Too many immigration threads on UK P&P?

[Fruitloop]

I would have thought that Benedict Anderson did indeed think that a nation-state is a fictional entity in a philosophical sense. In what sense could it have an ontological presence?

 

[Knotted]

excellent posts from Knotted ..

Thanks, I've been researching these questions on and off for a good six or seven years now. I think there are long term global issues that are beginning to come to the fore now, with the Mexico-US relation being an exemplorary case study. I really should write up my conclusions at some point. The main problem is that my economic theory is not up to scratch.

 

[Knotted]

I would have thought that Benedict Anderson did indeed think that a nation-state is a fictional entity in a philosophical sense. In what sense could it have an ontological presence?

I could be wrong on Benedict Anderson - I've only been reading bits and pieces scavenged off the internet - but I find this question a bit odd. Does anything have an ontological presence? I would take the view that nations/nation-states are historical entities. There's nothing absolute about them, but that does not mean they are fictional.

 

[Fruitloop]

Anything you can hit with a stick has an ontological presence. Anything you can't may not.

 

[Knotted]

Anything you can hit with a stick has an ontological presence. Anything you can't may not.

That's reasonable enough. I suppose that no human society, social grouping, organisation, relations, thoughts, feelings, emotions etc. etc. have an ontological presence. Fair enough.

 

[nino_savatte]

With respect to Benedict Anderson, my reading of him is that his notion of imagined community is not an imaginery entity. Urban75 is an imagined community. We do not all know each other, yet there are still social rules that are collectively enforced. So as a community, Urban75 is an imagined community but that's not to say that it is imaginery. Anderson even views nationalism positively in this sort of 'banal' respect. You should read the interview I linked to.



That's easy for you to remedy then. Just explain your arguements so that I don't misread them as I'm really at a loss to understand what you are saying now. Nation states aren't real but they are physically real? You have to appreciate that that's difficult to interpret and I'll get clobbered with the accusation of misrepresentation whatever I take you as saying.

1. I think I've explained my arguments coherently enough.
2. Aye, U75 is an imagined community (all communities are thus), though what this has to do with the price of fish is anyone's guess.
3. The state is a construct created by its ruling classes....or perhaps there is some disagreement with this?

 

[Knotted]

Nowt like a circular conversation. Tell you what, you can continue to insist that i have a "simplistic notion of nationalism" as much as you like but it will not alter the reality that the nation-state is a construct.

I choose to call the idea that nationalism can be defined "simplistic" as it infers that there are simple charateristics of nationalism that can be identified. I contrast this idea with the idea that there is no single thread running through various examples of nationalism. If you hate the word "simplistic" that much I can always use another. Any suggestions? But in any case consider yourself lucky that I'm bored enough to discuss semantics with you.

 

[Knotted]

1. I think I've explained my arguments coherently enough.

Enough for whom to understand? Not me. Not that it matters. We could just move on.

2. Aye, U75 is an imagined community (all communities are thus), though what this has to do with the price of fish is anyone's guess.

I was just clarifying what I understood. It proves nothing. Don't worry yourself over it.

3. The state is a construct created by its ruling classes....or perhaps there is some disagreement with this?

I don't understand what you mean by 'construct'. However, you needn't give a definition if you don't want to. If you have any interesting conclusions from the above please feel free to express them.

 

[Lock&Light]

Could you please remember that this thread does not exist to give praisesong to nationalism.

There will be very many different ideas about why this thread exists.

That is a fact that anyone who decides that they are omniscient should note.

 

[Lock&Light]

U75 is an imagined community (all communities are thus)

My interest in an explanation of this mysterious utterance will probably never be satisfied by a sensible dissertation from its utterer.

 

[becky p]

The fact of the matter is that socialists should be building communities but instead the likes of nino back neo-con policies that fragment them and divide them.The only thing most of you lot are in touch with is your private parts on a regular basis by the looks of thinks.You are white middleclass elitest kids who do not really gie a fuck or do anything for local communities except bully them into your way of thinking.If immegration is so cool and you are going to fight for the rights of big buissness then why not start national campaigns for more council housing as housing seems to be one of the reasons people are anti-immegration.But no the whole point of the violet and ninos of this world is to sit around between moral wankerthons and pat themselves on the back for being good socialists in that the belief is more important than the action.

Becky you are right i do pity them.


