View Full Version : USA demand visas for Brits of Pakistani origin
InsaneApache
05-02-2007, 14:24
The American government wants to impose travel restrictions on British citizens of Pakistani origin because of concerns about terrorism, according to a report today.
In talks with the British government, the US homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, called for these citizens to request a visa before they could travel to the US, according to the New York Times.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2070680,00.html
Is this a good idea? Is racial/religious profiling going to have the desired effect? Is it racism? Or is it common sense?
I havn't made my mind up yet about this, but I am veering towards the common sense option.
Let see what direction the debate goes.
Don Corleone
05-02-2007, 14:34
This is wrong. It actually plays to the hands of the more radical Imams. I understand the rationale, what with the Tube bombers being British born of Pakastani descent. But we must resist the temptation to give into this sort of segregation. If British citizens of Pakastani descent truly pose such a risk, then we should require all British citizens to obtain a visa. This just gives fodder to the Mullahs preaching hate. I can see it now:
:furious3: "See, no matter how long you live in their world, you'll always be a half-citizen to them. The only way for you to achieve full rights is to establish Sharia and force them to respect you...":furious3:
This is wrong. It actually plays to the hands of the more radical Imams. I understand the rationale, what with the Tube bombers being British born of Pakastani descent. But we must resist the temptation to give into this sort of segregation. If British citizens of Pakastani descent truly pose such a risk, then we should require all British citizens to obtain a visa. This just gives fodder to the Mullahs preaching hate. I can see it now:
:furious3: "See, no matter how long you live in their world, you'll always be a half-citizen to them. The only way for you to achieve full rights is to establish Sharia and force them to respect you...":furious3:
agreed...if it is such a security risk they should just demand a visa for everyone, of course then they will look more closely a some applications than others...but at least it can be done discretely...by doing this they´re just throwing more gasoline in the fire.
[QUOTE]Is this a good idea?
Well the old axiom "better to be safe then sorry" comes to mind.
Is racial/religious profiling going to have the desired effect?
If the desired effect is to eliminate a terrorist attack in the U.S. by a Muslim, then yes it will.
Is it racism?
Absolutelty, not all muslims are extremists.
Or is it common sense?
It is to me, I think and have felt for a long time that this country should have been seeled up like a drum. If you are not a citizen you should have a complete and through backround check before you get in. considering how many people dislike the U.S. already its unlikely to have a dramatic impact abroad (how much lower can U.S. prestige get?), have a postive domestic value as the government will finally be taking a bite out of a major problem (In my view it is anyway).
and finally solidifying the notion that protecting the U.S. from attack should not be reliant on a foriegn policy , but rather a firm domestic policy that enforces the laws in place.
Essentially this would have great ramifications for the illegal immigrant issue as well. Odin says thumbs up :2thumbsup:
Ser Clegane
05-02-2007, 15:55
I somehow doubt that this will really help to reduce the threat.
I assume that the 9/11 terrorists all actually had visa? How much of a background check do you think is realistic?
I have the feeling that this will indeed be just another convenient propaganda tool for extremists and will just create bureaucracy and a false feeling of added security for the US (just like this silly no liquids >100 ml in your hand luggage that we introduced here in Europe a couple of months ago).
This isn't even legally possible......
Don Corleone
05-02-2007, 16:00
It is to me, I think and have felt for a long time that this country should have been seeled up like a drum. If you are not a citizen you should have a complete and through backround check before you get in. considering how many people dislike the U.S. already its unlikely to have a dramatic impact abroad (how much lower can U.S. prestige get?), have a postive domestic value as the government will finally be taking a bite out of a major problem (In my view it is anyway).
and finally solidifying the notion that protecting the U.S. from attack should not be reliant on a foriegn policy , but rather a firm domestic policy that enforces the laws in place.
Essentially this would have great ramifications for the illegal immigrant issue as well. Odin says thumbs up :2thumbsup:
Nothing in your stated position though supports the discretionary selection of those British citizens with Pakastani ancestors, which is a key hallmark of this policy. Shouldn't everything you say be true regardless of whether one's great grandfather was from Manchester or Pershawer (sp?) I think the guys in the so-called 'Real IRA' hold British passports. Do you want to let them come over here and work their mischief unabated?
I somehow doubt that this will really help to reduce the threat.
I assume that the 9/11 terrorists all actually had visa? How much of a background check do you think is realistic?
I have the feeling that this will indeed be just another convenient propaganda tool for extremists and will just create bureaucracy and a false feeling of added security for the US (just like this silly no liquids >100 ml in your hand luggage that we introduced here in Europe a couple of months ago).
