Agreed, fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by seireikhaan
Printable View
Agreed, fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by seireikhaan
I say stop government regulation and let the migration market regulate itself, it's the only real capitalist approach. ~;)
More or less. You're not going to have many problems when you have a job in the new country and can support yourself financially. If someone moves to the UK or France because the unemployment benefits there are better, he'll be sorely surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
...
As others have said before, unless you're a refugee, it's perfectly fine if the state expects you to learn the language and respect the law of the land under the threat of deportation. But that's about it, I'm not in favour of "assimilation" strategies.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
And to further elaborate on the rest, we had nobility for centuries, it was an almost closed circle of "better" people until the rest of people decided it was unfair and fought bloody wars to bring down the nobility or fought politically to restrain them more. In many western countries they are now heroified*.
Now we have an almost closed circle of countries which are well off and don't really want to let anyone into their circle of "better" people. Some of these countries are even patronising other countries and people in these countries now wonder why everybody else thinks that this situation is a bit unfair.
Call me stupid but I notice a certain pattern, many things and issues just move on to a larger scale gradually which is why I won't be surprised if the EU ends up as some sort of nation state.
*that may not be a word but I want to use it now
For the sake of conversation, what if we turn the question on it's head, and look at the situation from the immigrants' point-of-view?:
To: Western European Former Colonial Powers
From: Your Former Colonies
Dear Most Esteemed Former Masters:
You owe us.
Were it not for the actions of your grandfathers & great-grandfathers, you would not enjoy the standard of living and political freedom you exercise today. Your very middle-class existence is due to last century's exploitation and theft of our labour and resources.
You came to our land, didn't speak our language, worship our gods, or follow our cultural ways. You imposed violence on the inhabitants to get what you wanted - all the very things that you now complain that our grandsons and great-grandsons are perpetrating upon you in your land.
Your visit to our land lasted over 100 years. Should our visit to your land not last as long?
We point out that during your visit, we allowed you to be Managers, Overseers, Owners, Directors, and titles of that sort. During our visit, we seek merely to clean your toilets, cook your food, wash your vehicles, raise your children, and enhance your economy with our cheap labour.
Kindly show some respect.
Sincerely,
Africa, Asia and South America, Inc.
That was the past. This is now.
Dear Former colonists.
Owe you? Let's review:
Most of your infrastructure we built
We deposed your previous rulers. Let's not get overly rosy eyed about them. Almost without exception they were despots or autocrats. Some of these kingdoms were won in battle in the same way the previous leaders had become king, others were offered to take flight to the West as no longer could their treatment be countenanced. Were the Zulus really peace loving?
You fought and gained freedom. You have then in many cases indulged in an orgy of violence and corruption not seen since... well, before we got there. Should we not fight as hard to keep you out as you fought to get us out?
We managed the railways we built, the roads we build, the schools we built, the hospitals we built the law we imposed (or did you like the Tugees?) You didn't want us, and got rid of us as soon as you could, as apparently genocide, starvation and corruption is only a problem if the person is white.
You were not treated well all that time ago. Since we've addressed how badly you are currently treated by a nice indigenous person, I'd also like to mention how badly the white working class were treated in Europe; similarly occupation of Caribbean islands had death rates that approached 100% of the soldiers who had no vote and no right to leave either. Treating people like scum was truly colour blind: the extremely small minority of rich did it to all - as did the occasional rich former leader.
We don't really need you. You fill in between the time the unemployed masses here are forced to do anything.
You have the independence you so ardently fought for. Rot in it.
Yours,
Europe &tc
With respect: that is always the answer. "It was my great-grampa, not me!", or "It wasn't even my Grampa. It was my neighbor's Grampa, the scoundrel!" "We're more enlightened nowadays, and would never do that 'colony' thing again."Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
The other side would say: "You don't any longer need to. The advances wroght to your country and it's people, due to the exploitation of my country and it's people, elevated you and your descendants to such a high level (compared to the rest of the world) that you can afford to sit back and muse on the higher things in life like philosophy, the existance of god, the origin of the universe, the best political system, the cup size of Ms. Spears' brassiere."