Am i the only one to see the irony in the title of this thread

"They hate what they don't understand" I'm afraid.
The hatred spews out for anybody who questions their prejudices.
IMO the majority of people look at their pro immigration arguements as
devoid of any common sense.
After they have done away with borders. What happens to work permits or passports? Or National Insurance numbers? Or Taxation?

As durrutti said some of them seem to think that naybody who agrees with any kind of immigration controls is some kind of psycho who wants to shoot all foriegners.

It must be a lot easier for some of them to write off anybody with difficult questions as stupid and or racist.

 

[audiotech]

...the majority of people look at their pro immigration arguements as devoid of any common sense.

I'm assuming you're active in your community Becky? If so, how do you address the 'common sense', and it would appear from your remarks, anti-immigration arguements from the 'majority of people' you meet?

 

[becky p]

I'm assuming you're active in your community Becky? If so, how do you address the 'common sense', and it would appear from your remarks, anti-immigration arguements from the 'majority of people' you meet?

There seems to be a majority on here who view being active in your community as being in small groups of likeminded people,who lecture others about what they should or should not do.

Do you think i should join them mc5. Maybe you could help me refine my arguements to explain to them about how NI could work if we did away with immigration controls?

 

[audiotech]

There seems to be a majority on here who view being active in your community as being in small groups of likeminded people,who lecture others about what they should or should not do.

Do you think i should join them mc5. Maybe you could help me refine my arguements to explain to them about how NI could work if we did away with immigration controls?

We don't do 'lecture' in my local bowls club.

You can join what you want, however, you didn't answer my questions did you Becky?

What's 'NI'?

 

[nino_savatte]

I choose to call the idea that nationalism can be defined "simplistic" as it infers that there are simple charateristics of nationalism that can be identified. I contrast this idea with the idea that there is no single thread running through various examples of nationalism. If you hate the word "simplistic" that much I can always use another. Any suggestions? But in any case consider yourself lucky that I'm bored enough to discuss semantics with you.

No, you're the one who wanted to discusss semantics. You are also the one who kept crapping on about "simplistic anti-nationalism". I asked you if you were a nationalist and you never replied. It seems to me that you want others to play by your rules but won't oblige any requests made of you.

 

[nino_savatte]

There will be very many different ideas about why this thread exists.

That is a fact that anyone who decides that they are omniscient should note.

In case you hadn't noticed you thick twat, I'm the one who started this thread.

 

[nino_savatte]

Enough for whom to understand? Not me. Not that it matters. We could just move on.



I was just clarifying what I understood. It proves nothing. Don't worry yourself over it.



I don't understand what you mean by 'construct'. However, you needn't give a definition if you don't want to. If you have any interesting conclusions from the above please feel free to express them.

You're playing games now. It's patently obvious what is meant by the word "construct".

 

[ViolentPanda]

"They hate what they don't understand" I'm afraid.
The hatred spews out for anybody who questions their prejudices.
IMO the majority of people look at their pro immigration arguements as
devoid of any common sense.
After they have done away with borders. What happens to work permits or passports? Or National Insurance numbers? Or Taxation?

As durrutti said some of them seem to think that naybody who agrees with any kind of immigration controls is some kind of psycho who wants to shoot all foriegners.

It must be a lot easier for some of them to write off anybody with difficult questions as stupid and or racist.

Gonna post up some examples of what has led you to believe that some posters on this site think "that naybody who agrees with any kind of immigration controls is some kind of psycho who wants to shoot all foriegners."?

Nah, thought not.

And you bang on about other peoples' prejudices!!

Have a word with yourself!

 

[ViolentPanda]

We don't do 'lecture' in my local bowls club.

You can join what you want, however, you didn't answer my questions did you Becky?

What's 'NI'?

National Insurance contributions.

What that has to do with "no borders" I can't fathom, unless beckyp is worried about people using the services she's paid for without having contributed to the funding of them.

Is that it, becky?

 

[nino_savatte]

"They hate what they don't understand" I'm afraid.

Correct and many people hate foreigners because they don't understand them and this extends to immigration. You won't agree with that...or perhaps you will try to find a way of turning this back onto me.

It must be a lot easier for some of them to write off anybody with difficult questions as stupid and or racist.

That's wishful thinking. Though, one suspects, that you and those who share your thoughts would scream at any mention of the word "xenophobic". Yet, that is what I tend to see with those who support immigration controls. They just aren't honest enough to admit it to others and themselves.