You might be right, it may infact have the negative impact you forsee. That said whats the downside to requiring more backround checks and demands on foreign travelers?
As I said i dont see where U.S. prestige can drop further, or that there is a need for more propaganda. What I would find realistic is that airlines who book tickets for flights landing in the U.S. are required to cross check passengers to a U.S. mandated backround check, before taking flight.
I would much rather my government spend its resources on internal bureaucracy, then hoping another government does the checks and balances for them. I think this speaks volumes to the progression of the evolution of US policy to strengthen internal control, instead of being at the mercy of external controls.
English assassin
05-02-2007, 16:05
Common sense or not, if the US government insists on this, then our government should insist that ALL UK citizens must get visas to visit the US.*
We can't have a foreign government selecting between Brits on the basis of racial origin.
(* Which is OK by me)
Nothing in your stated position though supports the discretionary selection of those British citizens with Pakastani ancestors, which is a key hallmark of this policy. Shouldn't everything you say be true regardless of whether one's great grandfather was from Manchester or Pershawer (sp?) I think the guys in the so-called 'Real IRA' hold British passports. Do you want to let them come over here and work their mischief unabated?
If you are not a citizen you should have a complete and through backround check before you get in.
That is a quote from my post. I dont care where they were born, or what religous affiliation they have, if they are not a U.S. citizen a complete backround check should be done. Including followup checks once your here to validate your business here, I dont have a link so you can take what I am about to say with a grain of salt.
I seem to recall instances where travel visas were issued to foriegn students and low and behold they showed up 7 years later living in the U.S. illegally. My point is very simple, once you get in its easy to blend in.
Don Corleone
05-02-2007, 16:12
Sure, Odin. And actually, I would agree 100% with you. I would require visas on Canadians at this point*. But that's not what this particular policy does. It says "No visa required for Brits, unless you have a Pakastani in your family tree somewhere, then we do need a visa for you". You don't see that as foolishly discriminatory?
* Okay maybe not really, but I do think we need some kind of integrity on our borders. Hell, I'm frankly amazed that Al Queda hasn't shipped an army to Venezuela and DRIVEN here by now...
Sure, Odin. And actually, I would agree 100% with you. I would require visas on Canadians at this point. But that's not what this particular policy does. It says "No visa required for Brits, unless you have a Pakastani in your family tree somewhere, then we do need a visa for you". You don't see that as foolishly discriminatory?
Discriminatory? Oh yes no question about it, its a shabby way to go about it.
A precident for a further development of policy that gets me to my proposed end? Its that too, and thats why I support it. While I dont wish to discriminate against anyone there comes a point where someone has to make a decision as to what is the best way to implement a policy.
For instance should a sherriff in a small texas town spend his resources checking credentials of anglo's as opposed to hispanic?
Its a slippery slope, and its a dangerous discussion, but since it seems to be the muslim community in Britian(in this example) that wants to do us the harm, I'll give a tacid approval for targeting them in the first round of this policy.
While not popular and bordering on bigotry it has its foundations in some form of logic, albeit slightly flawed, my goal is to have everyone have to go through this if they want to come to the U.S., this gets me closer to that end.
Don Corleone
05-02-2007, 16:24
Well, I usually find myself agreeing with you Odin. In this case, however, I'm afraid I have to respectfully, yet strongly, disagree. This policy will do much, much more harm then it will help. What's more, I'm pretty sure that Fragony is correct and it won't pass legal muster. The 14th ammendment says you cannot discriminate based on race. So if you want to require visas of British visitors, then you have to do it for the lot of them. You cannot differentiate based ethnic or racial origin. Imagine for a second if we had said "White South Africans are welcome to visit the USA but black ones must stay home". We'd have been no better than Botha himself!
Well, I usually find myself agreeing with you Odin. In this case, however, I'm afraid I have to respectfully, yet strongly, disagree. This policy will do much, much more harm then it will help. What's more, I'm pretty sure that Fragony is correct and it won't pass legal muster. The 14th ammendment says you cannot discriminate based on race. So if you want to require visas of British visitors, then you have to do it for the lot of them. You cannot differentiate based ethnic or racial origin. Imagine for a second if we had said "White South Africans are welcome to visit the USA but black ones must stay home". We'd have been no better than Botha himself!
Well we can disagree on this one Don, you know I am somewhat of an isolationist and while this is a poor example of a policy, again it gets us closer to a universal application.
the 14th amendement to my recollection does not cover foriegn travellers, for a us citizen you are absolutely correct, for a UK citizen Im not so sure it offers them the same protections.
