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: 12(3)45678

 
 
Jack Fear
16:25 / 17.07.06
Appeasement means always having to say you're sorry.
 
 
elene
16:29 / 17.07.06
Concerning the projected growth of France's Muslim population, there's a good discussion here, France, its Muslims, and the Future.
 
 
grant
19:24 / 17.07.06
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....

One of the other places where a comparison between Muslims in the US and Muslims in Europe falls down is that an awful lot (a majority?) of US Muslims are of the Muhammad Ali/Kareem Abdul Jabbar/Nation of Islam variety, and not really immigrants in the same way the word is commonly used here.

Lemme see if I can find some numbers or population figures.

Ah, Islam 101 cites 5 million American Muslims as of 1992, of which over 2,100,000 were African Americans, and the next highest group, 1,220,000, were immigrants from the sub-continent. The third largest group were Arabs (Middle East/North Africa), at 620,000.

Arab immigrants are only 12.4 percent of America's Muslim population, as compared to 42 percent from the African American population.

Arabs are followed by Africans (I think a couple of the terrorist suspects on the Feds' Most Wanted list were from Kenya), then Iranians/Persians, then Turks. But by then, you're getting into single-digit percentages.

Big disclaimer: the official counts of Muslim-Americans do tend to diverge wildly, and no one seems to treat any of them as absolutely trustworthy.

By another metric, the South Asian (sub-continental) Muslims outnumber the African Americans:
According to a FACT survey, regular mosque attendees come from the following backgrounds: South Asian (33%), African-American (30%), Arab (25%), African (3.4%), European (2.1%), White American (1.6%), Southeast Asian (1.3%), Caribbean (1.2%), Turkish (1.1%), Iranian (0.7%), and Hispanic/Latino (0.6%).

But the same source (wikipedia) points out that not all Muslims regularly attend a mosque (which I suspect might be especially true of Nation of Islam for various reasons). The sections after the demographic one, on Assimilation and Cultural Clash, might be especially useful for discussions of Muslims and immigration.
 
 
grant
19:40 / 17.07.06
Oh, and wikipedia has population breakdowns by country, and by region (scroll down). "Europe" is broken down into four regions, with most Muslims living in the Eastern Europe with the Serbs and that.

Surprisingly, there are more Muslims in Western Europe than in the U.S. (using the calculations of the U.S. State Department). They also say Somalia is 100% Muslim and Saudi Arabia 95.7% Muslim, so go figure. (How anyone can do a census in Somalia is beyond me.)

Anyway, I wouldn't have expected this, but there you go.
 
 
redtara
22:10 / 17.07.06
Sorry this is massive , but I've had a big think about what's been said. Tried to keep things consise.

Again some facts to help those of you groping with made up numbers;

Where Muslins live

Elene said

Is it clear that Europe won't and cannot take in all of Africa's poor young people? Some of you here talk as though we could, but that's something so unlikely that I think you ought to demonstrate why you think it's plausible.

I have no reason to beleive that our economies couldn't absorb any influx of migrants, they always have. Migration is not a new thing and there has never been Race War within the countries of Europe that are being discussed here, except that one time.... and the victims of that racism were not immigrants, they just became immigrants.

I have no reason to believe that this predicted surge of people flooding our markets, cultures and families would happen. As you point out yourself in the context of new eastern European EU states...

The feared flood of immigration from the east has not materialised so there are strong hopes that such treaties will be dropped at an earlier date.

So why would I persist in assuming that open borders with africa would result in a cataclismic number of migrants entering Fortress Europe.

Another reason I don't believe your version of a future without border constraints is the people who espouse your version of the future are generally not people whose politics I respect generally. I have been impressed with the assessment of a borderless future for it's openess, humanity and it chimes with my own experience of living in a multi racial/cultural/religeous society.

the number of people who would come to Europe were the borders open is still many times what we can cope with.

Come on now Elene, how do you know that? I understand that's what you think but can you qualify it with anything more than a gut feeling.

without borders Africa is capable of putting one million people into each of the fifty or so major population centres in the EU within ten years, and not even noticing they left. Faster under certain circumstances. That kind of influx will lead to every social problem you can imagine and I think would pretty much guarantee organisations like the NPD and BNP 20 to 30% of the vote.