Dearest Majesties:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Indeed. Ever the apt and eager-to-please pupils, it can be said that we learned well from your example.
Regards,
AA&SA, LLC
Rory, as much as I am leaning on your side about immigration, I can't agree. What the west did was nothing less than exploitation for centuries. To believe you owe them nothing for what your ancestors did is one thing, but to truthfully deny your nation's past is another, which crosses the line in my book.
What gave the British the right to topple these people? All they did was replace one oppressive regime with a foreign oppressive regime...Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Let's think - why did the people revolt in the first place? Could it be because they had *shock and horro* legitimate grievances!? Paternalism is dead. Get over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
He's got a point though, and a good one. The victims of the original colonisation process are all dead. Current generations in these countries may despice the practice of those days, but any claim that they'd been materially better off if colonisation had never happened is unadulterated BS. The difference would be that the vast majority in those countries wouldn't be able to write "reparations" with a paper and a pen and would have even less cause to demand them.
EDIT:
before any mentions it, I'm aware of recent Dutch history in regards to Indonesia and I think it's a disgrace. In my opinion any victims of that period who are still alive ought to get compensation and fast, unlike what our government seems to think. The above bit is in regards to the colonisation and subsequent administration itself, not to misguided 20th century attempts to hold on to the Dutch Indies, Indochina or whatnot.
That's actually speculation, my friend. It can also be successfully argued that the descendants of the western European colonizers have stood to very materially, and substantially, gained an advantage economically from the exploitation of their ancestors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
Nobody here on the org boards "feels" rich, or like some oppressive ogre. But the mere fact that we here all have gaming-capable computers, and the implied wealth and leisure time available that that ownership implies - suggests a rather massive middle-class of europeans, north americans and australians that didn't exist 100 years ago - and still doesn't in the former colonies.
In the race to middle class comfort and security, we had a 50-metre lead.
Just saying.
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by seireikhaan
I take offence when people like to slip in immigration when talking about Human rights, its rubbish and no such right exists, if you wish to live in a certain country you will have to do better than pull one of those out of thin air.
Red headed Celts? Bloody hell you boys do like trot out the old racism crap fairly early on don't you? If that is the best you can do, you have no argument.
And what an earth does the British Empire have to do with this? I am not on some guilt trip about any Empire. Empires are a part of History, everyone had them, the Zulus and the Indians were some of the most ruthless Imperialists in History, laying the charge of Imperialism upon Britain's and Europe's door only is racism and bollocks.
If I had a rich peace of land and I'm not growing anything on it that doesn't mean that you are entitled to take it and make millions of it. And it's especially bad and insulting if after making millions, you tell that it's fair because you gave me something worth 10 dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
And the story that it was done in the name of civilization and progress is total BS. Any benefit to the natives was purely coincidental. Really, those Chinese and Indians needed Europeans to teach them culture :dizzy2:
Again, what does this have to do with immigration? A vengeance trip visited upon us who had nothing to do with any empire? The fact that we are white and western? Or the fact that you can spew nothing but BS about this topic?
NB: The use of acronyms as an MO to indulge bad language is, FYI, discouraged.
PS; EG BS. Warnings TBD.
TIA.
:bow:
Who? Silly ol' me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Not denying the past - it was horrible for everyone, whites, blacks and everything in between. We explioted the lands, just like their rulers did. We left and the same thing is happening. How this makes us as blameworthy for everything is what I fail to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
Yes, replaced one with another. Not always better, not always worse. No utopia was overturned.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
I'm sure they did have grievances. Good for them - it's a shame that so many have done worse since independence.
Paternalism? What? I don't purport to think that we had either the right or the duty to make their lives better now or then. I couldn't care less about them in the slightest.