I dont know for sure, so if someone clarifies it that would be cool.
This is probably the most ridiculous idea I've yet heard of. They should make visas compulsory if they're worried about terrorists entering the US, not just single out one country and one ethnic group from within that country. This is clearly mindless knee-jerk politics at it's very best.
Vladimir
05-02-2007, 17:02
This is wrong. It actually plays to the hands of the more radical Imams. I understand the rationale, what with the Tube bombers being British born of Pakastani descent. But we must resist the temptation to give into this sort of segregation. If British citizens of Pakastani descent truly pose such a risk, then we should require all British citizens to obtain a visa. This just gives fodder to the Mullahs preaching hate. I can see it now:
:furious3: "See, no matter how long you live in their world, you'll always be a half-citizen to them. The only way for you to achieve full rights is to establish Sharia and force them to respect you...":furious3:
:laugh4:
How does requiring someone to acquire more pieces of paper "play into the hands" of more radical Imams. By this same logic would denying foot-washing machines do the same thing? Or maybe criticism about the war in Iraq?
This is a probability based risk assessment measure which uses A LOT of good information to suggest a course of action. That's what homeland security does (or is supposed to do). Is the US government restricting your freedom by requiring you to obtain a passport to travel to Canada now?
Don Corleone
05-02-2007, 17:08
:laugh4:
How does requiring someone to acquire more pieces of paper "play into the hands" of more radical Imams. By this same logic would denying foot-washing machines do the same thing? Or what about criticism about the war in Iraq?
This is a probability based risk assessment measure which uses A LOT of good information to suggest a course of action. That's what homeland security does (or is supposed to do). Is the US government restricting your freedom by requiring you to obtain a passport to travel to Canada now?
Denying muslims (a religion) special treatment can be bantied about all day. We can at least point to Christians and say even though they're the majority religion, we don't honor their requests for state support either.
But in this case, you're talking about a taking a homogenous body of citizens (all British) and segregating them based on ethnicity. You can't argue fairness or equality, because it's a policy that is inherently unfair and unequal. If you were forcing all Brits to get visas, that'd be one thing. But singling out people of Pakastani descent (and they're not 100% muslim, by the way), even though they're British citizens (and their parents and grandparents may have been), we cannot trust them and have to enact special protections.
The closest correlary I can come up with is saying in the 1980's that if you were of Slavic descent, you couldn't hold a security clearance, because you might betray secrets to the USSR.
Vladimir
05-02-2007, 17:33
But in this case, you're talking about a taking a homogenous body of citizens (all British) and segregating them based on ethnicity. You can't argue fairness or equality, because it's a policy that is inherently unfair and unequal. If you were forcing all Brits to get visas, that'd be one thing. But singling out people of Pakastani descent (and they're not 100% muslim, by the way), even though they're British citizens (and their parents and grandparents may have been), we cannot trust them and have to enact special protections.
The closest correlary I can come up with is saying in the 1980's that if you were of Slavic descent, you couldn't hold a security clearance, because you might betray secrets to the USSR.
Don, we actively discriminate against individuals as well as citizens of certain countries. Fairness has nothing to do with it, neither does equality, just risk and probability. It also makes no mention of ethnicity, just country of origin.
That's assuming this proposal is meant to be taken at face value and not an attempt to “massage” policy. Just look at the knee-jerk reaction in the UK.
InsaneApache
05-02-2007, 17:37
It also makes no mention of ethnicity, just country of origin.
Priceless.
Just look at the knee-jerk reaction in the UK.
My knees jerking about that much, I fell off my chair....:sweatdrop:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-02-2007, 17:48
To be honest I think singleing out Brits at all is racism.
Just require everyone to have a Visa, I'll probably never go to the US anyway so I'm not that bothered.
Don Corleone
05-02-2007, 17:50
Don, we actively discriminate against individuals as well as citizens of certain countries. Fairness has nothing to do with it, neither does equality, just risk and probability. It also makes no mention of ethnicity, just country of origin.
That's assuming this proposal is meant to be taken at face value and not an attempt to “massage” policy. Just look at the knee-jerk reaction in the UK.
We do all sorts of things we shouldn't and then regret later. That doesn't make it right. Country of origin is only appropriate for naturalized British citizens. Technically speaking, if you're born in Nottingham, your country of origin is the UK. The differentiator we're applying is ethnicity, regardless of whether Chertoff specifically says so or not.
I'm sorry, call me a flaming liberal pinko, but I've got to cry foul on this one.
