IMMIGRATION thread

[Montmorency]

Viking, I don't think you understand what I'm commenting about in your posts.

If it is realistic for the inhabitants to create a functioning country, then they are failing as long as they aren't actually doing that. Blaming outside forces for their lack of success is then a distraction since they could have succeeded, anyway.

This statement is so vague as to have no meaning. I'll take the liberty of putting a better-specified argument in your mouth, which is just that African countries from which refugees/illegal immigrants into Europe commonly emigrate have some endemic ecological, structural, and cultural problems that contribute to the pressure to emigrate (e.g. violence, corruption, shortage of work, food, other resources, etc.); it is not a complete explanation toward accounting for these problems to say that international political or economic interaction is what simply contributes toward or perpetuates these problems or their conditions.

Further taking into account that everything interacts and covaries, we see that the world situation is dynamic and no institution or people anywhere act or exist in a vacuum distinct from others such that some parties could unilaterally shift certain policies to produce an immediate and dramatic effect on the aforementioned issues (besides, you know, OWG ).

Put that way, I would agree, since it applies as well to Western countries and whatever problems you may identify in them.

[Viking]

Viking, I don't think you understand what I'm commenting about in your posts.



This statement is so vague as to have no meaning. I'll take the liberty of putting a better-specified argument in your mouth, which is just that African countries from which refugees/illegal immigrants into Europe commonly emigrate have some endemic ecological, structural, and cultural problems that contribute to the pressure to emigrate (e.g. violence, corruption, shortage of work, food, other resources, etc.); it is not a complete explanation toward accounting for these problems to say that international political or economic interaction is what simply contributes toward or perpetuates these problems or their conditions.

Further taking into account that everything interacts and covaries, we see that the world situation is dynamic and no institution or people anywhere act or exist in a vacuum distinct from others such that some parties could unilaterally shift certain policies to produce an immediate and dramatic effect on the aforementioned issues (besides, you know, OWG ).

Put that way, I would agree, since it applies as well to Western countries and whatever problems you may identify in them.

The point is the principle that can be summarised with this analogy: if your goal is to cross a street, sufficiently strong wind can make it difficult, but as long as it isn't too strong, you can actually cross it. Even if you could write an entire doctoral thesis on how much harder it is to cross it with the wind in place, as long as you can cross it, you can.

It's not about saying that people are lazy or stupid, but that if they all co-operated, they could do it. If a large enough group realised this, they could actually succeed in changing the country for the better (as per the the 'realistic' criterion) (and as social media penetrates deeper and deeper into Africa, this also becomes a more realistic scenario).

History is full of examples of systems that were torn down by the people living under it; both peacefully and not so peacefully. To talk about complexity and covariance is to miss the point.

Very much possible, and why is that so?

For example because some people in that country did not have the foresight to prevent these people from getting into power.

Is it reasonable to stick to and even propagate a system that directly aids or at least profits from the instability of other societies and then wonder why these other societies are doing so bad?

Huh?

Did you even read the article? How many of the refugees sent their money to France?

I was talking about the state.

Yes, North Korea is only doing so well because it drove out all the foreigners.

No one said all foreigners should be expelled. Look to Cuba and Venezuela for more successful examples of countries who are in opposition to the "imperialists".

You keep ignoring that a lot of these internal problems only came to be through external influences.

Nope, I showed how these problems of external origin can be fixed or weakened. The fact that they are not is because the country's leadership is incompetent; they either can't or don't handle the problems they should be handling, and are more interested in enriching themselves and their families. They aren't failing because they face foreign demons that are too strong, but because they are hardly trying at all.

And why then do you seemingly blame the refugees for the problems in their countries?
I agree that Europe cannot take all the refugees but you sounded as though you were saying:
"Well, it's got nothing to do with us, let's seal our borders and wait until they fix their own mess."
If that was a misunderstanding then please elaborate

I don't blame them, but it is their country and their mess, and therefore it makes sense that they should attempt to fix it, per common sense. It is their countrymen that are killing each other and taking bribes, not French raid parties pillaging and burning villages.

[Montmorency]

The point is the principle that can be summarised with this analogy: if your goal is to cross a street, sufficiently strong wind can make it difficult, but as long as it isn't too strong, you can actually cross it. Even if you could write an entire doctoral thesis on how much harder it is to cross it with the wind in place, as long as you can cross it, you can.

