nino_savatte said:becky p said:
It is not about hating foreigners or being xenophobic. Its about being practical.
This country could never accomodate all those who might wish to live here. And anybody who pretends it could is being more than just economical with the truth. They are trying to deliberately mislead people.
Too many immigration threads on UK P&P?
- Thread starter nino_savatte
- Start date
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
becky p said:
It is not about hating foreigners or being xenophobic. Its about being practical.
This country could never accomodate all those who might wish to live here. And anybody who pretends it could is being more than just economical with the truth. They are trying to deliberately mislead people.
How many others have said the same thing as you? Too many. The sad thing about your argument (if that's what it is) is that you really believe that you're standing up for the working classes of this country. You also continue to labour under the delusion that this island is "crowded" but your 'thesis' does not stand up to scrutiny. Is Dartmoor full of people? How about large areas of Northumberland? Crowded, are they? No.
The specious economic arguments against immigration are a cover for xenophobia. Even a popular programme like Coronation Street has picked up on this issue. You and the others continue to subscribe to this tabloidesque notion that there are "floods" of immigrants and that were are being subjected to a "deluge"; a veritable "tidal wave" of filthy immigrants, all speaking their weird languages and bringing with them their strange customs and practices.
I'm only surprised that you and your petit ami, baldwin haven't uttered Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Knotted said:
1. You claimed that border controls were a 20th century innovation (do I have to quote your post in full?). Both VP and myself said that they weren't. There's no need to be snide.
2. No, you wouldn't see the relevance because if you admitted to it, it would seriously undermine your weak thesis. Of course, you know all about "truth", don't you?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Knotted said:
Do you remember saying this, Knotted? It's here in black and white. You said "Remember that border controls are a 20th century invention".
You're wriggling, obfuscating and playing silly wee semantic games.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Knotted said:
Ah, you've returned to repetitive mode, I see.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Knotted said:
What "projection"? I can't take you seriously; if you aren't dismissing my argument as "simplistically anti-nationalistic", then you're playing cheap wee games with words. You have done this since you came to this thread. I'll find the posts if you like.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Knotted said:
You wouldn't but then this post, and most of the others that have preceded it, weren't relevant either.
You're just pissed off because you can't get your own way. This post sums up your approach to me and this thread.
You're arrogant as well as dishonest.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Knotted said:
You're embarrassing. Tell you what, I'll put you on ignore. It's clear that all you've come here to do is lie and misrepresent me. If you can't get your own way, you resort to silly semantic games.
You have consistently failed to address any of the points that I've rasied and have preferred to repeat the same, tired mantras. I'm bored with it.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
That's better.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Knotted said:
Border controls have historically also served a "policing" function, but in terms of large-scale migratory movements for socio-economic and other reasons, states appear to have relied more on military than civil measures.
In fact one of the examples I gave earlier, the Hittite empire, had, by most accounts, an exceedingly tight immigration and customs control system, the former for reasons of xenophobia, the latter for the more prosaic reason of financing the state apparatus.
They were rather cold-blooded, were the Hittites.
ViolentPanda said:Border controls have historically also served a "policing" function, but in terms of large-scale migratory movements for socio-economic and other reasons, states appear to have relied more on military than civil measures.
In fact one of the examples I gave earlier, the Hittite empire, had, by most accounts, an exceedingly tight immigration and customs control system, the former for reasons of xenophobia, the latter for the more prosaic reason of financing the state apparatus.
They were rather cold-blooded, were the Hittites.
Thanks for that. I'm a little unclear about what you mean by military measures (I'm not trying to argue here, just curious).
nino_savatte said:
Perhaps if a large proportion og people were migrating to Datmoor or Northumberland,you might have a point.But the largest number of people moving to the UK move to the areas with the highest population density.
I don't subscribe to any "tabloidesque idea of filthy immigrants"
You seem to subscribe to the view that anbody who questions your ideas is guilty of some kind of heresy!
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
becky p said:Perhaps if a large proportion og people were migrating to Datmoor or Northumberland,you might have a point.But the largest number of people moving to the UK move to the areas with the highest population density.
I don't subscribe to any "tabloidesque idea of filthy immigrants"
You seem to subscribe to the view that anbody who questions your ideas is guilty of some kind of heresy!
Well, duh. That's where the jobs are.
But this...