Don Corleone
05-02-2007, 17:51
To be honest I think singleing out Brits at all is racism.
Just require everyone to have a Visa, I'll probably never go to the US anyway so I'm not that bothered.
Well, you're not a homogenous racial group any more, so no, it's not racism, but it is discriminatory.
What's more, trust me, visas won't do anything to stop terrorism. All the 9/11 hijackers entered the country on visas.
Vladimir
05-02-2007, 17:54
Priceless.
My knees jerking about that much, I fell off my chair....:sweatdrop:
Not quite sure what the first comment is about but I was refering to the "official response" from the UK. They don't seem to happy about it. :grin:
"unbelievable and shocking" ~:eek:
We do all sorts of things we shouldn't and then regret later. That doesn't make it right. Country of origin is only appropriate for naturalized British citizens. Technically speaking, if you're born in Nottingham, your country of origin is the UK. The differentiator we're applying is ethnicity, regardless of whether Chertoff specifically says so or not.
I'm sorry, call me a flaming liberal pinko, but I've got to cry foul on this one.
*sign* Don, read the first post. "British citizens of Pakastani origin" It's right there.
Is that what Chertoff is implying or what you're perceiving? Neither of which matter.
And has this been verified? I'd like a source other than the NYT.
InsaneApache
05-02-2007, 17:58
From what I've read and heard on these boards and others, is that the frontiers of the USA are about as watertight as a colander full of liquid.
So, I have to agree with Don on this one. If the USA were really concerned about terrorists entering the country, surely they would take more care of their (porous) borders.
Still aint made my mind up, although Don is beguiling me to the dark side. :sweatdrop:
Not quite sure what the first comment is about but I was refering to the "official response" from the UK. They don't seem to happy about it.
Their country of origin is the UK. Their ethniticy is south asian.
Don Corleone
05-02-2007, 17:58
In rereading the article, I may have made a mistake here. The key question I have is 'national origin'. Are we talking about Pakastanis that became British citizens or are we talking about people born in the UK to the aforementioned group?
Edit: The confusion I have is that the British Home Office's official response mentions ethnicity.
Edit2: It's all a moot point. As I said, all the 9/11 hijackers were here on visas. We may have tightened up a little, but I'm sure there's all sorts of unsavory types floating around on visas currently.
InsaneApache
05-02-2007, 18:02
As I understand it, both.
Vladimir
05-02-2007, 18:05
From what I've read and heard on these boards and others, is that the frontiers of the USA are about as watertight as a colander full of liquid.
Sadly enough that's what makes any immigration/visa policy from this administration hypocritical.
Don, compare
But today the Foreign Office made it clear would resist the idea. It said it would oppose any attempt to exclude particular ethnic groups from the US visa waiver scheme that allows citizens from 27 countries, including the UK, to travel to the US without a visa for up to 90 days.
to
The American government wants to impose travel restrictions on British citizens of Pakistani origin because of concerns about terrorism, according to a report today.
It's the Brits that are worried about ethnic and religious concerns.
Ironside
05-02-2007, 20:03
* Okay maybe not really, but I do think we need some kind of integrity on our borders. Hell, I'm frankly amazed that Al Queda hasn't shipped an army to Venezuela and DRIVEN here by now...
They tried, but were stopped by Venezuelan border guards. :laugh4:
Vladimir, I'm not sure if I follow you here, your quotes merely suggest that it was rejected by the Foreign Office some time after the suggestion came up. But admittably, unless most of the article were written before that statement, it reeks tabloid press about the article (headline =! content).
Well, if everybody will need a background check to get in and wait a long time etc, how will it affect business if foreign businessmen cannot just enter the country anymore?
Will they adapt or just do their business elsewhere if possible?:inquisitive:
InsaneApache
05-02-2007, 20:29
it reeks tabloid press about the article
I'm sorry, no, I won't have that. The Times is not a tabloid.
Opps :embarassed: :laugh4:
Duke of Gloucester
05-02-2007, 21:36
It is a very silly idea as a simple cost benefit analysis will show. The benefit is that it will be harder for AQ terrorists born in the UK with Pakistani connections to enter the US. Of course there will still be a loophole. These people could get in to the States once they have their visa. Some may be screened out but AQ are not stupid and will manage to sneak others in if they want to, Benefit - minimal,
Cost: Pakistan, Moslems and British people of Pakistani descent will be offended. For almost all of them thats all that will happen, but for a few their hostility to the US (and their allies) will grow to the extend where they begin to support AQ. The US's relations with Pakistan, crucial to combating terrorism, will suffer. Anti-American propagandists will be provided with an open goal.