You have made up numbers to justify a prediction that only becomes true if Germany does nothing to keep fascism in check. THIS is appeasement. Lets keep black people out so we don't upset the racists. I accept that you think there would be a swing to the fasist right, but how can you justify border constraints rather than focus on the challenge that Germany has ahead against fascism (like everywhere).

Ironically border controls are a curb on the movement of a natural resource (labour) while noecon international institutions try to make the movement of every other resource in and out of Africa totally fluid regardless of the consequences to African people.

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?

When you say Islamic fundamentalist do you mean proponants of Sharia Law or supporters of Suicide Bombers. If some kind of Taliban Sharia state is your fear then that is nonsense. In the five years since this all kicked off USA, UK and the gang have invaded two Islamic countries. Lead one back into supplying the world with heroin and committed theft on a monstous scale in the other; all the time refusing to take useful steps to curb the violence in Palestine and Isreal. In retaliation there have been some tragic suicide bombings, but I think you will agree, few compared to what a pessamist like yourself might have been forgiven for expecting.

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?

Again, why would you assume this. Uk Islam is very moderate. I think the problem is therefore US foreign policy rather than one indemic to Islam. Maybe your opposition is misplaced.

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

So if enough people share the same view no matter how founded in nothing except fear, mistrust and propaganda, they cease to be extremists, are you sure?

Oh and Dragon, you're a genitalhead.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:55 / 17.07.06
Not really a Head Shop link, but I'm wondering if Dragon is in fact the Time Traveller from this story which has kind of put me off one of my favourite modern SF writers... (read it, even if you're not into SF)

I'd also join redtara in taking issue with I don't think it's fair to label Dragon an extremist. I suspect a majority of US citizens share his views. For a start, I'm not entirely sure it's true- even the government is only selected on a majority of the voting public, which is far smaller than "a majority of the citizens"... and even if it were true, does the fact that a majority of a country's citizens share a view exempt it from being tagged "extremist"?

Thought experiment- if your predicted dystopia came to pass, and a hundred, maybe two hundred years down the line, the majority of US citizens were totally into Sharia law...Or fascism? Or Stalinism? Would that make any of those ideologies less "extreme"?

I actually think it is completely fair to label Dragon an extremist. Nothing wrong with "extremism" in itself... I could be described, politically, as an "extremist" in certain ways... but in this context, yes, I'm using it as a pejorative.
 
 
elene
04:25 / 18.07.06
Stoat, extremist in this case implies we needn't engage Dragon seriously, or the many, many American and Europeans who would with agree with him. This thread has mostly consisted of pouring mockery on views we don't agree with and – and what moved me to rejoin it - there's even a discussion in policy on banning him because of this. I think this is just like the thread on Ahmedinejad's holocaust denial - basically we’re saying he's mad, he's ignorant, we can't talk with this fool - which is both ignorant and arrogant, and a favoured coping mechanism of the privileged.

Show Dragon the complexities of the situation, show him where he's wrong, or ignore him. That should work. Or ban him instead, if you're totalitarian.
 
 
Dragon
04:27 / 18.07.06
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?

Illmatic is very close to the mark. Take France, for example. The author relates the nagative effects of this policy.

Another thing that is spreading is the madrasah, in which illegitimate forms of Islam is being taught, beginning with children. There are those who disagree with the estimated numbers of these schools, but that hardly lessons the damage of to those learning Wahabbism, a naturally is self-perpetuating belief system, I consider to be a disease.

In the United States, the Nation of Islam has been accepted by many Blacks, with many in prisoners becoming converts. More troubling are those converted to an even more radical version of Islam.

Of course, I agree with those of you who say European (I'm including Russia) countries need people. After all, if population growth is declining, eventually that country will not survive. This article about Germany is typical. Russia's woes are multiplied by AIDs and alcohol.

Where there is a mix of militant muslims and moderate muslims, the militants are winning. Even if a person is has been declared to be an undesirable militant alien, he cannot be expelled. Does that make sense?