...is just another way of saying that your ideas are correct and anyone who dares to challenge you on this issue will be subjected to the usual 'counter-argument' of "It isn't racist but..." or "How dare you call me a racist because of my concerns on the issue of immigration"; these are just ways for you to close down any debate that doesn't conform to your imagined majoritarian pov.
Sorry but it doesn't wash.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Knotted said:
We tend to think of armies/militias performing border-policing duties to repel/discourage "migrants" as a fairly new phenomenon (despite the fact that members of the UN have certain obligations if those migrants are actually refugees), but it has sprung up on pretty much every continent in the last 3000 years.
The actual measures have varied between "standing in dress file looking menacing", "gutting a few unfortunates pour encourager les autres", and "lets massacre everyone in that field and leave their bones there as a warning".
Violence and brutality as policy unfortunately has a long and successful history.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
True, but only as a transient (in terms of generations) effect, because most (although not all) immigrant communities tend to do exactly what UK "natives" do, and disperse from the communities they were raised in after the first generation, until eventually they're widely dispersed.becky p said:
ViolentPanda said:We tend to think of armies/militias performing border-policing duties to repel/discourage "migrants" as a fairly new phenomenon (despite the fact that members of the UN have certain obligations if those migrants are actually refugees), but it has sprung up on pretty much every continent in the last 3000 years.
The actual measures have varied between "standing in dress file looking menacing", "gutting a few unfortunates pour encourager les autres", and "lets massacre everyone in that field and leave their bones there as a warning".
Violence and brutality as policy unfortunately has a long and successful history.
I'm not really arguing any particular point (if we want to flog that dead horse, I was interested in 19th & 18th century immigration controls), but are you talking about migrants who moved in as a single mass of refugees or settlers like the Israelites for example? It seems an excessive waste of resources to patrol a border against a trickle or even a constant stream of migrants.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Knotted said:
You're missing a key historical point here, imho.
That point being that "political" borders are a fairly recent phenomenon, and that geography and geology have mostly, until the last 300-400 years, been the determinants of borders, and thus make "policing" them simpler.
Add to this the fact that it makes good political sense (unless your nation is one prone to internal destabilisation) to watch for your "enemies without", i.e. those who might invade, rather than your "enemies within", then you don't actually accrue much in the way of extra expense, because you're merely utilising an existing resource more efficiently.
nino_savatte said:
Thing is though, how easy is it to just up sticks and move up to those places?
Same with China - I have heard people, extraordinarily, try to claim to me that China isn't densely populated, on the basis that China's overall population density isn't that high. However, what is relevant is the population density in the areas that the vast majority of Han/Chinese people actually live in! Chinese cities are extremely highly populated. The overall figure is much lower than that because of the huge areas like Tibet and Xinjiang where it's not exactly easy to just bugger off and move to, which bring the figure to an unrealistically low level. What matters is the infrastructure and population levels in areas where people actually live. You are wondering why I bring China into it - well the UK is much the same, but on a smaller scale. I am from London, and do believe it is overcrowded. The fact that scotland isn't doesn't change that one little bit. The average person hasn't got the power to change things to the degree that would actually help that situation.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
RenegadeDog said:
Cities are always going to be crowded places, no matter where they are in the world. People will always move to cities in search of work. This is what happened during the Industrial Revolution in Britain; people moved from the country to take up jobs in the factories and mills. Immigrants, by and large, will do exactly the same thing. Though, I do understand that many agricultural process jobs are now being filled by Polish and Portugeuse immigrants (among others) because there are no local people left to perform such roles or they simply don't want to do them because they pay so poorly.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
So it looks like the anti-immigrationists have picked up their bats and balls and stormed off the pitch. They left here, shouting "You hate anyone who disagrees with you". What none of them could understand was the juvenile fashion in which they conduct themselves does their argument no favours whatsoever: if they can't get their own way, they treat you to the usual line about "disagreeing with them". If not that, then they demand that you produce 'evidence'. They will claim that a "majority" supports their views but aren't willing to support their contention with proof of this 'majority'. Their 'majority' evaporates whenever one unpicks their narratives.
None of them criticise the bosses for the way they exploit immigrants but would rather blame immigration and call for more "immigration controls". The most ironic thing about these people is that they call themselves "socialists" but bitterly complain about "the Left". When pressed, they will chuck out phrases like "liberal left" and then will accuse you of being a member of the "liberal Left" in an attempt to both control the discussion and smear their opponent.