~:smoking:
What on earth are you talking about? I stated nothing of the sort which you accuse me, and I find that quite annoying. I never stated that immigration is a human right, nor did I utilize any sort of racial epiteph, nor did I say anything about the days of Empire. If you are attempting to counter different people's points besides mine, than please differentiate those by quoting each person you are refuting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
You took issue with what my post said, which was about the fact that immigration is not a Human right, I repeat, you took issue, thereforeQuote:
I take offence when people like to slip in immigration when talking about Human rights, its rubbish and no such right exists, if you wish to live in a certain country you will have to do better than pull one of those out of thin air.
My remark about racism was directed at another member who presumed I wished to see Britain only inhabited by tall white people, I found it of questionable quantity.
The remark about Empire is of coarse refering to the ongoing discussion about it.
Some people think that the UK owes them something because of the eimpire? That is really ROFLCOPPTERRR. Somebody call the French Scily was reallllllll crappy in the 1200s
By "another member" I assume you mean me, so I'll allow myself a quick response against my better judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
No, immigration is not a human right as such - it is a necessity for all or almost all western nation, UK included. I presume you know why so I'm not going to explain that part.
So if we agree that immigration is a necessity we also have to realize that it means - immigrants (you didn't see this coming, did you? :laugh4:). Now, since immigrants are already there, let's say in UK, just by virtue of being there and being human, they're entitled to certain human rights. Most basic human rights include freedom of speech, religion, thought etc... and those rights can not be taken away, even in the case of immigrants. That's what I trying to say when I mentioned human rights.
Second point, my remark about colonialism was because Kukrikhan tried to offer another way of looking at things. After that some members said it's not a valid point since colonialism brought many joys to the people living in the colonies. My response was that argument how people there used to kill each other before Europeans came and Europeans merely offered them more effective ways to do so, or that Europeans built a couple of schools and hospitals is not an excuse. It is total bollox, in fact.
But, I respect your opinion that no one born outside UK should be allowed to live there. It is an option. It would probably have very serious consequences for any western country (incidentally, that's why all of them are open to some sor of immigration), but it is an option, yes...
But, I respect your opinion that no one born outside UK should be allowed to live there.
How does your mind manage to keep summoning that? It was never said it's all in your head.
I took issue not out of the idea that the ability to immigrate wherever you want is a basic human right; rather, I took issue at the connotation I took away from your statement which was that the UK shouldn't be allow anyone to immigrate to its country and close itself off from the rest of the world. A connotation I think is foolish, narrow-minded, and short sighted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
EDIT: Furthermore, I did not "take issue"; I sought clarification on your position, and offered you how I was interpreting your statement. It was you who accused me of pulling things out of thin air.
Very well. In the future, please differentiate discussion by directing arguments directly at those you are arguing with, to avoid confusion. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Again, it helps to avoid confusion if you can differentiate between discussions, so you don't accidentally end up instigating arguments with people you didn't intend to argue with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Umm... :thinking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Can't see the difference between having a right on something and being allowed to do something?Quote:
Originally Posted by seireikhaan
My question wasn't aimed at them being white, my question was which. At what point do you choose the dial back point. A year for instance: 2008, 1958, 1888, 1068, -2008?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
My question is what is your definition of reasonable limits of descent?
Also what is the point of only allowing those who have forebears in a country to immigrate back?
And do you block just genes and not memes?
Not particularly. Please explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Well, let's put it this way, I might be allowed to make a dump on your head but that's really up to you wether or not you allow it, for whatever reason. But it is not my right to make a dump on your head just because I like your haircut.Quote:
Originally Posted by seireikhaan
No, I'm afraid you're quite wrong. If you were to take a dump on my head, I could quite likely get you thrown in jail, as I'm fairly sure that there is some sort of law against depositing fecal matter on another person, such as assault/public indecency or some such. Your example is quite faulty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
What he was saying is that he doesn't have the right to do it.
But with your (kinky) consent, he could be allowed to do it.
The right to something =/= being allowed to do something.
^-well what the ozzy said
No one born outside UK should be allowed to live there.
