These asylum seekers don't speak Czech or Finnish. They likely speak Arabic, English and/or French. Why not let them go to safe countries where they can fit in and be productive rather than trapping them in whatever country they touch first?

> Learning a new language really isn't some huge task in the scope of restarting your life.

What would be a bigger task than that?

If you already have family in the U.K., speak English and can better integrate into society, does it make any sense asking you to set down in Greece, learn a new language and hopefully one day get a job?

An intelligent approach would send asylum seekers places they're most likely to recover and rebound from their persecution. Or just pay Turkey to deal with them.

At least here in Los Angeles, they're practically a subset of the Mexican Mafia.

America is an amazing place.