Immigration. Is it time for the right, to REALLY piss off the left?
- Thread starter TonkaToy
- Start date
And to be fair, I speed read TB's article, I didn't quite catch this at the bottom.
TB does the non OB / pro Heavy immigration control argument a disservice when he talks like this. I don't believe we need to shut down immigration to a trickle in order to tell the God bothers (No matter which religion they be) to fuck off.
All I would ever argue for, is receprical one in for one out immigration policy between all countries outside the EU.
For inside the EU, I would just insure that we have the same agreement as our partners. If our partners don't accept newer EU immigrants, then neigther should we.
Fairs fair.
TB does the non OB / pro Heavy immigration control argument a disservice when he talks like this. I don't believe we need to shut down immigration to a trickle in order to tell the God bothers (No matter which religion they be) to fuck off.
All I would ever argue for, is receprical one in for one out immigration policy between all countries outside the EU.
For inside the EU, I would just insure that we have the same agreement as our partners. If our partners don't accept newer EU immigrants, then neigther should we.
Fairs fair.
TeeJay said:
Oh come on. You know what I mean. Dark and dangerous bogeymen like Norman Tebbits more innocent views being used with his darker views to batter those that simply agree with his more moderate views.
I know plenty of people here would not see "Immigration slowed to a trickle" as a moderate view - heck I don't even agree with it, but the point I'm making is that his more unreasonable views are being used to batter those who happen to agree with his moderate views.
That doesn't make those who agree with his moderate views, right, but accusing such people of being racist and bigoted because they happen to share views with people who are - is a bit below the belt.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
TeeJay said:
I see where you're coming from (and I probably agree with most of it) but control of migration isn't the only defining factor of a country's existence.
One need only look back to before the First World War to find that countries exercised little or no control over the movement of people. Passports (the most basic of control documents) were a useful accessory, but not generally essential for international travel.
The first modern passports in the UK were introduced in 1915. It was only in 1921 that international agreement was reached for their widespread adoption. I doubt it would be possible to argue that countries like the UK and Spain did not exist before then
In a more up to date parallel, the Schengen Agreement countries have effectively open borders without it bringing about a withering of the French state (though some Euro-sceptics might have you believe that).
Funny you say that - I have just started this thread in another forum:TonkaToy said:
Immigration "one-in-one-out" tradable permit policy?
I'm interested in what "valuation" you would give in that thread.
"Country" doesn't equal "state" tho'...cybertect said:
...it is the *functions* of state that would become more or less impossible, in that they need by definition some kind of area of authority and application.
If a state provides education, health, a police force and system of laws and courts, if it regulates a whole list of activities and provides a whole list of services, collects taxation and so forth ... all of this is applied to an area or region, which becomes 'de facto' part of that state's geographical manifestion.
To simply say that there should be 'no borders' also logically impacts on the state. Has the state disappeared or spread? If functions continue and they have a geographical extent then there are still 'borders' or the state has spread to 100% of places that people live.
It is true that there currently exist areas where the state has in effect collapsed and/or where local people have in effect their own 'tribal' government or system that provides functions, but there is still a border between these kind of areas and areas where a more formal state exists.
TonkaToy said:
Ah economic migration...
I feel that globalisation will have serious effects for the us in the not so distant future. Businesses will continue to distribute throughout the globe with manufacturing centered in areas of cheap labour, administration will also be carried out in areas of cheap labour (such as Indian call centres) and all that will be left in the west will logistics. This is couples with the advent of the internet and consumers becoming more confident on buying online; the consumer will eventually be used to dealing with the international market. The world is shrinking.
Another problem is that enforced employment laws will have no or little effect - companies will just move on to new ground. Immigration relies on capital to fullfill a social role and provide wealth for them, a bitter pill to swallow for some of us perhaps... The west is a victim of its own success. A total open door to immigration has problems: those who have the skills to compete in the new global market can only continue to exist if the costs of their labour is reduced.
So what do you suggest? Because I don't have a clue.
riot sky said:
Well.......I don't mind genuine refugees working here, but there would have to be safeguards that would ensure that normal economic migrants don't wang the refugee card in order to circumvent any system of reciprical migration..
...and I think you would agree (and most probably have been saying yourself) that better foreign policies aimed at cutting down refugees in the first place, would be in order.
On the home front, more organisation against arms companies along with lobbying against arms companies would be great. I'm not blaming the left per se, but there is an awful lot of people who make presumptions about what people on the right think, when it comes to the arms trade. I really have been wanting to my little bit against the global arms trade, but I feel alienated by those who bring along 56 zillion other causes along to what really should be a single issue. Of course problems and issues are linked, but everyone has differing opinions on how they are linked. Also, it's not fair that I'm photographed and headcounted for some perihperal cause that I might not support.
Numbers at all manner of protests would absolutely swell, if people just learnt to stick the original fucking reason why they are protesting!
Sorry if I went off on one....
riot sky said:
Tell me about it. Most of the money that I'm counting at the moment, isn't even UK pounds...it's US dollars. The only way I can make what I make, it's convincing Americans, that I'm cheaper than Americans, but can provide a better service than the Indians. It doesn't matter what any of us like, not even the yanks can stop globalisation now - that's the way things have happened.
riot sky said:I aint agreeing with you!! I merely think that is the way things are heading and I hope I am wrong.
How do you provide a better service than those provided by India
I never said I did. It's about CONVINCING Americans that I provide a better service than some random Indian outfit. I'm not going to try and convince you, that I can provide a better service than every Indian firm out there. This is a just a messageboard, it's not like I'm just about to give you a quote for a contract now, is it?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Over the years debate on here about race and immigration has become more and more incoherent. From the left and the right. But this thread takes some beating.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
TeeJay said:
I think you're going to have to define what you mean by 'no borders' because I've a feeling you've created a bit of a straw man.
I don't think anyone (perhaps outside a very few ultra-internationalists, if they exist) is advocating that national boundaries should be totally erased from the map.
I was addressing the question of the abolition of border controls which you mentioned.
There are no border controls to prevent me moving from, say, Scotland to England. They both have different legal codes and taxation regimes, but there's no suggestion that either of them has disappeared or ceases to be able to deliver services as a result.
Equally, to use your example of a criminal on the run, it's perfectly routine for Scottish police to arrest someone wanted for a crime committed in England.
There would be nothing preventing a similar arrangement between the France and Belgium - which is exactly what the Schengen agreement is about. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that the French state has melted away in consequence.
Abolition of border controls doesn't require the abolition of the concept of citizenship, merely that citizens of one state may pass through and live freely in other states. What status you confer on those foreign citizens once they're resident is a separate issue.
If it's necessary to establish citizenship for some purposes, such as access to education, welfare services or the ability of an individual to serve in the armed forces of that country, removal of border controls doesn't change anything. A birth certificate or naturalisation papers (or even a National Identity card
) should be sufficient to do that job.Similar threads