To be sure, these people have no intention of honestly debating this issue; they have already made their minds up that immigration is bad and those who come here are "stealing our jobs"...the jobs that no one wants to do. But they insist that they aren't bigots and those who disagree with them will be treated to the "It isn't racist to talk about immigration" spiel. It is racist if you talk about immigration and immigrants in the tones that they do without examining the whole issue. None of them, for example, will countenance the idea of looking at how capital is permitted to move freely but people are not. None of them seem too concerned about the current capitalist system that exploits workers of all countries.
None of them criticise the bosses for the way they exploit immigrants but would rather blame immigration and call for more "immigration controls". The most ironic thing about these people is that they call themselves "socialists" but bitterly complain about "the Left". When pressed, they will chuck out phrases like "liberal left" and then will accuse you of being a member of the "liberal Left" in an attempt to both control the discussion and smear their opponent.
To be sure, these people have no intention of honestly debating this issue; they have already made their minds up that immigration is bad and those who come here are "stealing our jobs"...the jobs that no one wants to do. But they insist that they aren't bigots and those who disagree with them will be treated to the "It isn't racist to talk about immigration" spiel. It is racist if you talk about immigration and immigrants in the tones that they do without examining the whole issue. None of them, for example, will countenance the idea of looking at how capital is permitted to move freely but people are not. None of them seem too concerned about the current capitalist system that exploits workers of all countries.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Here’s one for our anti-immigrationists:
Those who control the discussions on immigration on this forum (and they know who they are) constantly bleat on about “controls” and try to present their position as “logical”, “reasonable” and “sensible”; they fail to see how their ideas on immigration can be seen as racist and how their views play into the hands of racists and xenophobes. Furthermore, they fail to understand how their views are the product of years of colonialism and slavery. Rather than supply any data to support their position, the anti-immigrationists on Urban would much rather spend their time making comments like “You don’t like anyone disagreeing with you”…which is a rather curious thing to say, given that their position is the one that prevails on this forum and is the one being challenged. One can read such statements as the tactic of the intellectually dishonest who, when confronted with a serious challenge to their soi-disant moral superiority, will claim that it is because one “doesn’t like anyone who disagrees with them” when it is they who don’t like those who disagree with them. This isn’t just intellectually dishonest, it’s juvenile and they do not want anyone to take issue with their barely disguised bigoted views
To be sure, our anti-immigrationist friends would rather not have their arguments challenged. Witness the way in which they make claims such as “You think I’m a racist”, which is an attempt to smear, even demonise their opponent. Even if our friends here were racist, they would not dare admit to it. Even by making that last statement, I realise that some, if not all of them, will try and magnify it twenty fold in an attempt to exonerate themselves and try to use it as a handy smear for when their arguments are found wanting. Our anti-immigrationists have been emboldened by the 2004 pre-election rhetoric of former Tory leader hopeful, Michael Howard, whose adopted slogans like “It's not racist to talk about immigration” to the more ridiculous “Are you thinking what we’re thinking”?
Here are some more quotes from Howard; they differ little from the anti-immigration gang’s view of the issue
Anyone would think that the Tories had a monopoly on “common sense” but common sense dictates that border controls are racist and help to further the aims of the far right parties. He also said
The aim here is to control the discourse. The Tories know that they will be accused of racism if they demand further, tighter controls. In a pre-emptive effort to head off any criticism, Howard and his cronies devised a plan to ensure that their message would be heard and that no one would dare challenge them...or so they hoped, but Labour also boarded the bandwagon, fearing that the Tories would steal a march on them. Let’s face it, very few people actually want to be labelled “racist” and even fewer people would own up to being racist. It is only the parties of the far right and certain Tories who would dare admit to being racist. But those who call for tighter border controls (What? They’re not tight enough already?) are living in denial; they are xenophobes who hide their bigotry behind carefully chosen, neutral-sounding language and phrases like “common sense”. They will insist that they are not racists or xenophobes; rather they are acting for the greater good of the nation.+
The anti-immigrationists, when challenged, will tell you that they are against “economic migrants” and “mass migration”; both phrases are ideologically and emotionally loaded and when pressed on this, they will duck the point; preferring, instead, to make some minor semantic point. But who are these “economic migrants” that they speak of? Eastern Europeans who come here to work, do so because they can under EU rules. We can only surmise that the source of their ire comes from elsewhere and are possibly dark-skinned. When pressed on the issue of “mass migration”, their argument really disintegrates; they cannot, or will not, produce any evidence to support their shrieks of “floods of immigrants”. It’s “a real concern” is about all anyone will get from them.