With the population of Muslims outpacing that of native citizens, coupled with a trend towards increased immigration in Europe, it appears that a shift in policy is very likley. According to the United Nations Population Report 2002, Europe’s fertility rates are now far below the replacement level of 2.1. Population of Russia is decreasing by 75,00,000 every year and the country’s President Vladimir Putin considers it a “national crisis”. The population of Germany could go down by one-fifth in the next 40 years, Bulgaria’s by 38 per cent and Romania’s by 27 per cent. Muslim countries, however, are striking exceptions to the global trend of declining population.

The only hope is for integration of muslims into a more mainline population, but this is not the case:
The level of frustration and alienation among many members of Europe’s Muslim communities has not abated. At the same time, the risk of another terrorist attack perpetrated by Islamic extremists in Europe remains high. All European governments are potential targets, not only those explicitly supportive of the United States in its foreign policies in the Middle East. If there is another attack, the popular backlash against Muslims in Europe will be severe. Even without another attack, the integration of Muslim communities in Europe will be a difficult and protracted process. The many internal obstacles to integration will continue to be exacerbated by external forces over which national European governments have little if no control. Europeans are awake to these dangers and are doing their best to respond, but we are at the beginning of the process.

BTW, Stoatie and others -- I may be an extremist, but I am right...
 
 
illmatic
05:32 / 18.07.06
I may be an extremist, but I am right...

Who does this sound like?

Dragon, could you please tell me, have you read Alas's arguments posted at the beginning of the thread? Do you have an opinion on them? Saying "I am right" when you can't even read the oppositions arguments is a little unconvincing.
 
 
elene
07:35 / 18.07.06
redtara,

I have no reason to beleive that our economies couldn't absorb any influx of migrants, they always have. Migration is not a new thing and there has never been Race War within the countries of Europe that are being discussed here, except that one time.... and the victims of that racism were not immigrants, they just became immigrants.

I have no reason to believe that this predicted surge of people flooding our markets, cultures and families would happen.

Africa's population is fast approaching 1 billion, it was 900 million in 2004, and it's projected to be near 2 billion in another fifty years (1.8 billion in 2050, from UNFPA: state of world population 2004). For alternative possible projections see UN: World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision Population Database.

Half of Africa's population is below the age of 20, and 85 percent below the age of 45.

A large part of Africa makes up the bulk of the poorest region on the planet, see Statistical Profiles of the Least Developed Countries.

Now, it's hard to find a figure for how many people come to the EU each year from Africa illegally, but it's a great many - from The BBC,

Spain is processing work papers for about 700,000 illegal immigrants already living in the country after holding a three-month amnesty. -

despite considerable danger - thousands are known to have died trying - and expense far beyond the resources of most Africans.

I made an estimate of how many people might be expected come from Africa were the borders opened. Given these facts, and I knew them when I made that estimate, I see no reason to think it's exagerated. I stand by my conclusions.

Lets keep black people out so we don't upset the racists.

"The racists" is not a community of fixed size, redtara, it can grow rapidly and uncontrollable when people have no future.

You've not shown that the EU economy can absorb 5 million new people each year, and I see no reason to believe it can. Why should poor Europeans tolerate being made still poorer because we open our borders to Africa? Why would we do this?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:27 / 18.07.06
Sorry, elene, but do you mean "Europe's poor", or just "the poor Europeans"? Because the former's problems are not the result of those scary extremist immigrants, and never have been.
 
 
Spaniel
08:31 / 18.07.06
Dragon, I really would urge you to actually engage with some of the counter arguments hereabouts rather than ignoring them. If you keep it up you will get banned, not because you're a conversative, but because you will be considered a troll with a prediliction for spamming the board with conservative material.
 
 
Not in the Face
08:57 / 18.07.06
Take France for example Even as someone who doesn't post on Barbelith very muich, seeing this link in Headshop made me want to cry. Dragon, posting links to websites consisting of anecdotal evidence and opinion does nothing for your argument, especially in a forum that is intended to have a degree of rigour about it.

Firstly the website's front page has the rather charming statement "Islam: Apologize for saying our religion kills, or we'll kill you!", so personally I'm willing to ignore it out of hand as propogating a racist and religously biased viewpoint.