See benefit negligible, cost significant. A manifestly daft idea. It is an example of Draconian anti-terror measure which look as though they will increase safety actually making things worse by alienating those who are not yet your enemies. We tried this in Northern Ireland with internment without trial - big mistake.
Of course the US are a sovereign nation with the right to do daft things if they wish. However the UK must treat all her citizens equally under the law. Our government is duty bound to oppose this and cannot co-operate by telling US authorities which of our citizens have Pakistani ancestors and which do not.
Geoffrey S
05-02-2007, 22:33
This actually rather reminds me of the Spanish New Christians in the Middle Ages. Or any other labeling of a particular ethnic/religious group as outsiders. Not good.
Papewaio
05-03-2007, 00:05
Visas tend to be issued on a reciprocal arrangement.
So the reciprocal arrangement would be to make all US citizens have to get a Visa to visit the UK.
I think the UK government should justs tell the US that all the UK are of Pakistan origin. Until this happens all UK citizens should declare that they have heard that there is somewhere in their family tree a person of Pakistan origin and hence they wish to be acknowledged as such.
=][=
Improbable escalation points:
The EU might have a thing to say about such an arrangement to visas and likewise impose a visa restriction.
While the Commonwealth of Nations, of which UK and Pakistan are members, might also in an act of solidarity also apply such a Visa requirement. It would be a funny irony to see India supporting such a move.
It would lead to an interesting scenario to see the impact on US businesses when they have to get complete background checks for Visa's to visit Germany, France, Italy, India, Canada, Singapore, South Africa... it would certainly impact on turnaround time of businesses... and in this 24 by 7 by 365 world, time is certainly money.
Still very unlikely to happen.
Pannonian
05-03-2007, 01:33
Visas tend to be issued on a reciprocal arrangement.
So the reciprocal arrangement would be to make all US citizens have to get a Visa to visit the UK.
I think the UK government should justs tell the US that all the UK are of Pakistan origin. Until this happens all UK citizens should declare that they have heard that there is somewhere in their family tree a person of Pakistan origin and hence they wish to be acknowledged as such.
=][=
Improbable escalation points:
The EU might have a thing to say about such an arrangement to visas and likewise impose a visa restriction.
While the Commonwealth of Nations, of which UK and Pakistan are members, might also in an act of solidarity also apply such a Visa requirement. It would be a funny irony to see India supporting such a move.
It would lead to an interesting scenario to see the impact on US businesses when they have to get complete background checks for Visa's to visit Germany, France, Italy, India, Canada, Singapore, South Africa... it would certainly impact on turnaround time of businesses... and in this 24 by 7 by 365 world, time is certainly money.
Still very unlikely to happen.
There was a furore last year over Brazilian citizens needing thumbprints to enter the US. IIRC it was just part of a blanket application of measures the US government had approved, without especial prejudice against Brazil, but the Brazilians were displeased because they thought they had just agreed better relations with the US. The result was that Brazil conspicuously waved visitors from every country in the world through customs, with the exception of US citizens, who required thumbprinting. A storm in a teacup, but highly amusing to see childish spitefulness on the international stage.
Adrian II
05-03-2007, 09:05
I think London's answer should be square and simple. Jewish Americans like Chertoff will henceforth be subject to special screening in the UK because Israel is involved in state terrorism. Separate checkpoints for American Jews, special stamps in their passports, maybe even a special sign on their clothing which they have to wear as slong as they are in the UK. Yeah, that sounds about right.
English assassin
05-03-2007, 10:18
Well, the nice man from the American Embassy on the Today programme this morning said categorically that this proposal was not being discussed and no such system would be implemented. He said specifically that screening was done on an individual basis, and not on ethnicity.
Although he was a very nice man, I'm not sure I entirely believed that this wasn't discussed at some point. But I did believe him that the system would not be implemented.
So, storm over.
Adrian II
05-03-2007, 10:24
So, storm over.Excellent. This [censored] proposal was the last thing anyone needed.
English assassin
05-03-2007, 11:11
Excellent. This [censored] proposal was the last thing anyone needed.
Other than Al Qaeda, who must be a bit annoyed that they have been denied such a brilliant recruiting tool
macsen rufus
05-03-2007, 11:53
Well, for all claims that the UK has to treat all its citizens equally, did you realise that UK Muslims of Pakistani origin are being "individually screened" and obliged to give full biometric data with passport applications before the system is fully introduced for the general population? Much as I'd like to, we can't really scream "foul" at the US without questioning our own beloved leaders :laugh4:
So, storm over.