It's not about saying that people are lazy or stupid, but that if they all co-operated, they could do it. If a large enough group realised this, they could actually succeed in changing the country for the better (as per the the 'realistic' criterion) (and as social media penetrates deeper and deeper into Africa, this also becomes a more realistic scenario).

I can't tell if this is gibberish or just outlandishly-naive.

[Viking]

I can't tell if this is gibberish or just outlandishly-naive.

It's straight forward logic, and why you don't get the message is beyond me. Methinks you are reading things into my posts that are not there.

[Husar]

For example because some people in that country did not have the foresight to prevent these people from getting into power.

Who in that country do you expect to show such foresight? The 95% who have neither running water nor an education?

Huh?

Western companies and sometimes even NGOs contribute to the problems in these countries significantly.
There are oil companies but also diamond and other raw material companies which help enricht the elite and do not mind that none of the profits go to the poor. This does not help since the elites can hire more guards and soldiers with that money to keep the poor in their place. Then you have cheap food imports from Europe and the US which ruin the local farmers since they cannot compete. If they want to buy the technology that would allow them to compete, they have to take up huge loans that put them into financial trouble for decades for a lot of reasons. Then you have european fishing boats fishing away all the fish in front of the african coasts, putting the fishermen out of work as well. And it does not stop there. In the end it comes down to you just saying that it is their fault for not developing the technologies to compete in time. But if you say that you might as well go full darwinism and advocate that we sink all the boats we can find.

I was talking about the state.

If you had read the article, you might have known that France gets to choose who is the state there and that the money was already in France by the time they became "independent".
And even if they could, it's like saying Greece could also just stop paying its debt and everything will be fine and the sun will shine.

No one said all foreigners should be expelled. Look to Cuba and Venezuela for more successful examples of countries who are in opposition to the "imperialists".

Oh yes, Venezuela, super successful: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30710014
And Cuba never had any refugees flee to richer countries...

Nope, I showed how these problems of external origin can be fixed or weakened. The fact that they are not is because the country's leadership is incompetent; they either can't or don't handle the problems they should be handling, and are more interested in enriching themselves and their families. They aren't failing because they face foreign demons that are too strong, but because they are hardly trying at all.

So what you want to see is european-backed governments with european-supplied weapons slaughter a bunch of half-starved grandfathers and women because they try to overthrow the government? Or are you perhaps rooting for the rebels who killed their sons and daughters in front of their grandchildren whom they then recruited as child soldiers at age 5 to continue their mostly futile resistance to the government? Who of these is not trying hard enough in your opinion?

I don't blame them, but it is their country and their mess, and therefore it makes sense that they should attempt to fix it, per common sense. It is their countrymen that are killing each other and taking bribes, not French raid parties pillaging and burning villages.

You know, if I hire a martial arts expert to pin you to the ground, then come and tell you that I want to enslave you and you say it's not fair, I can also reply: "Look, I don't blame you, but it's your life, and the mess you are in, it is only common sense that you have to beat this martial arts expert, not my problem. I just paid this guy to take care of MY needs."
You see, it's easy to say that when he has already pinned you to the ground and you are completely helpless.

It's straight forward logic, and why you don't get the message is beyond me. Methinks you are reading things into my posts that are not there.

It sounds like the ramblings of an armchair general who has no idea of the realities on the battlefield. Would you be ready to die (yes, permanently, no reload) tomorrow if your government decided to make a turn for the worse?

[Viking]

Who in that country do you expect to show such foresight? The 95% who have neither running water nor an education?

For example. People uniting in great numbers could become an unstoppable force. Not just for purely political reasons, but also to co-operate over harvest, trade etc. You don't need education to come up with this, basic logic and imagination will suffice.

Sometimes, it might be physically hard because there are large distances involved, farms and other types of work that cannot be abandoned, and so on. Other times, it's easier - like for city populations where smaller distances are involved. Cf. Cairo in 2011.

It's even easier for people with power; like wealthy people, or people in the military. But such people often don't care as long as their positions aren't threatened, or they have much to gain from it.

In the end it comes down to you just saying that it is their fault for not developing the technologies to compete in time. But if you say that you might as well go full darwinism and advocate that we sink all the boats we can find.