As for the article iself, what a load of reactionary wank. Perhaps the worst bit of the whole sorry piece was the reference to the rape case and its implication that Islmaic men want freedom to rape at will. I don't know the facts of this case but a little bit of research brings up this comment about rape in France - note the section where it concludes The rapist is not mostly a foreigner, or single (living alone), or asocial, or impulsive. In most cases, he is perfectly integrated into society, married (or living with a woman) and with children. While the case may, or may not, have happened its certainly not indicative of a widespread problem in France in comparison to the reality around sexual assault.

Also its clear that both yourself and the author of the article had no idea what actually happened recently in France. The Government's approach to handling the recent riots was a million miles away from appeasement.

You should amend your penultimate link as it is misleading. The link does not go to the United Nations report, but links to an article discussing decline in Hindu birthrates and, unsurprisingly, warning that India may be affected by the same factors of a higher birthrate amongst Muslim population that destroyed the secular and multicultural ethos of Lebanon, Kosovo, Bosnia, a highly suspect claim. Worse still the article cites the report's birth rates for Europe and Russia and then goes onto claim that Muslim countries are the exception without amking it clear if this is the opinion of the report or of the writer.

I've tried to find the actual report cited, but have only found the State of the World Population report but that doesn't seem to have any direct conclusions for individual countries. Perhaps you can provide us with a better link that supports your claim?

This site does provide more figures on population growth. Interestingly amongst the top 10 countries are 3 of the richest and most pro-western Islamic countries in the Middle East. Even by 2050 only two of the countries on that articles shit list are predicted to be in the top 20

As for concerns about immigration from poor countries and areas, i would agree it is a real concern - how much european economies can absorb I am not sure, and I'm not even sure its the right question - I think a better question is the timing of it. if the movements of millions of people to Europe were ever to happen, then the sheer logistical problems this would create would overwhelm any other concerns of economy or absorbtion. However I am not sure how overstated these fears are - the biggest recipient of refugees has and will continue to be neighbouring countries. While the image of millions of people forced to leave their homes due to economic and environmental problems is a very real one, for those millions to cross Africa on foot without food or water is much more unlikely.
 
 
elene
09:02 / 18.07.06
Flyboy, if we open the borders Europe's poor will probably be made noticeably poorer. That has little to do with why they are poor in the first place.

While I'm at it let me point out that 5 million immigrants each year only means about 1 percent increase in our population. One might certainly argue that it is possible. Not if all these people land in the ghettos of major cities, of course, but there may well be ways to do it, perhaps without even having to overthrow the capitalist system. No one suggests how it might be done though, no one explains why we should do this either. That's not very convincing.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:47 / 18.07.06
It's no more or less convincing than your conviction that the end result of an open borders policy would be increased poverty and racism amongst the white working class of Europe. The difference is that one course of action (current border policy) is morally indefensible, and the other (open borders) is the only morally defensible course.

In point of fact, what is obvious to anyone who gives the newspapers of the UK even a cursory glance, is that the obsession with border security on the part of the media and politicians is what fans the flames of racism. The UK government has consistently encouraged ill-informed xenophobia for the past decade (and previous governments beforehand) - they have also become apologists for far-right, racist parties, by taking the line that "these are very real concerns, we must address them", where "address" means "play up the fears, do nothing to correct misapprehensions, and borrow the rhetoric and policies of the BNP etc".
 
 
elene
10:07 / 18.07.06
Why are borders morally indefensible, Flyboy? Why are open borders the only morally defensible course?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:13 / 18.07.06
For one thing, because of the treatment of people that invariably results when they are classified as "illegal", or "undesirable".
 
 
Unconditional Love
10:28 / 18.07.06
I need to know the answer to this, would an open boarder policy extend to all nations of the world or only those more wealthy nations of the world? I can see big problems if its the latter only, but not if its inclusive of all the worlds nations.

Would a totally inclusive open boarder policy also include movement of business, economic prosperity, resources etc ?
 
 
elene
10:51 / 18.07.06
... because of the treatment of people that invariably results when they are classified as "illegal", or "undesirable".

That's not inevitable, Flyboy. Just because someone is not permitted to stay here does not imply they must be treated cruelly, unless you consider sending them home cruel in itself. If returning home would endanger them they ought to be accepted as refugees. If not, I see no wrong in returning them to their homeland.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:53 / 18.07.06
OK... maybe if we can take a step back on this one and see if we can justify a position where border controls are justified.