Perhaps, but there is a immigration debate that is formulating in the U.S. and strom clouds are begining to arise over it as there are many views. Sadly I dont think we will get the degree of checks and balances I would like but something similar to this issue will surface again.
Adrian II
05-03-2007, 13:34
Other than Al Qaeda, who must be a bit annoyed that they have been denied such a brilliant recruiting toolTo their comfort, they always have Bypass Man (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070502/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq)to fall back on.
English assassin
05-03-2007, 16:25
Perhaps, but there is a immigration debate that is formulating in the U.S. and strom clouds are begining to arise over it as there are many views. Sadly I dont think we will get the degree of checks and balances I would like but something similar to this issue will surface again.
Oh, as the world charges towards 9 billion people, and areas become uninhabitable due to global warming, I have no doubt that immigration/mass migration will be the hot topic of the 21st century. Hence presumably the US's enthusiasm for robot war machines, hypersonic missiles, and all sorts of other goodies to keep those outside, outside, not to mention burning the gulf oil reserves while keeping her own largely underground.
Given our respective birth rates, and Europe's geographical inability to seal itself of in the way to US could, immigration will be even more an issue in Europe than the US.
I imagine we will see a sort of Festung Amerika once things get really bad, with US citizens paying ever higher tax of a shrinking economy for the military that keeps them pure. As for Europe, I really don't know. We can't keep the world out, so I guess we'd better try to help them stay where they are. I dioubt this is possible though.
Neither of our respective futures seems very attractive to me.
Oh, as the world charges towards 9 billion people, and areas become uninhabitable due to global warming, I have no doubt that immigration/mass migration will be the hot topic of the 21st century. Hence presumably the US's enthusiasm for robot war machines, hypersonic missiles, and all sorts of other goodies to keep those outside, outside, not to mention burning the gulf oil reserves while keeping her own largely underground.
Given our respective birth rates, and Europe's geographical inability to seal itself of in the way to US could, immigration will be even more an issue in Europe than the US.
I imagine we will see a sort of Festung Amerika once things get really bad, with US citizens paying ever higher tax of a shrinking economy for the military that keeps them pure. As for Europe, I really don't know. We can't keep the world out, so I guess we'd better try to help them stay where they are. I dioubt this is possible though.
Neither of our respective futures seems very attractive to me.
What strikes me most about your post is that any sarcasm directed toward any european country seems to be met with a swift rebuttal from a moderator, yet ridiculous claims of what the U.S. will do
to keep those outside, outside, not to mention burning the gulf oil reserves while keeping her own largely underground. go for the most part unchecked.
While I have no problem with your post in its spirit, or even in a more sinister intent I do find the practice to be bordering on hypocrisy.
If we are going to have critiques on posters countries, thier citizenry and thier future negative outcome by those who dont live there can we please have that ability to apply it accross the board?
:idea2:
I for one will welcome the French once their country is a desert.
We can then travel together to Norway.:2thumbsup:
English assassin
05-03-2007, 17:57
If we are going to have critiques on posters countries, thier citizenry and thier future negative outcome by those who dont live there can we please have that ability to apply it accross the board?
I hope so too.
But for what its worth I wasn't being sarcastic. I DO think that the USA is buying oil from third parties whilst leaving its own reserves less exploited is a move towards energy security in the medium term, and I DO think America is interested in automated weapons system so as to maintain a highly effective military off a (proportionately) shrinking population of military age.
And I do also think both of those things are directed to a festung Amerika policy, or, at the least, to maintaining that policy as an option.
I don't really see why this is a sensitive issue to discuss. As a self avowed isolationist presumably you would broadly approve of the policy goal. And, in case there is any doubt, I don't criticise the US government for looking after the interests of the US. That is after all EXACTLY what it is meant to be doing.
I happen to think more international engagement and a greater use of soft power would have been more in the interests of the US, but that is an issue of means, not ends.
If anyone would like to slag off the UK policies in this or any other area BTW feel free.
Don Corleone
05-03-2007, 18:07
I think you're giving our politicians WAY too much credit, EA. As long as there's money to be made exploiting immigrants, we'll have a very loose and open immigration policy, either on paper or by not enforcing the one that is. As long as there's votes to be had bitching about immigration and blaming all our problems on it, politicians will continue to 'talk tough'.
