|
Post by Melnorme on Jan 20, 2005 10:49:36 GMT -5
Well, I think it is rational to distinguish between the mass immigration of today and the more controlled flows of yesteryear. It's like the difference between a fast food joint and a fine restaurant...or something.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jan 20, 2005 11:39:36 GMT -5
Vela: I have the same power to judge or decide that you or everybody else have. The "close the borders" option is as legitimate, under any point of view, as the "open the borders" issue. Actually ALL the countries in the world give very limited access to their borders, which means that there is a general consensus on the fact that it is not a right of any human being to cross borders and settle wherever he wants to. If you think differently you belong to a very small minority (also in this poll). I don't think I could just arrive and became a citizen in your Country, wherever you may live, could I? Please notice that once you accept there is a right to limit access, you also accepted on principle that there is a right to stop access. Then, I never said I am an asset for the place I live in and I wonder what made you think that; plus, we are discussing if immigration is good for Europe from a general standpoint, who cares what I did and who I am? I told you I'am an immigrant just to clarify I do not hate immigrants, and I think that migrating one does legitimately (from a moral standpoint) pursue his interest. And I am still waiting to hear about the assumed advantages "multi ethnicity" would give to a country ....
|
|
|
Post by vela on Jan 20, 2005 13:55:08 GMT -5
Well, I think it is rational to distinguish between the mass immigration of today and the more controlled flows of yesteryear. Your distinction doesn't invalidate my observation. How can you state that migration today is more uncontrolled that yesteryear's? With current border restrictions at most countries almost everyone would think the opposite is true. Strange analogy, Mel. But you got a point: everybody wants to eat! ;D
|
|
|
Post by vela on Jan 20, 2005 13:56:31 GMT -5
The "close the borders" option is as legitimate, under any point of view, as the "open the borders" issue. Actually ALL the countries in the world give very limited access to their borders, which means that there is a general consensus on the fact that it is not a right of any human being to cross borders and settle wherever he wants to. If you think differently you belong to a very small minority (also in this poll). I don't think I could just arrive and became a citizen in your Country, wherever you may live, could I? Please notice that once you accept there is a right to limit access, you also accepted on principle that there is a right to stop access. Of course every country has the right to control their borders. That’s not the issue. If the real majorities in major democracies had the same opinion as you, many borders around the would already be closed. The fact is that this poll is not a reflection of reality, sorry to disappoint you. If you are interested enough in the subject and have an open mind, you’ll eventually realize that simplistic solutions are simply unrealistic. Re-read your own words and read between the lines! What assumed advantages are you talking about? Read Anunnaki’s posts.
|
|
|
Post by ulvesang on Jan 20, 2005 14:19:43 GMT -5
The majority of this thread is based on economic migration, which I've been against forever. People who move because of the lure of money aren't worth taking in as immigrants anyway. Plus they bring their problems with them.
But what about simply migration in the purest sense, i.e. cultural migration? What if a person just like a place better, and wants to start a new life? And adopt ALL the ways of his new home and never look back?
Obviously economic need > immigration > assimilation is not working, AT ALL... What about people who WANT to assimilate already, THEN migrate, and the economic problems should sort themselves out. I'd rather not be "the richest country in the world" than fracture a society and culture's solidarity and happiness.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jan 20, 2005 14:43:46 GMT -5
Your distinction doesn't invalidate my observation. How can you state that migration today is more uncontrolled that yesteryear's? With current border restrictions at most countries almost everyone would think the opposite is true. Hmm. If most countries have tighter borders, the ones that don't get 'hit harder' by immigration.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Jan 20, 2005 16:55:44 GMT -5
Hmm. If most countries have tighter borders, the ones that don't get 'hit harder' by immigration. Well, not necessarily. If I may resort also to an analogy, mine would be that of atmospheric pressure gradients. Read the following: This is all about that popular aphorism, you know, that “nature abhors a vacuum”? The wider the gap is between the haves and the have-nots of the world the stronger the migration becomes. Simple as that. As long as the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, the situation won’t improve. Quote above taken from: www.tpub.com/content/aerographer/14312/css/14312_65.htm
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jan 20, 2005 17:11:44 GMT -5
The wider the gap is between the haves and the have-nots of the world the stronger the migration becomes. Simple as that. As long as the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, the situation won’t improve. This can never be completely solved. But, it can be helped : by cancelling protectionist tariffs for agriculture in Western nations. Sacrificing the livelihood of European farmers to help keep immigrants out. I think most would agree it's a worthy trade-off. Especially since those farmers probably use heavy foreign labor anyway. Even here in Israel we use Thai guest workers.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Jan 20, 2005 17:58:55 GMT -5
This can never be completely solved. Short of boarding up a big mothership with all your select few and blast into space to colonize a virgin planet in a distant galaxy or, a more grotesque choice, unleashing miriad death squads or lethal viruses to target absolutely all migrant workers around the world, No. Totally agree! Those are measures worth considering. After all, we live in the same planet Earth and there are just so many resources to go around. When I read so much complaining and whining about immigration this, immigration that, I’m reminded of a story of a small town where its people were very worried and concerned about the number of accidents happening there, when a lot of cars kept falling off a nearby cliff on the road. The main debate was between those that wanted to build a hospital at the bottom of the cliff to quickly assist the injured and those that just wanted to send an ambulance as usual. An outsider who was just passing by surprised them all when he interrupted them and suggested: “Why don’t you build a stronger rail at the cliff to keep the cars from falling in the first place?”<br> And I don't mean here that the idea is to build stronger “rails” at the borders to prevent the migrants from entering, but of attending the real causes of the problems and not just the effects; curing the disease and not just treating the symptoms. If the people find what they need locally there's little incentive to travel elsewhere. So the question is (for the rich) would you rather do "the walking" and help the poor get what they need at their place or do you prefer the poor coming to look up what they need at your place?