First up, we're actually not talking about border control, precisely, but immigration control. Now, one of the fallacies I think gets trotted out a lot is that a tough immigration policy discourages immigration. First, this is not relevant if somebody is seeking to enter and work in a country illegally. Second, I don't actually think that a lot of people in war-torn areas of Africa are taking time off from their busy schedule of starving to check Wikipedia for who has the laxest border policies at present. Information received will be partial, outdated and inaccurate, and choice of nation is more likely to be decided by logistics than preference. So, that's one issue, I think, with immigration control - a lot of the time you're not discouraging people, and you're making illegal people who are there already.

So, that's a problem, I think, with a model based on immigration controls and immigration controls alone. Is there some kind of utilitarian case for imposing those controls, forcibly repatriating people, denying asylum and so on?

Well. Let's assume for the moment that, although at the moment immigration is in many cases providing capital, either by generating prosperity itself or by providing cheap labour which makes indigenous people rich, meaning they buy more products and pay more taxes, there is nonetheless a "tipping point" where the number of people in a country starts to cost money - maintaining and upgrading infrastructure, providing health care and benefits for the sick and unemployes, and so on.

Again, it's worth noting that at the moment, and I imagine for the foreseeable future, a number of barriers both legal (lack of registration, primarily) and cultural (language problems, for example) will still operate to limit the spend on, say, state medical provision even on immigrants with entirely legal existences.

So, at that point we have a net loss of money, and possibly also infrastructure issues which increase unrest, as failures in public services are blamed on foreign immigration, rightly or wrongly. Tensions rise between communities, and managing this costs further money, right?

So, proposal. Policing immigration is very expensive. Due to limited resources, you tend only to be able to repatriate those who are at least to some extent playing by the rules.

Proposal the second. Largely, people will for preference stay where they are. In particular, people will for preference stay with their co-religionists, co-linguists and so on. The reasons for not doing so, outside pioneer spirit and thirst for experience, tend to be due to pressing economic or personal reasons - that is, the individual cannot live or is in danger of being prevented from living.

So, question. How much profit is there in maintaining immigration controls at their current level and level of expense, or increasing that level and level of expense, as opposed to, for example, moving the border where people might think they have a chance of settling without fear of their lives East and South (in the case of Europe - your orientation may vary)? If Tunisia or Algeria are peaceful and reasonably prosperous, what would be the incentive to risk life and limb on an uncertain crossing in the hands of criminals to get to southern Spain?

Oh, and Dragon - I think it's worth explaining why I was wondering if you had been to Europe. You see, when you said Europe as we know it, I was interested in what sense you knew it. It turns out that you know Europe in a purely conceptual sense - Europe as you know it is quuite different from Europe as we - that is, me and mine - know it. From the perspective of an actual European, one might go further, we find that we have, thanks to its global reach, a US on our doorstep the leader of which is a religious ideologue, seeks to limit the control women have over their bodies, seeks to rule out the legal recognition of partnership even as a possibility between same-sex couples, doesn't speak any European languages apart from English and is prepared to kill an awful lot of the citizens of other nations in order to achieve his foreign policy goals. It's a matter of perspective.
 
 
Unconditional Love
10:54 / 18.07.06
If Barbelith were to actively have an open boarder policy, would it also be open to freedom of cultural values, that many cultures bring to an open community.

Or would it censor those values which it was in disagreement with? would censoring those values be a reflection of a community with boarders, restrictions upon cultural value and expression, ie our boarders are open but please do not bring your customs and culture with you, you must adopt your host cultures values.

Would for example the opening of boarders mean a change in the way a conception of a community/nation defines its identity, wouldnt the conception become more fluid with less static values? More open, with less censorship of cultural values. So that cultures become generally more respectful of diversity and dont treat divergent opinions as somehow alien or in a sense illegal.
 