 

[Knotted]

No, you're the one who wanted to discusss semantics. You are also the one who kept crapping on about "simplistic anti-nationalism". I asked you if you were a nationalist and you never replied. It seems to me that you want others to play by your rules but won't oblige any requests made of you.

I missed your request, the answer is no.

 

[Lock&Light]

In case you hadn't noticed you thick twat, I'm the one who started this thread.

I am fully aware that you started the thread. However, a thread, once started, takes on a life of its own, and frequently moves from the OP to more, (or less), interesting things.

 

[nino_savatte]

Lock&Light
This message is hidden because Lock&Light is on your ignore list.

Ahhhhhh, that's better!

 

[Knotted]

Let's have another look at this:

For me, there appears to be two types of internationalism: there is one version that works to preserve the concept of the nation-state and, rather than working for the abolition of states and borders, works within a capitalistic framework and stresses "co-operation" between nation-states. There is another form, to which I would subscribe, that maintains that the nation-state is part of the problem and borders need to come down for the sake of world peace and freedom. The former embraces the classic liberal notion of "free trade", while the latter embraces "fair trade".

In particular this:

There is another form, to which I would subscribe, that maintains that the nation-state is part of the problem and borders need to come down for the sake of world peace and freedom.

In what way do border controls support the existence of the nation state? Remember that border controls are a 20th century invention and that nations and nationalism existed perfectly well before their existence.

Is it not possible that the freedom to migrate can in some respects bolster the nation state? Firstly there are greater profits to be gleaned from migrant labour. Secondly fluid movement of labour helps dominate sending countries by removing skilled labour and making these countries reliant on remittances rather than independent development. Arguments against border controls coincide with economic nationalism. This last point has been made so many times I've lost count. Yet it is always ignored. Why is this?

 

[nino_savatte]

Let's have another look at this:



In particular this:



In what way do border controls support the existence of the nation state? Remember that border controls are a 20th century invention and that nations and nationalism existed perfectly well before their existence.

Is it not possible that the freedom to migrate can in some respects bolster the nation state? Firstly there are greater profits to be gleaned from migrant labour. Secondly fluid movement of labour helps dominate sending countries by removing skilled labour and making these countries reliant on remittances rather than independent development. Arguments against border controls coincide with economic nationalism. This last point has been made so many times I've lost count. Yet it is always ignored. Why is this?

In what way do border controls support the existence of the nation state? Remember that border controls are a 20th century invention and that nations and nationalism existed perfectly well before their existence.

Border controls are not a 20th century invention, they have existed much longer than that.

The state only exists to reproduce itself. It has no other function.

 

[Lock&Light]

Ahhhhhh, that's better!

You often remind me of a little child I once knew.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Border controls are not a 20th century invention, they have existed much longer than that.

Border controls have existed as long as taxation has, and we know, for example, that there are tax records dating from the "Three Kingdoms" period of Chinese history (1st-2nd century CE), from the Hittite period of Middle eastern history (16th-12th century BCE), and many others. Customs duties have always been a favoured method of raising revenue, and the best way of making a good fist of it is border control.

The state only exists to reproduce itself. It has no other function.

Not quite, it ultimately exists to reproduce itself, but to do so it has to channel quite a lot of energy into justifying itself in order to be able to reproduce.
Hence "bread and circuses" still being such a popular mode of appeasement and distraction.

 

[Pigeon]

As durrutti said some of them seem to think that naybody who agrees with any kind of immigration controls is some kind of psycho who wants to shoot all foriegners.

It must be a lot easier for some of them to write off anybody with difficult questions as stupid and or racist.

"Easier" given that some of them- such as yourself, Ms P- don't seem to voice any opinion on, for example, the disgusting conditions in immigration detention centres in this country, preferring to blame anything and everything on "the left".

 

[nino_savatte]

Not quite, it ultimately exists to reproduce itself, but to do so it has to channel quite a lot of energy into justifying itself in order to be able to reproduce.
Hence "bread and circuses" still being such a popular mode of appeasement and distraction.

Aye, can't argue with that.

 

[Knotted]

Border controls are not a 20th century invention, they have existed much longer than that.

Well, you obviously know more than I do on this. Am I wrong on pedantic grounds or substantial grounds? Is it just that I should I have written immigration controls rather than border controls as the latter include customs and excise?

The state only exists to reproduce itself. It has no other function.

I fail to see either the relevance or truth of this.