BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Illegal Immigration and borders

  
  

Page: 1(2)34567... 8

 
 
Jester
13:14 / 13.07.06
I think part of the confusion arising is that the EU is not a country, and that freedom of movement between the member states, at least as it is enjoyed now, is a fairly recent phenomenon. *Those* border controls are admirable, and can't easily be dismissed as a luxury for the affluent (although there are complications, as pointed out above). The border controls with countries outside the EU are far less admirable, though one should bear in mind the projected expansion of the EU to currently affiliated states.

Quite. I think it's also worth thinking about how the EU's expansion works. When a member state enters the EU, they are given access to massive amounts of structual funding to boost their economy, making it an attractive idea to most. But in exchange, new member states must adopt human rights laws, do away with the death penalty, strengthen democracy, etc. By having some boundaries between the EU and non-EU countries, sometimes reluctant countries can be persuaded to take on these values to the economic and social benefit of their citizens. If they could access the EU without any borders or limits, how would they be persuaded to do these things? For example, Poland's ultra-right wing government's abhorant approach to LGBT rights is kept somewhat in check by the EU.

It's also worth noting that controlled expansion of the EU allows for a gradual expansion of the benefits and wealth that union brings. Simply removing all boundaries at once might jeopardise that.

It's also worth considering that freedom of movement still only benefits those who can afford to move - if Europe accepted all migrants from all parts of the world without restriction, it would still only be the wealthiest members of the poorest societies that could afford to move.
 
 
elene
13:49 / 13.07.06
... if Europe accepted all migrants from all parts of the world without restriction, it would still only be the wealthiest members of the poorest societies that could afford to move

I don't think there'd be many Irish in America were that the case, Jester. That's not how it works. Certainly the very poorest at any given time can't move. The people who send their children live somewhere where there's peace and it's fertile, but they know that soon war will return or famine, or more likely both. Their life is fragile and insecure. They dream of fortune and opportunity for their children in the West, and gather all the wealth they can to give one of their children the best possible chance. That child can send money home to help the family, and the next child to come over.

It's true that few can afford to do this now, it costs about €1000 to get smuggled in one of those coffin ships from north Africa across to Europe and you might be sent right back should you make it across. With the border open and the fare less than €100 you'd find a lot of young people will try it.
 
 
ADe
16:26 / 13.07.06
The idea of one free and open borderless world sounds fantastic to me but it would clearly lead to a dangerous imbalance of world power...

I'm certainly no economist but clearly richer nations would slowly but surely be swamped with people seeking their fortunes and these areas would become hugely more competitive... I'm not sure if this would lead to a stronger or eventually weaker economy but imagine there is a threshold...

At the same time this would leave poorer nations sparsely populated by the few who were too poor to escape which would clearly make them even worse off...

On the other hand if certain areas become too swamped with migrants leading to a situation that there simply aren't enough jobs to go around then they would become less desirable places to move to and people would head elsewhere instead...

Maybe it would balance itself out somehow but I still think a borderless world would lead to the less well off becoming even more so...
 
 
Disco is My Class War
03:08 / 14.07.06
elene, I don't think you really addressed my point. But moving onto someone who did....

The 'south' is hampered not only by politics but also by the terrain itself; even with an equitable political climate, the land itself is going to make things hard on the 'south'. Which is not to say 'insurmountably so', or even that life in the 'south' need be hard - just, perhaps harder.

I'm sorry, but to attribute the poverty of the states that might be grouped in the 'global south' to climate is just laughable. It's so laughable that I'm amazed you have the guts to suggest it. Your argument ignores the fact that the wealth of Europe was built on the riches of those 'south' states, through colonisation. Precious metals, sugar, coffee, spices, silk, tea, opium, ivory, tobacco, slave labour -- all of these things were harvested by the English, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French, the Spanish without adequate 'payment' (or any payment, often.) The result? Massive land degradation. This is an imperialism continued now by institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, who penalise countries for using sustainable agricultural methods and encourage them to use slash and burn techniques, lots of pesticides and logging, etc.

and grant, respectfully, I think the wheat/rice argument is a little problematic. If wheat is so great, why do so many people have wheat allergies? Sure, white rice is not so nutritious, but brown rice certainly is.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
08:52 / 14.07.06
I'm sorry, but to attribute the poverty of the states that might be grouped in the 'global south' to climate is just laughable. It's so laughable that I'm amazed you have the guts to suggest it.

I didn't, as it happens - I said it was a factor which would always work against the 'south', while agreeing that the 'south' was discriminated against politically (and by extension, economically). Climate is an obstacle - the basic obstacle to sustaining life - and many 'southern' nations have more inhospitable climates than many 'northern' nations. Even in a truly fair world more effort will be required to meet basic requirements in some areas. That this need not be an insurmountable obstacle to prosperity I do not (and did not) dispute - Norway is a pretty good example - but it is an obstacle.
 
 
Jester
10:21 / 14.07.06
and grant, respectfully, I think the wheat/rice argument is a little problematic. If wheat is so great, why do so many people have wheat allergies? Sure, white rice is not so nutritious, but brown rice certainly is.

Only a very small minority of people have wheat allergies, and I don't think it says anything very much about the general nutritional benefits of eating wheat. After all, nuts are extremely good for you, and yet many more (I suspect) people have nut allergies.

Anyway, that's pretty much completely off topic!
 
 
grant
14:33 / 14.07.06
The idea with wheat isn't that it's a perfect food, it's that it's a food that's useful at influencing societies in a particular way. For one thing, it makes kids taller (in the rice/wheat comparison, that's a fact). They might be more prone to obesity or diabetes or osteoporosis or something else as a result (those are just hypotheticals), but they're taller.

Let me look and see if I can find some of the actual material on the sociology/history theory based on this....

Well, the best thing would probably be to check out this summary of Guns, Germs & Steel. Nutshell: Europe came out ahead (*) because of naturally occurring domestic grains, and the presence of the ancestors of the cow, pig, horse, goat, & sheep (much easier to breed in captivity than buffalo, antelopes, zebra) and a few other environmental factors. Not climate, per se, but a few things related to environment.

(*)In some ways -- he cites natives of Papua New Guinea as being smarter on average than Europeans, for instance. They didn't spread globally because of other factors, like resistance to the kinds of germs you get in big cities.
 
 
redtara
15:00 / 14.07.06
Is the comedy of a non native american moaning about migrant labour lost on everyone....? Apologies to Dragon if you do have a native american heritage, do you? My point is that we are all immigrants. Four generations ago my family were Irish. I don't feel that I have any more right to live, work or raise my family here in the UK than my Kosovan, Kurdish, Somali or Iranian Nieghbours.

For those of you under the impression that open borders would mean the end of western civilisation as we know it I commend this book to you, 'Thinking the Unthinkable; The Immigration Myth Exposed.' by Nigel Harris.

Back of the book blurb here...

This book is by no means unique and there is a growing body of work by accademics discussing the nonsense that is international border control. Others can be found under 'anti-racism' on the above website. (Should declare an interest in that I work at this book shop, but hope you will not feel that i am in any way touting for business. The initial post quotes a book referrence and i felt it would be useful to draw attention to some antidotes to the spurious toss referred to.)

Dragon, the terms you are using 'illegal aliens' and 'illgal immigrants' are loaded with racist associations. I prefer 'economic migrants' or 'refugees' both distinct groups that tend to get lumped into the one 'illegals' catagory. If you still want to make up nonsense terms that's ok, but I'm not sure it will help your argument.

What offends me most about this and every other debate on border controls is the fearfully misinformed nature of the pro-control arguement. I thought some facts might be refreshing.

A recent Home Office report shows that people born outside the UK, including asylum seekers (or refugees), contribute 10% more to the economy in taxes and National Insurance than they consume in benefits and public services - equivalent to a £2.6 billion boost to the UK economy in 2001. (Department of Work and Pensions, 2003) i can't imagine this mechanism being much different in any similar economy

Despite what the Daily Mail would have you believe the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) ranks the UK 9th in the European Union in terms of asylum applications per 1000 inhabitants. We come in behind Cyprus and Luxembourg! (UNHCR)Just thought the gap between the media inflated perceived proportions of migration and actual proportions was interesting.

I've got loads more waffle about the arms trade and conflict as a cause of migration, immorality of cynical skills depletion from countries who can ill afford to train and then loose medical and technical staff, the utter rubbish that 1000 euro gets you a place in a container (multiply that by a factor of at least 5), and the vileness of 'developing world' as an appropriate phase to describe those cultures parisitised by the west. Got to go pick up the kids.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
15:34 / 14.07.06
the vileness of 'developing world' as an appropriate phase to describe those cultures parisitised by the west

That is an exceptionally good point, I think. I shall endeavour never to use that phrase again.
 
 
Dragon
02:24 / 16.07.06
What offends me most about this and every other debate on border controls is the fearfully misinformed nature of the pro-control arguement. I thought some facts might be refreshing.