The phrase “mass migration” is also a problematic since those who use the phrase assume that, first of all, Britain is “crowded “and second, that because immigrants tend to head for cities, that there is a veritable “flood” of immigrants. Let’s look at the first assumption: the crowded island theory, the anti-immigrationists constantly claim that the country is “crowded”, when they are presented with the counter-argument that says “the Scottish Highlands aren’t crowded and nor is Dartmoor”, they will then tell you that they meant the “cities”. But cities are crowded places and it isn’t just people from abroad who make them their homes, many people move from the countryside into cities in search of opportunities, yet no one would dare to suggest that these people remain in the countryside. People will always travel to where there is work and cities offer greater employment prospects than rural locations. The second assumption made by them says that there is a “flood of immigrants”. There is no evidence to support such scaremongering and scaremongering is what it is. The use of the phrase “flood of immigrants” corresponds to “invasion”; that the nation is under threat from a potential occupying force [of darkies]. This is an absurdity and those who use this sort of phraseology are stirring up ethnic tensions, while being wholly dishonest about their own positions on ethnicity.
The anti-immigrationists will tell us how they are proper ‘socialists’, yet their position on the issue of immigration is one that runs counter to every tenet of socialism. Rather than seeking solidarity with dispossessed fellow-workers they would rather deepen the divide between workers by playing the bosses tactic of divide and conquer by calling for greater immigration controls. Not very socialist, is it? It’s more CBI than TUC.
Immigration controls are racist by their very nature; they reinforce notions of ethnic superiority and nationalism. Those who support such controls are not real socialists rather, they pay lip service to the ideas of socialism; cherry picking the more catchy-sounding phrases and using them as a defence when confronted with a tricky question.
It is the nation-state that constructs national identity, not as part of the cultural fabric of a nation, but as a means of control and coercion. It is this homogenised construction of national identity that determines one’s suitability for inclusion in the nation’s societal formations. Should the person not conform to this pre-packaged identity, the consequences can be dire.
So, rather than actually counter my arguments with ideas of their own, the anti-immigrationists and their allies, have preferred to engage in pettiness and twisting my words around to suit their morally repugnant position. One even had the gall to accuse me of “playing into the hands of racists” in what can only be described as a truly breathtaking piece of Orwellian logic. The only one who is “playing into the hands of racists” is the accuser.
Arguing with these people is pointless but allowing them to dominate the boards with the half-baked, tabloid-informed anti-immigration rants unchallenged is wrong.
Real socialists don’t support racist policies. Beware of imitations.
Those who control the discussions on immigration on this forum (and they know who they are) constantly bleat on about “controls” and try to present their position as “logical”, “reasonable” and “sensible”; they fail to see how their ideas on immigration can be seen as racist and how their views play into the hands of racists and xenophobes. Furthermore, they fail to understand how their views are the product of years of colonialism and slavery. Rather than supply any data to support their position, the anti-immigrationists on Urban would much rather spend their time making comments like “You don’t like anyone disagreeing with you”…which is a rather curious thing to say, given that their position is the one that prevails on this forum and is the one being challenged. One can read such statements as the tactic of the intellectually dishonest who, when confronted with a serious challenge to their soi-disant moral superiority, will claim that it is because one “doesn’t like anyone who disagrees with them” when it is they who don’t like those who disagree with them. This isn’t just intellectually dishonest, it’s juvenile and they do not want anyone to take issue with their barely disguised bigoted views
To be sure, our anti-immigrationist friends would rather not have their arguments challenged. Witness the way in which they make claims such as “You think I’m a racist”, which is an attempt to smear, even demonise their opponent. Even if our friends here were racist, they would not dare admit to it. Even by making that last statement, I realise that some, if not all of them, will try and magnify it twenty fold in an attempt to exonerate themselves and try to use it as a handy smear for when their arguments are found wanting. Our anti-immigrationists have been emboldened by the 2004 pre-election rhetoric of former Tory leader hopeful, Michael Howard, whose adopted slogans like “It's not racist to talk about immigration” to the more ridiculous “Are you thinking what we’re thinking”?