 
Not in the Face
11:05 / 18.07.06
because of the treatment of people that invariably results

Do you see the two as inextricably linked then - the status of the border and the means of monitoring it? I would agree that the current system is inhumane and hampered by both knee jerk interventions by politicians and the degree of difficulty in creating a closed border when there are so many interests in opening them. However I don't see an open border as automatically being morally better or that the treatment of people would be better - I suspect there would just be less official treatment of migrants but wonder whether the problems of people trafficking wouldn't get worse.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:18 / 18.07.06
Well, MAR - I think it's important to distinguish between open borders and an absence of laws. In one sense, Barbelith's border restrictions are an attempt to deal with the desire not to concentrate power in the hands of a small number of people to organise and order people once they are in. Many other message boards have a different canting of this balance - so that it is easier by far to gain entrance, but the ability to edit and delete posts and users is given without any immediate controls to a small number of trusted people - "moderators" in thhe conventional sense - who are then in effect employed as a police force.

So, the comparison there might be to your standard liberal democracy, where theoretically a series of checks and balances are in place to prevent any one body having too great a control over the citizen. What we're seeing in the UK at the moment is the suggestion that actually in some cases these checks need to be suspended - for example the right to silence or the right not to be held without trial - in the face of "undesirables" getting in - that is, people whose criminality is more criminal than the criminality of ordinary criminals, regardless of their status as citizens, foreign nationals or whatever.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:48 / 18.07.06
elene, Not In The Face - as soon as you start criminalising people for entering into "your" "homeland", rather than staying in "their" "homeland", mistreatment of them becomes inevitable - it's just a question of degree. Personally, I'd argue that the root cause of this is believing that anybody has or should have a "homeland" in the first place...
 
 
elene
12:01 / 18.07.06
OK, I think I understand your position, Flyboy. Thanks.
 
 
grant
12:18 / 18.07.06
I'm wondering if it might be a worthwhile exercise to use the United States as a model for a borderless society.

Within itself, I mean. We do tend to migrate around a lot, but it also seems (I suppose I could check, but I'm not sure where) that most people stay where they're from, and those that do move around tend to do it several times in their lives, so work might take place in one of the corporate hubs (metropolitan Dallas is the first that comes to mind, but I suppose greater New York or any of the other cities would be the same), before moving to some place with a more pleasant climate or more like "home" (meaning, where you're from, or where your family's from).

There are ways in which states operate like countries -- they have their own economies (California's one of the world's largest) and their own internal regulations (different traffic laws, different marriage laws), and restrictions on trade (tariffs on liquor -- I'm not 100% sure how these work, but I know mobsters have been nabbed on interstate commerce laws in the past).

It's perfectly legal for people from Mississippi and South Carolina (poor states) to move to California and New York, and some do. But not nearly all, and not nearly enough to... what... bring Manhattan to a standstill or something.

Why not? And in what ways does this model not apply?
 
 
elene
12:18 / 18.07.06
I ought to also add that I’ve nothing against opening the borders and finding out what the effects of doing so are experimentally. If it lay in my power to do so, I would, and I’d invest a great deal in attempts to integrate people efficiently. If we can live, or rather as long as we can live with open borders I’m all for keeping them open. I don’t feel any moral obligation to keep them open however and would throttle immigration immediately should I find the situation untenable.
 
 
Dragon
12:28 / 18.07.06
I may be an extremist, but I am right...

Who does this sound like?

It was a little joke/barb.
 
 
Unconditional Love
12:30 / 18.07.06
I agree with your analysis of the situation in the uk haus, conservative democracy has certainly been the precedent set by the majority media and current govenors.

I also think Barbelith is right to employ boarder controls to itself as a community, i see the current application process as not dissimilar to obtaining a passport, and the role of moderators may well be considered that of policing the rights of the various multicultural members of the board.

The idea that Barbelith were to take an autocratic approach to its community, ie closing the gates to those with different opinions would make this community in my opinion a prison of beliefs, as if Barbelith were to have an unchanging, unchallenged position in relation to what it found unacceptable.

The idea of somebody being undesirable is in and of itself indespicable. The idea of boarders totally open or closed seems to me to be jumping to extremes, i think settling for controls that assure the human rights of those who exercise there right of freedom to movement or expression is a more preferable option to either extreme.
 
 
Unconditional Love
12:35 / 18.07.06
I agree with you Flyboy, i think it comes down to a fear of difference, rather than an understanding of difference.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
12:57 / 18.07.06
No one suggests how it might be done though, no one explains why we should do this either.

I'll give you a reason: we are living in relative luxury at the expense of people who's land does not feed them and who's natural resources are being drained in the name of "profit" by international corporations who couldn't care less about the poor in any country. It's the reason why my forefathers got on a boat and came to England, it's the reason why anybody's forefathers left their homeland in search of a better life. By keeping people out of affluent countries, one is almost saying "sorry, you don't have a right to decent life. I do. But you don't."

(Elene: that isn't meant to sound snarky towards you, more to the position that borders are a valid construct)

Sorry, that's an oversimplification, I know. But I just wanted to remind us again that any discussion of immigration must include an understanding of why people are risking life and limb to cross borders to feed and clothe themselves or escape oppression. Maybe if the G8 pulled their thumbs out their arses and dealt with fair trade and debt, people begin to have the chance to stay in their homelands and build a future for themselves? (I'd go one step further myself and massively increase corporate taxation and change international law to ensure corporations have a social obligation beyond their share-holders interests; but that's me.)

Indeed, many people I've spoken who have left their native country for more affluent shores say they love their homeland and would rather have stayed there given the opportunity. The thing is when you're hungry you don't have much choice but to seek out food. It's either that or you die.

(Apologies if the above sounds emotive, but this issue really gets to me and I find it hard to discuss calmly what I see to be a kind of false dichotomy: i.e. "should we let 'them' in or not?")
 
 
elene
13:10 / 18.07.06
I'll give you a reason: we are living in relative luxury at the expense of people who's land does not feed them and who's natural resources are being drained in the name of "profit" by international corporations who couldn't care less about the poor in any country.

No, paranoidwriter, that's a reason and a responsibility to stop abusing Africa and help it become a good place to live.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:10 / 18.07.06
I think Paranoidwriter makes a very good point, and one we shouldn't lose sight of. It's important to consider that we are not looking at this question from a standing start. One big reason that people want to leave places like Africa and come to places like Europe - or at least decide that they have to - is the vast disparity in economic and political stability between the two areas. Ditto South America and the United States. That isn't something that just _happened_; a series of historical processes were intimately involved in creating that disparity. You can argue for historical responsibility if you want, or just argue a more pragmatic caase based on simple self-interest. Either way, really. I can certainly say with reasonable confidence that if the USA returned Texas and California to Mexico then you'd probably see a sharp drop in border traffic, despite the larger border...
 
 
Not in the Face
13:13 / 18.07.06
Personally, I'd argue that the root cause of this is believing that anybody has or should have a "homeland" in the first place

Not sure how far I agree with this statement but will need to think some more on my own reactions to it. In the meantime, and perhaps to help tease it out some more, how widely accepted a belief do you and others feel that is?

It seems to me that sense of homeland is a vague but powerful psychological instinct built into many people, linked to notions of community and also probably to conditioning in childhood. Moreover its a notion/concept that people generally attach positive values to (even if false). I'm just wandering whether even where there were no national boundaries, these concepts and issues wouldn't then just repeat themselves at regional or local levels instead and perhaps one advantage of national agreements on borders is that it minimises - or perhaps simply better regulates - the forms of migration and abuses that might occur against a situation with a million communities and borders?

I thunk what I'm getting at is that homeland seems often used as a geographical cypher for 'them vs us', and that the problems around migration are rooted in these tensions. Even if we were able to do away with concepts of homeland, they would be replaced by other barriers?
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
13:25 / 18.07.06
No, paranoidwriter, that's a reason and a responsibility to stop abusing Africa and help it become a good place to live.

Fair point, elene. However, I feel we can't possibly begin to discuss borders until this has happened. e.g , would the numbers of people trying to reach richer shores change do you think if the shores they were leaving were richer?

May I also remind us that many affluent people leave (e.g) England for (e.g) Australia all the time, but as they are deemed able to increase their new countriy's health and economy they are also deemed fit for entry. In other words, it's almost a case of "they can come in because they make us richer", However, the fact that most so called "illegal immigrants" end up performing menial jobs (on the books or not) and therefore act as a back-bone for their new country, seems to be forgotten by many of those in power. Doesn't that bug you as well?

Oh, and I completely agree what Haus said.
 
  

Page: 12(3)45678

 
  
Add Your Reply