Any person not born within the UK or within the reasonable limits of descent has no right to live there....
Look at these two statements. You really can't see the difference?
Ah, we're delving into issues of permission? Ok, I see what the point is. In that case, I you are quite accurate in that (legal) immigration is purely a country allowing other citizens into their borders to change nationalities. I will point out that without such clarification, just issuing such statements can lead to confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
EDIT: I will also point out the whole idea of permission is itself a bit of a sticky issue as well. I could give you written permission to kill me, and you'd very likely still be charged with murder. :shrug:
Of course, this really does depend on whether or not you believe humans have inherent rights, and if so, where the line is drawn.
I believe I am coming to a better understanding of Bopa's first statement- indeed, nobody is entitled to transfer nationalities at will from a legal perspective(at least in my view, and generally legally). I was mis-interpreting it as being anti-immigrationist. Apologies. :bow:
Ok, lets take a step back and consider the dates which you have used and the peoples involved. The last large and meaningful influx of people upon the Island of Great Britain before the end of the War was the Norman (hold onto your hats) INVASION. Now, I am fairly sure this rules out any form of Anglo-Saxon/ English immigration policy being taken into consideration much, much less the actual consent of the English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
People like to point to the various waves of previous mas immigration to the Island and how they have changed the ethnic and cultural shape of Britain, nicely leaving out the part that they carried the Sword not the Passport before them, unless you fall for the modernist rubbish of men like Mr. Prior (sp?).
As we have all agreed upon, these "immigrants" read violent conquerers drmatically altered the lands society. This was not in fact due to some arrangement with the locals about cultural enrichment and multiculturalism as is rather pathetically pointed to but never drawn plain in these analogies, because it occured after generations of repression, mass murder and enslavement. Lets please keep modernist fantasies of The Brotherhood of Man out of this, we are all smarter than that.
Now, with this historical context of Britain "multiculturalism" prior to the mass immigration of the 50's, we can see any comparison between the two is bollocks save one factor. The social and cultural conflict and upheaval it causes.
You can decray this point all you want but I would call you a liar if you say it is not true. It is an ever present part of my and your nature that we seek to form groups with kindred folk, we enrich and strengthen these through actual historical toil, and fanciful narratives. This is a concept as old as Humanity.
It is the case that when these groups are disrupted by newcomers and their culture, usually, in history it is due to violence or conflict of some nature.
Therefore, to sit back and expect a nation steeped within a long running national narrative to calmly accept an intrusion of external peoples whom posess a different narrative of identity and culture, is absurd.
It is a product of absurdity and it will end badly.
I hope thsi outlines a my beliefs, however repugnent to you, in a light of thoughtfullness and not reactionary emotions or racism.
Don't get me wrong I agree with you but that is a rather poor historical context you picked the norman invasion was more like norman settling, it wasn't nearly as violent as people believe and not nearly as acute, it took centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
I'm glad some of you don't control immigration policies of your countries. :laugh4::book:
Bopa, I guess I'm going to sum up my feelings in a single question:
What causes social unrest due to immigration? The immigrants trying to alter local culture, or the reaction of the native citizens(/governmental reaction as part of this)?
edit lol huh?
Again, Fragony, you must consider I am an American, and hence my experiences with immigration are going to be quite different than that of Europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Well it ain't that bad really. But when there are problems people insist on being polite.Quote:
Originally Posted by seireikhaan
Warfare certainly changes the ruling class. But with the Normans in particular they were know to assimilate in a couple of generations. They were also know as very accepting of other cultures. Just look at what happened in Sicily. So they are not the best choice of Sword =/= integration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
A lot did change but as with most Norman lands the flux went both ways. Warfare is the easiest points to see changes, but there was steady changes all along. Yes there is violence in all societies, it does not mean that all social change has been promoted by violence or violence in isolation. Yes we do have violent histories and they should not be ignored, they should not be looked at in isolation either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
I think you will find that warfare has more of an upheaval then mass immigration. Also you might in fact be fight mass immigration vs source of immigration. After all the colonies have been supplying people back to Britain as long as colonies have existed. I'm so sure that it is part of the cultural mix that you can even find title characters of mass media outlets describing this very phenomena. Colonial migration has been occurring as long as Britain has been colonising.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Not even remotely correct for every person. Something like 80%+ of second generation Asian immigrants to Australia marry outside their 'kindred folk'. Probably because by the time they are second generation their kindred is any other Aussie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Consider that I am Welsh/Swedish. Or more accurately: Welsh (+Scottish, + Irish, +French) / Swedish (+English) while my son has all that + Taiwan + China. I am a walking, talking gene soup of proof positive that your statement is incorrect.