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jan 21, 2005 6:06:55 GMT -5
The trite "Rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer" is simply false. Any statistic on global economy will show that the rich is getting richer, and the poor is also getting richer. So this is not the problem.
As long as there will be different nations there will always be richer and poorer nations. Also this, then, is not a "problem" that can be solved.
Many countries have sealed their borders. This is not unrealistic at all. Japan does it and prospers. All the European Communist states had very effectively closed borders. It can be done.
Annunaki's post didn't point out any advantage multi ethnicity gives to a Country. No one did in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Human on Jan 21, 2005 6:40:55 GMT -5
has a lot do with the fact that many european countries, for centuries, traded and kept close ties with colonies. it is not surprising to know there are black people from angola in portugal, or pakis in England.
also, the internal wars between the european countries had severe impact on the availability of labour force.
germany, e.g, needed people to help rebuilding the country. as their leaders had no brains at all, they invited a wholly cultural different kind of workers (turanoid muslim turks) to help them... they might have invited unemployed italians, or even europeans christians world wide, but they preferred not to. and now they face the consequences.... possibility of internal disruption, considering both the muslim fanaticisim and german xenophobia.
the english seem also to like foreign people, and invite them quite a lot. if it were not so, i guess there wouldnt be hardly any non white people in england.... england is in an island to far away to be reached by boats or something.
france too. they dont like muslims, but yet they invited them all, and try to melt them in their society.... if true french liked muslims, i would see no problems at all. but they dont like, and yet their government doesnt do a thing to stop muslim influx, rather the contrary... they like to appear before the world as a government concerned with the arabs...
i see there will immense difficulties to keep western european countries identities. poland, hungary, eastern european countries, will go through relatively untouched, but the others will be changed, for worse or better (we have to see what will happen....)
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Jan 21, 2005 13:08:38 GMT -5
By the time the West makes the Third World a pleasant place to live in, it will be White no longer. If a group of hobos entered your house, sprawled out on the floor, and were trying to sleep with your sister, would you kick them out, or build them their own houses?
And I refuse to buy in to the White man's burden guilt trip. After WWII the Third World was poised to become economically self-sufficient. Two things prevented this: (1) Western medicine - increased birthrates, decreased resources, and (2) the Green Revolution - exacerbating (1).
Suddenly doctors without borders takes on a whole new light...
|
|
|
Post by visigodo on Jan 21, 2005 14:30:35 GMT -5
It’s great that you pointed out “the Green Revolution”, Imperator. Jesus, where do I begin? Its just suffice to say that the do-gooders of the left not only impede, the economies of the third world but also exacerbate their problems.
You cannot help the third world out of its misery through phony altruistic gestures of, conditional loans to corrupt governments and or one time“help the starving telethons”. The only true way to help the poor, is through the promotion of free markets, and democratic governments.
Free markets!! The third world is rife with dictators who nationalize industries such as the utilities, telecommunications, and other industries. The lack of free markets, inhibit capital investments (both foreign, and domestic) which could promote jobs and ultimately lift these people out of misery.
Notice: I said “open/free markets” to truly help the poor, and not an “opening/free international borders”, which in the long run puts a great strain on any host nation, socially (racism, xenophobia, and social strife) and economically. (ie the use of social welfare)
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Jan 21, 2005 15:19:12 GMT -5
Annunaki's post didn't point out any advantage multi ethnicity gives to a Country. No one did in this thread. I don't see why there has to be any advantage with it as long as it is not bad either. Must there be any advantage with my friend's marriage to a Chinese man (who immigrated to Sweden)? Or with my living in Sweden like any other ordinary person, working, eating, sleeping and shitting? I don't see why there always must be something beneficial with immigrants as long as they assimilate and are law-abiding. What are the positive effects of Western students living in Japan for a few years while studying? As long as you don't impact negatively on your new country, what's the big deal?
|
|
|
Post by ulvesang on Jan 22, 2005 15:00:14 GMT -5
I don't see why there has to be any advantage with it as long as it is not bad either. Must there be any advantage with my friend's marriage to a Chinese man (who immigrated to Sweden)? Or with my living in Sweden like any other ordinary person, working, eating, sleeping and shitting? I don't see why there always must be something beneficial with immigrants as long as they assimilate and are law-abiding. What are the positive effects of Western students living in Japan for a few years while studying? As long as you don't impact negatively on your new country, what's the big deal? Living for a few years isn't immigration. That's why it's very easy to study/work abroad, but to settle, god damned impossible. Even if multiculturalism was benign (which it's quickly proving it's not) it is still disrupting a very solid, happy culture, and morphing it into something different. HOWEVER, birthplace and race have nothing to do with cultural solidarity. If you live in Sweden, and live, think, and act like a Swede, you are preserving that culture and deserve to live there. If you live in Sweden but live, think, and act like a Chinaman, please leave, now. It all comes down to loyalty: Are you proud of, and loyal to Sweden, or China? Which do you like better? If you truly want to immigrate and not just conquer another culture, you like your land of immigration better, and have loyalty to it. and (2) the Green Revolution - exacerbating (1). That is sickening. Do you see what's going on in the world? If we don't realise the consequences of our actions on Earth, there will BE no liveable Earth. Earth will kill us all. Look around you: mass weather changes, polar ice caps melting, hurricanes in Sweden, flooding in the UK and western US. Winter disappearing in Scandinavia. Massive earthquakes and tsunamis. GRASS IN ANTARCTICA. www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1415627,00.html The horrid "Green Revolution" is attempting to SAVE us, not keep us from advancing.
|
|