A recent Home Office report shows that people born outside the UK, including asylum seekers (or refugees), contribute 10% more to the economy in taxes and National Insurance than they consume in benefits and public services - equivalent to a £2.6 billion boost to the UK economy in 2001.

Suppose you add to that equation the instability factor such as that added by certain Islamic figures? With a clash of cultures in the making, with the idea of appeasement as their way of dealing with threats, and with a serious decline in population growth, it will be a matter of time before Europe, as we know it, is gone.
 
 
illmatic
02:45 / 16.07.06
Oh for fucks sake. Dragon, go away. What is the point about having a debate with you about immigration when all you can do is recycle tabloid tropes about Islam?

As for "appeasement", when, where, wtf?

Sorry to everyone else for sullying The Headshop with a pointless post but I just wanted to respond.
 
 
illmatic
02:55 / 16.07.06
And what on Earth does this mean:

it will be a matter of time before Europe, as we know it, is gone

Do you know anything whatsoever about history? The fact that change, in which immigration is a factor, happens continuously? And that holding onto some sort of weird historical constant like "Europe, as we know it" is utterly bizarre, and simply reflects your own discomfort in a multiracial society?

I note that you still haven't shown any sign of reading Alas's posts above. I suggest you put Richard Littlejohn down for a minute and give it go.

Why am I bothering?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:20 / 16.07.06
it will be a matter of time before Europe, as we know it, is gone.

That's interesting, dragon. How do "we" know Europe? Have you, in fact, ever been to Europe? For how long, and where did you go? What did you feel, during that time, was characteristically European?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
17:38 / 16.07.06
Maybe he means the land mass? You mean the land mass right? You think Islamists are in control of Climate Change don't you?

That's what I think. Those damn climate changing Islamists.
 
 
Spaniel
19:02 / 16.07.06
Look, people, stop being stupid. It work's like this. Europe panders to the evil Muslims, rot and decay set in within and without, and before you know it the evil Muslims have overthrown the silly Europeans, who, at this point, are too low in numbers, and too liberal of mind to put up any kind of fight.

That's it. That's the way it's going to be.

Or, er, not.

[I know, I know, this is the Headshop. I just wanted to illustrate to Dragon just how unbelievably silly hir position actually is.]
 
 
Jack Fear
00:22 / 17.07.06
He's right, though. It happened to the Americas: the natives were outbred, outfought, and brought low by an invading alien culture. New and strange ideologies—Christianity, manifest destiny—mowed them down and consigned their way of life to the ash-heap of ages past.

So, my question to you: what makes Anglophonic white people so fucking special that the Wheel of History should stop turning just for us? "What goes around comes around" applies to everyone else: why not us?
 
 
Dragon
03:33 / 17.07.06
"What goes around comes around" applies to everyone else: why not us?

So, lie back and accept the inivitability of change, is that how we should view things? That reminds me of a governor talking about the weather, comparing it to the rape of a woman: "As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:38 / 17.07.06
Sorry, dragon, but are you actually reading this thread, or just occasionally running your feet across the keyboard? I asked if you had ever been to Europe. Surely you must be able to remember? Check your passport stamps if it helps.
 
 
illmatic
05:43 / 17.07.06
Oh wow, so, now you're drawing an really vauge analogy with what's been said and rape, in a attempt to to lend your argument some substance? Dude, you are the one who's advancing a fucking preposterous tabloid fantasy - it's up to you to advance some proof or actually try and engage with other people's arguments to convince them. However, given you're inability to even show you've read other peoples comments thus far, I don't think you're going to convince anyone.
 
 
elene
12:51 / 17.07.06
Illmatic, Dragon is replying to redtara's post suggesting it's ridiculous to fear opening Europe's borders and welcoming an unlimited number of people. I don't share Dragon's fears, not because I think we would be able to integrate the number of people who'd move here were we to do as redtara insists, but rather because there's not the slightest danger of our doing so. I think Europe needs a great many more people, many times the numbers we currently accept, and African people will do just fine, but I think the number of people who would come to Europe were the borders open is still many times what we can cope with.

How many people will come if we open the borders, and how many can we cope with, Illmatic?