End of the day there is a bigger gene step between man and woman then there is between any other grouping of humans.
What like finally being able to beat Australia at the Olympics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
A country that is a third of the size but has a quarter of its citizens born overseas. Yet we seem to be bubbling along quite nicely. Sure we have idiots from around the globe, we also have some very nice people of all cultures.
What I think you need to do is not just look at the loud negatives. Look at the positives of immigration. Food for me is the best starting point to get to know another culture. Generally I start with the pastries and sweets, then the alcohol. Belgium how I love thee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
I am always bombarded by the BBC, the Government and my friends about the positives of immigration, I have decided that they are mostly rose tinted views.
With the Norman invasion I was talking about the massive impact it had upon the culture of England, which was massive, you must admit. The only way that came about was through conquest, not pasive immigration policy on the part of the English. Thus comparing historical influxes to modern immigration is often a bogus analogy.
I don't care what happens in the Olympics, they are a farce and the fact that they ahve been held in Nazi Germany and Communist China gives plenty evidence that they are bollocks.
As for my statement about "kindred folk", well I will say it to myself.
A nation like Aussie (or even NZ) is young and founded upon the memory of recent immigration and colonisation. England has national and social narrative older than Hungary. It is much harder to dislodge it through passive mass immigration, indeed it seems to cause friction.
Britain will soon be striggling under the weight of its population, and yet some here think that it is a good idea to let more people in. Why? An absurd modernist belief in multiculturalism, something which the British people from the start had no say in, and when they dared talk about it "Racialist! Racialist!" was thrown at them. Enoch Powell, a man who is now seen a racist bigot (although he adored Indian people and culture), saw the problem with multiculturalism, he was thrown to the dogs for it.
Over here, we thrive on immigration. Our whole concept of being derives from a constant influx of newcomers willing to work hard and play by the rules, contribute your 'old country' 's wisdom, while adapting to this new place - a nation-wide bus terminal, as it were.
But I see no reason for other countries to imitate that plan (aside from Oz and Canada, maybe). Let the Dutch, German, Brits, French, Belgians... Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, Cambodian... be Dutch, German, Brit, French, Belgian, Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, Cambodian.
It's commendable that you open your borders and purses to war-refugees, and other folks in temporarily dire straights. I myself might be one of those guys someday. But, eventually, those folks - by definition, want to return home. Hunkering down in a ghetto, building resentment against the hand that feeds just seems silly.
"Thrive" is that the same place that is building a wall to keep Mexicans out, has several barriers to get a green card and even has some people acting as Militias at the Mexican border? :inquisitive:
Look at the UK - or indeed Europe's - population density compared to your own. When you are approaching ours, then we'll see how keen you are.
~:smoking:
Yeah, I admit the two phrases are separated by lots of other words, but 'thrive' does go hand-in-glove with 'play by the rules'. Jumping the queue, to push ahead of the other guys wanting in (who played by the rules) is as wrong at the border as it is in the cafeteria line.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
And I agree: we'll hit a saturation point eventually. I just think we're a generation or 4 away from that point today.
Immigrants built this country - we need more of them...
That is your perogotive, however do not make the same mistake as the Kwiws did in letting in half of Samoa for no good reason, only to discover too late what the consequences would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Even tougher All Blacks? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar