Immigration Question

[CountArach]

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?

What gave the British the right to topple these people? All they did was replace one oppressive regime with a foreign oppressive regime...

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.

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.

[Kralizec]

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.

[KukriKhan]

... but any claim that they'd been materially better off if colonisation had never happened is unadulterated BS

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.

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.

[Incongruous]

Please explain. Because, for me, this seems to indicate you don't believe in any form of immigration to be allowed.

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.

[Sarmatian]

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.

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.

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

[Incongruous]

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?

[Banquo's Ghost]

NB: The use of acronyms as an MO to indulge bad language is, FYI, discouraged.

PS; EG BS. Warnings TBD.

TIA.

[Sarmatian]

Or the fact that you can spew nothing but BS about this topic?

Who? Silly ol' me?

[rory_20_uk]

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.

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.

What gave the British the right to topple these people? All they did was replace one oppressive regime with a foreign oppressive regime...

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.

Yes, replaced one with another. Not always better, not always worse. No utopia was overturned.

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.

[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.

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.

[Incongruous]

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, therefore

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[Sarmatian]

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, therefore


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.

By "another member" I assume you mean me, so I'll allow myself a quick response against my better judgement.

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? ). 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...

[Fragony]

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.

[seireikhaan]

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, therefore

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.

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.

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.

Very well. In the future, please differentiate discussion by directing arguments directly at those you are arguing with, to avoid confusion.

The remark about Empire is of coarse refering to the ongoing discussion about it.

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.

[seireikhaan]

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.

Any person not born within the UK or within the reasonable limits of descent has no right to live there....

Umm...

[Fragony]

Umm...

Can't see the difference between having a right on something and being allowed to do something?

[Papewaio]

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.

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?

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?

[seireikhaan]

Can't see the difference between having a right on something and being allowed to do something?

Not particularly. Please explain.

[Fragony]

Not particularly. Please explain.

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.

[seireikhaan]

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.

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[Fragony]

^-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?

[seireikhaan]

^-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.

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.


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.

[Incongruous]

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?

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?

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.

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.

[Fragony]

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.

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.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I'm glad some of you don't control immigration policies of your countries.

[seireikhaan]

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)?

[Fragony]

edit lol huh?

[seireikhaan]

And I am going to answer are you kidding me??

answer, not that much, but a good living

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.