Truthfully, I think we need somewhat stricter border controls then we currently have, but festung Amerika (not sure what that is, but it sounds like we're sealed off from the outside world) just ain't gonna happen. As for the whole oil reserve question, there's something else afoot there. We don't drill our own oil because the environmentalist lobbies have forbidden it. Now, you could argue oil coroprations like Exxon-Mobil are even more powerful, but even they must cower in fear of the massive power of the "NIMB" hordes. (NIMB=Not in my backyard).
The NIMB hordes are the reason we haven't built a nuclear reactor in 25 years, we have massively overcrowded prisons, we don't have enough recycling and waste disposal areas and why we don't drill domestically. Americans may not get be very political, generally speaking, but boy, watch us get fired up when somebody suggests they build that jail we've been clamoring for within 50 miles of our house. :furious3:
English assassin
05-03-2007, 18:30
I think you're giving our politicians WAY too much credit, EA
Possibly. I know as a Euroweenie my union card says I have to think all Americans are stupid, but I actually have quite a high regard for the US government.
Well, not all of it. Not Bush. Or Cheney. Actually, probably none of the politicians. But as an administration and over the years I think its pretty effective at getting what it wants. Generally when we see a spokesman on the TV (s)he seems intelligent and well briefed. (The West Wing was a documentary, right :laugh4: ) I guess you probably let us see the best ones and keep the B list for domestic consumption but it certainly it compares well to the UK in that regard.
But I take the point on NIMBIES and oil.
I don't really see why this is a sensitive issue to discuss. As a self avowed isolationist presumably you would broadly approve of the policy goal. And, in case there is any doubt, I don't criticise the US government for looking after the interests of the US. That is after all EXACTLY what it is meant to be doing.
.
Oh I think you read me wrong assassin, I would like nothing more then to be able to have a discussion about immigration in a sarcastic, over reaching manner based on assumption, particularly on immigration in europe vs the U.S. :laugh4:
I have no problem with crticism of the U.S., I however find it necessary to temper my responses based on example from the boards. I had a wonderful reply formulated which made mention of colonialism, lost national identity flavored with an inbred dependence on liberal notions in description of the european situation.
Sadly my instinct was to not make the post which, was sarcastic, not based on my personal reality, and drawn from sources that leave me with nothing but assumption to draw on for my basis of argument.
Sound familiar?
English assassin
05-03-2007, 18:57
I have no problem with crticism of the U.S., I however find it necessary to temper my responses based on example from the boards. I had a wonderful reply formulated which made mention of colonialism, lost national identity flavored with an inbred dependence on liberal notions in description of the european situation.
Sadly my instinct was to not make the post which, was sarcastic, not based on my personal reality, and drawn from sources that leave me with nothing but assumption to draw on for my basis of argument
Now you are just toying with me. Am I supposed to be hurt or not? Inbred sure didn't sound positive.
Seriously, if you have a snorter lined up dealing with the opium wars, chicken tikka masala and the Guardian newspaper, let her rip. One of the good things about the backroom is finding out just how different different countries takes on things are. No one's here to be agreed with.
And no, that is not sarcasm.
In so far as there was a rule, I thought it was that personal abuse was right out, but reasonably robust debate otherwise was in.
So if you think eg that the UK hasn't got the balls to walk it like it should, and that we envy the Americans the place in the sun we once had, and bitch from the sidelines accordingly, say it.
[QUOTE=English assassin]Now you are just toying with me.
no I am not toying with you, I am being subtle in my insinuations, which you happen to play a minor role in.
Am I supposed to be hurt or not? Inbred sure didn't sound positive.
Not at all, I mean if it did infact hurt you then by all means "be hurt" but I gathered from your other postings here and in this thread that you would be able to handle a little poke or two.
Or was that my point? that infact when someone from the U.S. pokes back, the issues start? :idea2:
Seriously, if you have a snorter lined up dealing with the opium wars, chicken tikka masala and the Guardian newspaper, let her rip.
Nah, I sense that at this very moment this thread is being watched (mainly from my follow up posts) and for those versed in the art of subtlety (or just for myself) I am satisfied with my contribution to the thread thus far.
One of the good things about the backroom is finding out just how different different countries takes on things are. No one's here to be agreed with.
I understand that, but the problem seems to be as to whom dosent agree with whom, or more precisely what your locale is vs the other blokes locale. Maybe its my perception, I have no doubt there are those who view it otherwise (hence the non agreement).
but reasonably robust debate otherwise was in.