You don't need modern technology to have a functioning country in the first place. If poor countries co-operated and invested in technology and education, they could become relatively self-sufficient. Many poor countries have mineral resources etc. that many rich countries can only dream of.

If you had read the article, you might have known that France gets to choose who is the state there and that the money was already in France by the time they became "independent".

That makes no sense. Revenues for the state are generated continuously, and people with the military behind them decides who are in charge, unless France would dear to go for a full-scale invasion, which could still be won, either directly on indirectly. But it sounds like an unlikely scenario, anyway.

And even if they could, it's like saying Greece could also just stop paying its debt and everything will be fine and the sun will shine.

Greece has very high living standards compared to the countries we are talking about here, and through things like these more dependent on good international relations. A country where a majority of the population cannot even afford a TV has much less of a reason to maintain good international relations. What are they going to lose out on? Even more loans? Access to Spanish beach resorts?

Oh yes, Venezuela, super successful: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30710014
And Cuba never had any refugees flee to richer countries...

So you are saying that Cuba and Venezuela are no better places than the average poor African country?

So what you want to see is european-backed governments with european-supplied weapons slaughter a bunch of half-starved grandfathers and women because they try to overthrow the government? Or are you perhaps rooting for the rebels who killed their sons and daughters in front of their grandchildren whom they then recruited as child soldiers at age 5 to continue their mostly futile resistance to the government? Who of these is not trying hard enough in your opinion?

Huh? I was saying that governments in Africa weren't trying hard enough to neutralise negative foreign sources in case they still exists.

You know, if I hire a martial arts expert to pin you to the ground, then come and tell you that I want to enslave you and you say it's not fair, I can also reply: "Look, I don't blame you, but it's your life, and the mess you are in, it is only common sense that you have to beat this martial arts expert, not my problem. I just paid this guy to take care of MY needs."
You see, it's easy to say that when he has already pinned you to the ground and you are completely helpless.

A supposed analogy for what exactly?

It sounds like the ramblings of an armchair general who has no idea of the realities on the battlefield. Would you be ready to die (yes, permanently, no reload) tomorrow if your government decided to make a turn for the worse?

No, just a straw man on your side. Show me were I told people in poor countries to do anything at all. All I have actually done is to emphasise what is possible, and how.

If I had a lethal genetic disease, I could study medicine and put all my work hours and spare time into finding a cure before it's too late - or I could study little to nothing, live a generally leisurely and pleasant life and hope that someone else finds a cure. My choice.

[Brenus]

"This reminds me something... Ah, yes, Lenin in 1917. Will Marxists ever change their rhetorics of "traitors yielding the national property to international capitalists" and "down with those we don't like"? The USSR story didn't teach them anything."Show me in it "the important part of your sentence" which mentions ANY economy: Underline for you as you apparently suffer of short memory deficiency. As you can see, the part I highlight was part of one of your sentence, which contains my quote.

"It only corroborates my statement that Marxists (and you proudly count yourself as one) are not different from the rest of the scum you are so fond of denouncing. " Expect of course, one, you NEVER denounced nazism, well, generally speaking yes, but in reality no, as you ALWAYS find a good reason why Ukrainian Nazi are not THAT much nazi, and two, you still don't understand what Marxism is. Well, to be fair, you don't seem to understand what Nazism is either.

"Advocating let's-seize-all-property-and-split-it-even- between-all-citizens approach?" Still leaving in the 19th Century? You really should go about your USSR model...

The words "to scrap" and "to take the government down" are very different (to put it mildly) from "a democratic revolution by votes".
So you should be more precise in wording your thoughts if you want others to read them correctly. Not the first time I say that. That is because you still live in the 19th Century early Soviet Union state of mind, so you translate words in something they are not telling. Nothing I can do about it, sorry. I tried and failed miserably.


"You know perfectly well that only a small part of Maidaners were nazis, yet you call it "a nazi coup"." Ahhh.... Finally... We are making progress. So, you are now admitting part that you qualify of small (and I would agree with you) were Nazi. Good. Then, yes, the Coup itself was made by this minority, well organised and highly motivated. Like during the Russian Revolution you always refer to, 2 steps, and the active minority won. In case of Ukraine it went wrong for the Nazi as they failed their target (Former President escaped, and worst, Crimea lost and rebellion of the Russian Ukrainians (or Ukrainian Russian as you please) went berserk and started to fight back again real or perceive ethnic/cultural/political menaces.
As facts for claim of will of ethnic cleansing: Army Unit with 2 SS PZ Division Das Reich, ban of Russian language, and various demonstrations in you country. I linked all this, so go back to the links, provided by BBC and US channels.
You willingness to swallow your own propaganda had yest shown you are not ready for truth, but I am not complete out of hope for you, as you start to accept the Nazi thing. Still a lot of work to do, but I am sure you can do it. We are all behind you, you can do it...