I don't fear Islam (yes, Dragon clearly does) and consider the "clash of civilisations" a self-fulfilling prophesy given our colonial history and latter-day policies, but I do fear fundamentalism. While it's silly to confuse Islam with Islamic fundamentalism it's not clear that fundamentalism won't come to dominate European Islam in the future. A sufficiently large population of Islamic fundamentalists certainly would attempt to change Europe by force in ways I would find unacceptable and would have to oppose. I can't say whether this is so likely to happen that I need fear it. Can you? I think the critical density of extremists such as neo-Nazis and Islamic fundamentalists is in the region of 20 to 30% of the vote. That might be too high an estimate, but is unlikely to be low.

How likely is it, in a world dominated by increasingly abusive US foreign policy, that European Islam will become largely fundamentalist in nature during the next twenty years?

Jack, what's the "Wheel of History?" Are you suggesting the native Americans ought to have accepted their fate and have refrained from fighting the invaders?

And, finally, Europe isn't Anglophonic.
 
 
illmatic
13:29 / 17.07.06
elene: Yeah, I knew Dragon was replying to redtara's post. I think "replying" is a bit rich though, becuase he's not really *replied* as such ie. shown much sign that's he's read it and thought about it, rather he's just used her post as a trampoline to launch his Islamophobia.... and he hasn't really shown any sign of reading or responding to most of the other posts in this thread, thus I'm getting a bit tetchy.

How many people will come if we open the borders, and how many can we cope with, Illmatic?

Well, as you say, it's not got the slighest chance of happening so it remains a bit hypothetical, doesn't it?

What I am sure of is that we have a big pool of immigrant labour already existing in the UK, both legal and illegal, that on one hand give the right wing press an opportunity to mobilise people's fears and resentments, while on the other hand benefitting us with their presence, by doing the jobs we're not willing to do, and keeping wages down. Any attempt to discuss immigration without discussing the lived reality of these people's lives, is a bit flawed, I think.

A sufficiently large population of Islamic fundamentalists certainly would attempt to change Europe by force in ways I would find unacceptable and would have to oppose. I can't say whether this is so likely to happen that I need fear it. Can you?

I think this is extraordinaily unlikely to happen, as unlikely as us opening our borders in fact. There may be some further isolated atrocties like 9/11, 7/7 etc. but I can't see these people ever building a political powerbase in the West. That kind of thing is just the bastard lovechild of a Richard Littlejohn/Melanie Philips coupling and, as such, should be drowned at birth. While I accept that our Goverment's uncritical support for US foreign policy is part of the problem, I don't think it's the whole story - this sort of extremism thrives amongst young men who're economically and socially marginalised. The only way round this is *inclusion* in whatever way possible. I feel like a horrible Labour spin doctor for using that word but there you go. This is one reason why I don't like Dragon's rhetoric - painting the Islamic populations of this country as being in an "us and them" situation with everybody else creates the very situation he's trying to condemn, IMO.

Thus, I'd also wonder where you're getting the 20-30% from? I did see reports on the recent survey of British Muslims where they were asked to felt the 7/7 bombers were martyrs, but I suspect the results here were blown out of all proportion to feed popular Islamophobia.
 
 
Jack Fear
13:33 / 17.07.06
Jack, what's the "Wheel of History?" Are you suggesting the native Americans ought to have accepted their fate and have refrained from fighting the invaders?

That's certainly what the European don't-you-dare-call-us-invaders-we're pioneers would have preferred, isn't it? Manifest Destiny = Make Way For Whitey.

And, by the lights of the individualist, enlightened self-interest ethos, that's nothing to apologize for.

But of course it's different when the shoe's on the other foot.

Finally, Europe isn't Anglophonic.

Tch. You poor, deluded dupe of the Left. Next you'll be telling me that Spanish is a European language, and not just a load of degenerate bongo-bongo gabbling that will TEAR OUR NATION ASUNDER IF LEFT UNCHECKED.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
13:42 / 17.07.06
I think by critical density elene means the amount needed to significantly affect politics/government - not the percentage of extremists that currently exists.
 
 
illmatic
13:56 / 17.07.06
Oh, sorry, you mean 20/30% as a future estimate? Well, I think my point still stands, even more so possibly.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:09 / 17.07.06
I'm wondering what sort of timescale we are talking about, here. At the moment, for example, France is perhaps 5-10% Muslim, which is a high number. In Britain it is hovering around 3%, in Germany a little higher, taking into account the settled Turkish population... these are not huge numbers. IN fact, I'd venture that there are more Muslims in the US than the UK. Given further that actually quite a lot of immigration doesn't come from Muslim countries (France is a bit of a special case, because of its former imperial holdings in North Africa, but I would guess that the average migratory worker arriving on sovereign British soil is probably more likely to be Christian (Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox) than Muslim.