Here are some more quotes from Howard; they differ little from the anti-immigration gang’s view of the issue
Anyone would think that the Tories had a monopoly on “common sense” but common sense dictates that border controls are racist and help to further the aims of the far right parties. He also said
The aim here is to control the discourse. The Tories know that they will be accused of racism if they demand further, tighter controls. In a pre-emptive effort to head off any criticism, Howard and his cronies devised a plan to ensure that their message would be heard and that no one would dare challenge them...or so they hoped, but Labour also boarded the bandwagon, fearing that the Tories would steal a march on them. Let’s face it, very few people actually want to be labelled “racist” and even fewer people would own up to being racist. It is only the parties of the far right and certain Tories who would dare admit to being racist. But those who call for tighter border controls (What? They’re not tight enough already?) are living in denial; they are xenophobes who hide their bigotry behind carefully chosen, neutral-sounding language and phrases like “common sense”. They will insist that they are not racists or xenophobes; rather they are acting for the greater good of the nation.+
The anti-immigrationists, when challenged, will tell you that they are against “economic migrants” and “mass migration”; both phrases are ideologically and emotionally loaded and when pressed on this, they will duck the point; preferring, instead, to make some minor semantic point. But who are these “economic migrants” that they speak of? Eastern Europeans who come here to work, do so because they can under EU rules. We can only surmise that the source of their ire comes from elsewhere and are possibly dark-skinned. When pressed on the issue of “mass migration”, their argument really disintegrates; they cannot, or will not, produce any evidence to support their shrieks of “floods of immigrants”. It’s “a real concern” is about all anyone will get from them.
The phrase “mass migration” is also a problematic since those who use the phrase assume that, first of all, Britain is “crowded “and second, that because immigrants tend to head for cities, that there is a veritable “flood” of immigrants. Let’s look at the first assumption: the crowded island theory, the anti-immigrationists constantly claim that the country is “crowded”, when they are presented with the counter-argument that says “the Scottish Highlands aren’t crowded and nor is Dartmoor”, they will then tell you that they meant the “cities”. But cities are crowded places and it isn’t just people from abroad who make them their homes, many people move from the countryside into cities in search of opportunities, yet no one would dare to suggest that these people remain in the countryside. People will always travel to where there is work and cities offer greater employment prospects than rural locations. The second assumption made by them says that there is a “flood of immigrants”. There is no evidence to support such scaremongering and scaremongering is what it is. The use of the phrase “flood of immigrants” corresponds to “invasion”; that the nation is under threat from a potential occupying force [of darkies]. This is an absurdity and those who use this sort of phraseology are stirring up ethnic tensions, while being wholly dishonest about their own positions on ethnicity.
The anti-immigrationists will tell us how they are proper ‘socialists’, yet their position on the issue of immigration is one that runs counter to every tenet of socialism. Rather than seeking solidarity with dispossessed fellow-workers they would rather deepen the divide between workers by playing the bosses tactic of divide and conquer by calling for greater immigration controls. Not very socialist, is it? It’s more CBI than TUC.
Immigration controls are racist by their very nature; they reinforce notions of ethnic superiority and nationalism. Those who support such controls are not real socialists rather, they pay lip service to the ideas of socialism; cherry picking the more catchy-sounding phrases and using them as a defence when confronted with a tricky question.
It is the nation-state that constructs national identity, not as part of the cultural fabric of a nation, but as a means of control and coercion. It is this homogenised construction of national identity that determines one’s suitability for inclusion in the nation’s societal formations. Should the person not conform to this pre-packaged identity, the consequences can be dire.
So, rather than actually counter my arguments with ideas of their own, the anti-immigrationists and their allies, have preferred to engage in pettiness and twisting my words around to suit their morally repugnant position. One even had the gall to accuse me of “playing into the hands of racists” in what can only be described as a truly breathtaking piece of Orwellian logic. The only one who is “playing into the hands of racists” is the accuser.
Arguing with these people is pointless but allowing them to dominate the boards with the half-baked, tabloid-informed anti-immigration rants unchallenged is wrong.
Real socialists don’t support racist policies. Beware of imitations.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
becky p said:
1. No, immigration controls are not a "fact of life".
2. You only skimmed my post.
3. Your support for immigration controls offers support to racists.
4. You have no counter argument other than "you don't like people disagreeing with you".
When feudalism was the dominant societal formation, many said "it was a fact of life" and that it "would never change". Things did change.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
becky p said:nino are you against all immigration controls? immediatelly?
What do you think the effects would be worldwide or in the south east of england where 75% of all migrants to the UK settle?
Have you bothered to read my posts? No, you haven't and this post is proof.
Similar threads