"Ok. Let's now bring up all events of the past someone is upset about." . The English are upset about it. They lost the war...
Care to explain what you were trying to show? Because I fail to see it!

"You will have to explain, though, how all this contributes to this discussion of traitors." Err, it was about 1 year old doesn't make it untrue... Nothing to do with traitors... Hmmm, perhaps you are right. I really have to write in more simplistic way if I want to be understand by you...

"Seeing the corruption in Ukraine I will gladly swap it for what you term as lobbying" I wouldn't disagree with this one...

[Husar]

For example. People uniting in great numbers could become an unstoppable force. Not just for purely political reasons, but also to co-operate over harvest, trade etc. You don't need education to come up with this, basic logic and imagination will suffice.

Apart from the reasons you also gave, there are also other factors such as repression, through the army and spies etc. Remember Tiananmen square? The Czech attempts at breaking away from the soviet union? The Warsaw ghetto uprising?
Sometimes the government will just drive some tanks over your protest and for the common people this is dangerous.
On one hand such efforts can be detected and crushed early if the planning is huge and on the other hand if you plan small, there is a good chace that the others will be too afraid to join and it becomes even more likely that the government declares you a splinter group and drives some tanks over you.
Your ideas are based on the few cases where it worked but those are no guarantee whatsoever.
There were also many people in Tehran and in turkish cities, in both cases the protests were violently crushed because the rest of the population did not support them enough or was too afraid to join in.

You don't need modern technology to have a functioning country in the first place. If poor countries co-operated and invested in technology and education, they could become relatively self-sufficient. Many poor countries have mineral resources etc. that many rich countries can only dream of.

Yes, and why do they not cooperate?

That makes no sense. Revenues for the state are generated continuously, and people with the military behind them decides who are in charge, unless France would dear to go for a full-scale invasion, which could still be won, either directly on indirectly. But it sounds like an unlikely scenario, anyway.

According to you, the world/Africa as it is makes no sense if I understand you correctly, and yet it is this way. Why do you think that is the case?

Greece has very high living standards compared to the countries we are talking about here, and through things like these more dependent on good international relations. A country where a majority of the population cannot even afford a TV has much less of a reason to maintain good international relations. What are they going to lose out on? Even more loans? Access to Spanish beach resorts?

Food?

So you are saying that Cuba and Venezuela are no better places than the average poor African country?

No, you called them more successful examples, although I now see that that was only a relative statement. North Korea also has a higher living standard, some African countries may want to be more like that, surely that would also end the refugee crisis just like turning all these countries into DDRs would.

Huh? I was saying that governments in Africa weren't trying hard enough to neutralise negative foreign sources in case they still exists.

Maybe because they do not want to. So what do you recommend to the peasant whom you do not want to flee across the mediterranean?

A supposed analogy for what exactly?

That when someone is keeping you down it may be hard to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.

No, just a straw man on your side. Show me were I told people in poor countries to do anything at all. All I have actually done is to emphasise what is possible, and how.

You kept arguing that governments can be overthrown, if that was not you telling them what they should do instead of becoming refugees, then what is your point? Do you have an actual realistic solution or just would-be solutions that are obviously inferior solutions according to the hundreds of thousands of refugees wo would rather enter a rusty boat than try what you suggest?

If I had a lethal genetic disease, I could study medicine and put all my work hours and spare time into finding a cure before it's too late - or I could study little to nothing, live a generally leisurely and pleasant life and hope that someone else finds a cure. My choice.

How does that relate to refugees?
Let's get back to what you originally said:

Blaming problems in the third world on outside forces is typically a convenient scapegoat. The most troubled of these countries normally have corrupt governance and/or major warring ethnic groups. Fix that, and the exodus would subside.

According to you this should be done by the locals, yet hundreds of thousands of them would rather flee than fix their countries, why do you think that is?