Personally, given that the borders will not be opened, I'd be more concerned about immigration being used in propaganda by indigenous extremists (hi, dragon!) than a tide of radical Islam swamping Westminster.
 
 
Dragon
14:27 / 17.07.06
I think most of you are underestimating the impact of your hypothetical percentages. All you have to do is to take a look at something minor, like the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy to see the potential for unrest. If the percentages increase, I believe things will gradually change to something less desirable.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:29 / 17.07.06
Hi there, Dragon. Have. You. Ever. Been. To. Europe?
 
 
The Falcon
14:55 / 17.07.06
This really should be in Switchboard.

Anyway, oh noes!!1!11! to immigrants, as they only sustain our health service: "The health sector has been a particularly significant recipient of migrant workers. Overseas qualified doctors accounted for 51 percent of the increase in the number of doctors working in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals between 1993 and 2003."
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:07 / 17.07.06
Also, it's worth noting that the trade embargoes were organised in the Middle East, as were the incidences of deaths during rioting and attacks on embassies. Logically, the lesson from the cartoon controversy is that we should get as many Muslims over in Europe pronto, where they will demonstrate in a largely peaceful fashion.
 
 
Dragon
15:24 / 17.07.06
Sorry, I've not been to Europe. Someday, Zeus willing, I will be.
 
 
Jack Fear
15:27 / 17.07.06
Indeed. One might even think that living in a civil society encourages civil debate, whilst living in a repressive, autocratic society encourages violence and desperation.

One might also note that, given an honest choice between the ballot and the bullet, that most people, irrespective of religious affiliation or athnic background, will opt for the ballot.

Or note that it just might be poverty and political oppression in the Middle East—or second-class citizen "guest worker" status in Europe—that is driving so many young men to embrace radical Islam, which they see as their only viable means of political expression. One might further wonder what means of political expression those young men might favor, had they a broader palette from which to choose.

In fact, if one were to entertain the notion that violent extremism is a reaction to oppressive conditions in the Middle East (rather than an inherent proclivity of Islam), then one might—were one an oppressive hereditary oligarch with a sense of irony—make that work to one's advantage; say, by whipping your population into an anti-Western frenzy as a way of preventing them from fomenting revolution at home—pointing out the enemy without so they don't see the enemy within.

Admittedly, it's a worldview that requires a certain subtlety of thought, and an understanding of human nature, and a willingness to see your Johnny Foreigner-types as human and thus bound by that nature. These are hurdles to be cleared, surely, but not insurmountable ones.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:34 / 17.07.06
Dragon, could you tell me a little about more about what you mean by "the idea of appeasement as their way of dealing with threats"?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
15:47 / 17.07.06
I'm guessing in this case "appeasement" is being used in the sense of "not killing a bunch of their civilians in a misguided attempt at revenge" or something of the sort.

Please tell me I'm wrong, Dragon.
 
 
elene
16:01 / 17.07.06
Thanks, Kit-Cat Club, yes that's what I meant.

Illmatic, I consider the possibility of a large fraction of European Muslims becoming fundamentalists to be very avoidable. I do think we need to take action to avoid it though, and I think we will. The most important thing to do is to avoid ostracising the community, the "us and them" situation, and especially to avoid leaving large numbers of young men without a future. We must rid our system of the "second-class citizen 'guest worker' status" Jack mentions. We must, but it won’t be easy. I think further terrorist atrocities are unavoidable, and will also make this difficult, as they are meant to.

Haus, I think it'll take at least fifty years for the Muslim population to become a major political force even in France, and France is a special case. At the very least. I'm not scared about this, though opening the borders could change that of course. I agree that not only Britain but almost all of Europe is more attractive to Christians however.

I don't think it's fair to label Dragon an extremist. I suspect a majority of US citizens share his views.

Falconer, I don't think this needs to move to the Switchboard just because I want some facts and details about the situation in Europe, which, it's true, inevitably involves us in current events. I hope we can return to a more abstract, or at least a global discussion of borders eventually.

Jack, well yes, it is different when it's yourself and your children.

... it's a worldview that requires a certain subtlety of thought ... a willingness to see your Johnny Foreigner-types as human
 
 
illmatic
16:24 / 17.07.06
I'm reading "appeasment" as "being weak willed, instead of blowing them up like you need to" and am assuming Dragon was refering to the leadership of European states, particuarly France and Spain. Who knows?
 
  

Page: 1(2)34567... 8

 
  
Add Your Reply