Are you toying with me now? was
Hence presumably the US's enthusiasm for robot war machines, hypersonic missiles, and all sorts of other goodies to keep those outside, outside,
robust or reasonable? I found it entertaining really, but alas I find that a rebuttal of an equal robust and reasonable nature aimed at (pick the european country of your choice) might not be as well recieved, by those who determine what is reasonable and robust. Following me?
So if you think eg that the UK hasn't got the balls to walk it like it should, and that we envy the Americans the place in the sun we once had, and bitch from the sidelines accordingly, say it.
On the contrary, I think the UK is a fine country, my issue is more along the lines of a seemingly endless critique of my country that seems to be allowed no matter how ludicrous the assumptions are.
Of course this dosent mean I am right, its my perception.
Cheers :beam:
English assassin
05-03-2007, 19:25
What we have here is DEFINITELY a failure to communicate.
"Am I supposed to be hurt or not" was a tease. I guess neither of us are likely to get that hurt by what some guy on the internet says. It might also have been a gentle hint at being over subtle, a trap that it also, ironically, fell into.
As for the rest, it not for me to say. As the biggest of the big dogs, IMHO its inevitable that the US gets more comment than, say, a Euro-country. That's one thing. But if you feel that we are "allowed" to say things about the US that are not allowed to be said about other countries, that's another. And it would be a shame if you did think that.
Anyway, I'm off the the pub. ATB.
InsaneApache
05-03-2007, 22:52
Anyway, I'm off the the pub. ATB.
and it's your round, bloody cheapster southern poof.
Just to make sure that the concept of abuse, is unversal :laugh4:
Papewaio
05-04-2007, 02:51
A quick look at history of wars, sport and loans would make one think that....
An Aussie, an Irishman, a German, and an American are not the natural set of allies for an Englishman when it comes to the sport of making fun of them.
I'm highly amused to think that we wouldn't enjoy seeing them taken down a peg or two.
Now if you can do so without swearing, personal attacks or totally unfounded arguments, and with a bit of wit too it would be appreciated.
Duke of Gloucester
05-04-2007, 05:34
Well, for all claims that the UK has to treat all its citizens equally, did you realise that UK Muslims of Pakistani origin are being "individually screened" and obliged to give full biometric data with passport applications before the system is fully introduced for the general population? Much as I'd like to, we can't really scream "foul" at the US without questioning our own beloved leaders :laugh4:
What is your source for this assertion?
macsen rufus
05-04-2007, 12:50
What is your source for this assertion?
My Muslim colleagues of Pakistani origin who have recently applied for passports :idea2:
(And we're talking suit-and-tie respectable types with impeccable English accents, not Burka-clad Urdu-speaking beardies with bad attitude and rucksacks....)
KukriKhan
05-04-2007, 14:51
Public service announcement:
For those unaware, complaints and/or discussion of moderator-staff bias or unfairness, etc. have a designated place, too: the Backroom sub-forum of the Watchtower (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=114).
We keep that place separate, so as to not derail threads in the actual Backroom.
:bow:
Duke of Gloucester
05-04-2007, 23:28
My Muslim colleagues of Pakistani origin who have recently applied for passports :idea2:
(And we're talking suit-and-tie respectable types with impeccable English accents, not Burka-clad Urdu-speaking beardies with bad attitude and rucksacks....)
I suspect this is a sample too small to deduce anything from. From April some passport applications have required full biometric data. The fact that a couple of your friends have been asked to provide such and happen to be Moslem and of Pakistani origin does not mean that all or only these people are being so treated. Not that I am saying our government is not capable of being as stupid as the Americans or more so. I am just giving them the benefit of the doubt for now.
macsen rufus
05-05-2007, 09:56
From April some passport applications have required full biometric data.
This was WAY before April.....
Duke of Gloucester
05-05-2007, 10:18
This was WAY before April.....
Odd, since e-passports were only fully introduced in October 2006 (after piloting for 6 months) and then only contained measurements taken from the passport photos. What details were your friends asked for? Did they have to attend a passport office for interview? Did they have to give fingerprints and submit to iris scans or what?
macsen rufus
05-05-2007, 10:49
Not sure of the full details, the date was somewhere around Xmas. Did have to go for interview, and I believe fingerprints and iris scans, but would need to check for precise procedure. And you're right about the small sample size, but as passports are renewed only every ten years, you don't get a lot of reapplications in your circle of acquaintances at any one time, but even so the "ethnic whites" I know who've reapplied in this period have not had to give the same info. I need an extra 1,000 friends for the observation to become statistically significant, of course :beam:
Now I need a new passport, and I'm quite sure, for totally different reasons, they'll probably make me jump through a few hoops as well :sweatdrop:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.