POLL: Free movement of people - Yes or No

[ViolentPanda]

And you have less to lose by emigrating.

Unfortunately, not true. You have more to lose precisely because you won't have access to the same sort of expat support networks as your businesswoman cousin will.

 

[chilango]

I am interested in how this thread has developed. People picking who gets to live around them/ in their communities?

I am trying to imagine this... What happens to those people who are not 'desirable'?

Surely this method could only work 'fairly' if the starting point for all was one of equality?

Yeah.

Tbh I can't actually imagine a situation where communities have that kinda control, and the structures to exercise it, without some sort of major social change that would hopefully have also addressed inequalities. So it's sort of a moot point.

 

[chilango]

Again. I find it worrying that people are unable to put their trust in ordinary people, in communities.

The assumption that community control = closed communities. That people, given the power, will somehow default to reaction or xenophobia. That community control of incomings into that community automatically means prejudice and restriction.

No.

Maybe I'm just more optimistic.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Yeah.

Tbh I can't actually imagine a situation where communities have that kinda control, and the structures to exercise it, without some sort of major social change that would hopefully have also addressed inequalities. So it's sort of a moot point.

Again. I find it worrying that people are babble to put their trust in ordinary people, in communities.

Maybe I'm just more optimistic.

No I don't think you are.

I think your starting point for imagining this may be different to others though.

You said above it wouldn't happen without major social change where inequalities have been addressed.That is your starting point.

Maybe the rest of us needed you to actually say that otherwise our starting point is the here and now where inequalities do exist and all of the fallout of that need to be taken into consideration.

The assumption that community control = closed communities. That people, given the power, will somehow default to reaction or xenophobia. That community control of incomings into that community automatically means prejudice and restriction.

Because some people do. If that wasn't true it wouldn't register as a worry for anyone surely?

 

[chilango]

No I don't think you are.

I think your starting point for imagining this may be different to others though.

You said above it wouldn't happen without major social change where inequalities have been addressed.That is your starting point.

Maybe the rest of us needed you to actually say that otherwise our starting point is the here and now where inequalities do exist and all of the fallout of that need to be taken into consideration.



Because some people do. If that wasn't true it wouldn't register as a worry for anyone surely?

Thing is, any discussion of what we might want requires some degree of social change in order for us to have won enough power to enact it (or force politicians to enact it) otherwise we'll continue to have the conditions of migration etc. imposed upon us from above that are in the interests of capital not the community nor the migrants. So, any ideas we might discuss are likely sharing my starting point whether that is acknowledged or not.

However, I don't believe that inequalities as they exist in the here and now renders communities incapable of,or unwilling to, have positive discussions and reach positive conclusions about what their interests are regarding people joining that community.

I don't believe that most people are racist or xenophobic or closed to people coming in. That's just not my experience. But, regardless, I'd still argue that communities are better placed than capital to have these discussions and make these decisions.

 

[Raheem]

Thing is, any discussion of what we might want requires some degree of social change in order for us to have won enough power to enact it (or force politicians to enact it) otherwise we'll continue to have the conditions of migration etc. imposed upon us from above that are in the interests of capital not the community nor the migrants. So, any ideas we might discuss are likely sharing my starting point whether that is acknowledged or not.

However, I don't believe that inequalities as they exist in the here and now renders communities incapable of,or unwilling to, have positive discussions and reach positive conclusions about what their interests are regarding people joining that community.

I don't believe that most people are racist or xenophobic or closed to people coming in. That's just not my experience. But, regardless, I'd still argue that communities are better placed than capital to have these discussions and make these decisions.

I'm having a hard time imagining how one of these positive discussions would go. If you're not allowed to bring up your social prejudices, what basis is going to be left for vetoing a prospective neighbour? You could bring in questions of capacity (for example, the jobs market, school places etc etc), but does it really make sense to be talking about those things at a community level? Would (gulp!) an "Australian-style points system" not be more logical?

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm having a hard time imagining how one of these positive discussions would go. If you're not allowed to bring up your social prejudices, what basis is going to be left for vetoing a prospective neighbour? You could bring in questions of capacity (for example, the jobs market, school places etc etc), but does it really make sense to be talking about those things at a community level? Would (gulp!) an "Australian-style points system" not be more logical?

No

Next

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Thing is, any discussion of what we might want requires some degree of social change in order for us to have won enough power to enact it (or force politicians to enact it) otherwise we'll continue to have the conditions of migration etc. imposed upon us from above that are in the interests of capital not the community nor the migrants. So, any ideas we might discuss are likely sharing my starting point whether that is acknowledged or not.

However, I don't believe that inequalities as they exist in the here and now renders communities incapable of,or unwilling to, have positive discussions and reach positive conclusions about what their interests are regarding people joining that community.

I don't believe that most people are racist or xenophobic or closed to people coming in. That's just not my experience. But, regardless, I'd still argue that communities are better placed than capital to have these discussions and make these decisions.

Inequalities, among other things, render the very concept of community very highly questionable, contestable and blurry.

 

[Raheem]

No

Next

I appreciate you're just being a cock, but I'll rephrase to make it an open question. What sort of criteria could reasonably be used to enable meaningful decision-making about immigration to take place at community level? I'm finding it difficult to imagine that there could be any.

 

[Maggot]

Unfortunately, not true. You have more to lose precisely because you won't have access to the same sort of expat support networks as your businesswoman cousin will.

That's right, it will be a different type of support network, but there will still be one, of friends and family already here.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's right, it will be a different type of support network, but there will still be one, of friends and family already here.

And the "different type of support network" may or may not have lesser or greater access to social capital and its' concomitants. Different classes, trades and professions network differently. Networking and support networks aren't homogeneous, and aren't equally-situated to give support.

 

[Pickman's model]

I appreciate you're just being a cock, but I'll rephrase to make it an open question. What sort of criteria could reasonably be used to enable meaningful decision-making about immigration to take place at community level? I'm finding it difficult to imagine that there could be any.

No, an Australian points system would not be more logical, esp being as, afaics, there is zero chance of leaving the single market and the single market means free movement.

 

[Sherman Tank]

That's "freedom of movement" mostly for people who have 40 Euros or so spare, connections in London, and some idea of what the hell they can do when they get here. Thankfully the days of shelters being rammed with homeless eastern Europeans searching for streets paved with gold are over. What we get now are mostly petit bourgeois tradespeople, quasi-professionals and artisans whose intentions are to be able to sock away some money over 3 to 5 years by working hard, then go home with enough savings to put some money down on a house or land.

Schengen, and the "isolating" of the UK, is a dog's breakfast of an idea that only really works to prevent one sort of migratory flow, and even then, only works if migrants use conventional means of entry. It's expensive political tosh, because it doesn't fulfill the purpose that the UK govt gives it.

I'm not sure why you posted this?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm not sure why you posted this?

And that's my problem...how?

 

[Sherman Tank]

I am not saying it is your problem, more saying that I don't understand how what you posted is a reply to the post of mine that you quoted.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Thankfully the days of shelters being rammed with homeless eastern Europeans searching for streets paved with gold are over.

I wish this were true.