Ship of Fools: Lampedusa

Thread: Lampedusa Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026392

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

I would like to turn the eyes on deck towards another ship, or rather a whole flotilla, consisting of decrepit rafts stacked to the gunwales with human cargo, making it (or not) to the shores of Southern Europe.

What are we to do with this wave of immigrants, most of whom have no qualifications and are unlikely to ever acquire any? What do we think about the Politicians’ suggestions, ranging from opening the doors (the humane thing to do? Or something that destroys our societies, economies, and security, something we Europeans are no doubt entitled to? Or both? Must we sacrifice our Europe in one grand, final, noble gesture? ) to stepping up the patrols on the Med and turn any refugee boat firmly away (monstrous? Non-Christian? Or legitimate self-defense because only a healthy Europe can help weaker nations?)

What do shipmates think? What’s the Christian thing to do?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Thank you! I was looking for a thread on this topic. Heard on the BBC this morning: Europeans are supposed to go on a guilt trip... for what? For having developed and maintained a civilization so desirable that others risk their lives to reach it?

I saw a web site recently ranking countries according to corruption. Most of the least corrupt countries in the world are European (the northernmost the least corrupt of all). They are also among the most prosperous, surprise. Obviously, one way to keep Africans from killing themselves to get to Europe is to let Europe become as corrupt, violent, and unstable as the places these unfortunates are leaving. That would be the easy way. The harder way is to make Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea like Europe as to corruption, violence, and stability. Can we do that for them? Suggestions are welcome, but no efforts either military or humanitarian have borne much fruit thus far. As long as they adhere to their religion, I'm not optimistic. They'll need to do this for themselves.

So Europe rescues these refugees. What then? Where will Europe put them? The safer the journey becomes, the more refugees will throng the shores. Look at the map. Europe is small, Africa is big. See the easy option above.

It's a heartbreaking headache. The only silver lining I see is that even China is now outsourcing jobs to places like Bangladesh and Africa. I'm not fond of laissez-faire capitalism but it seems to be the most effective long-term bootstrap on the horizon.

Meanwhile Europeans should remember that Christianity forged Europe as it is. Whether the church can safely be kicked over like a ladder after reaching the roof should not be taken for granted.

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

The really evil people in all this are the traffickers who make money from other's desperation. The risks have to be made greater than the rewards to stop them doing this. I don't know what the potential sentences for trafficking are in Italy but if they are causing deaths they should be done for manslaughter as well. Sentences like that received by Perry Wacker when he caused the death of 58 people at Dover are far too short.

While everything is being done to stop the exploitation of these people, a rational, intelligent debate should happen internationally about how asylum seekers should be dealt with around the world. The 1951 Convention which deals with what constitutes a genuine asylum claim should be looked at afresh to see if it is still fit for purpose more than sixty years later. (Please note I'm not saying if it should be tightened or loosened, just that it should be revisited). This debate should not be the populist, semiracist discussion that seems to have taken over in recent years. The political polarised let nobody in versus let everyone in clearly doesn't work.

This is not an Italian problem, this is not a European problem, this is an international problem which also includes the countries these people come from not just those that they arrive to.

I fear however that a rational and intelligent debate about immigration is no longer possible and tragedies will continue to occur while the situation is kept on the too hard pile.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chive
This is not an Italian problem, this is not a European problem, this is an international problem which also includes the countries these people come from not just those that they arrive to.

Exactly! It is the tip of the world problem. Overpopulation, depletion of resources like land and water, Climate change are all causing the migrations within and out of countries that are listed in the magazine Foreign Policy's annual report of failed or failing states. Africa heads the list of the first 23 states in 2012.

I recommend Lester Brown's book, "World On the Edge", outlining the reasons that threaten our planet's future and his website earth-policy.org LINK HERE. Browne details the ,any factors that are coming to attention and gives the dollar cost that the US could contribute to reduce the trend.

[ 12. October 2013, 13:53: Message edited by: IconiumBound ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Thank you! I was looking for a thread on this topic. Heard on the BBC this morning: Europeans are supposed to go on a guilt trip... for what? For having developed and maintained a civilization so desirable that others risk their lives to reach it?

But this civilisation was built to a large extent by plundering resources from many of those countries whose citizens are now trying to escape. Did we ask them 200 and more years ago for permission to invade their countries or the right to live there?

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But this civilisation was built to a large extent by plundering resources from many of those countries whose citizens are now trying to escape. Did we ask them 200 and more years ago for permission to invade their countries or the right to live there?

Does that mean the present situation is our fault? If so, we have even more reason to assume responsibility. But what would that taking of responsibility look like? Opening the doors and accepting the (very high) risk of losing our own economic viability in the medium term and thereby just helping the present, but not future, generations of migrants? Or trying to eradicate the problem at its roots, which basically means going back there and help them run things (if that is realistically possible at all)?

The question is one of what can realistically be done and of moral duty: we are duty bound to help, but to what extent does that duty hold if helping will mean depleting our own resources/strength and dissolving our own society.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

It's certainly a headache but I'm not sure these migrants are without qualifications as stated in the OP. The qualifications may not be recognised in Europe but that doesn't mean migrants are without skills or talents.

The surveys that show European countries to be less corrupt than others are devised by, yes, you've guessed it, Europeans, or at any rate organisations like the G20 which have bought in to the European free-trade model. Any African, Asian or Central or South American group could construct alternative criteria showing how perfidious Europe is while showing their places to be bastions of freedom and probity. They would look wonky to most of us but then we're mostly Westerners (ie Euro/Americans by culture).

While Europe was forged by Christianity we should also note that South and Central America has had four or five centuries of it and many of those nations, sometimes thanks to colonialisation, sometimes not, are little better than Africa, parts of which have had little more than a hundred years of Christian influence.

Finally, isn't it worth noting that Christianity came from the very same part of the world as some of these migrants that are seen as such a problem now? Had it not been for the movement possible within the Roman Empire would the West be remotely Christian? No, we would in all probability have been dominated by the Mongol Horde, followed by goodness knows what.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Does that mean the present situation is our fault?

No, we didn't select our (grand)parents, and in many cases our parents were victims of the same system.
They didn't select their parents, in some cases their parents may have done well out the system.

However because of what happened [and continues to happen] London is the city it is, and Kinshasa is the city it is. And so we can't just pretend either.

[ 12. October 2013, 14:52: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Thank you! I was looking for a thread on this topic. Heard on the BBC this morning: Europeans are supposed to go on a guilt trip... for what? For having developed and maintained a civilization so desirable that others risk their lives to reach it?
But this civilisation was built to a large extent by plundering resources from many of those countries whose citizens are now trying to escape. Did we ask them 200 and more years ago for permission to invade their countries or the right to live there?

Perhaps not, but how is a present-day citizen of one of these African countries affected by what happened 200+ years ago?

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

The whole thing reminds me of a book I read years ago, the Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail. Brief plot here , free English version here .

The book was published in 1973- it is so politically incorrect that I very much doubt any publisher would touch it with a bargepole today. But it made stirring reading.

Raspail was heavily criticised for the book, some countries banned it. But the problem it points at did not go away. Part of today's mess is that we (I can only speak of Europe) never made any contingency plan for what was going to happen in all likelihood, and is happening now.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perhaps not, but how is a present-day citizen of one of these African countries affected by what happened 200+ years ago?

Because the citizen's who liven in Africa 200+ years ago were affected by what happened 200+ and ... the citizen's who lived in Africa 100 years ago were affected by what happened 200+ years ago (which made it easier for the western european countries to re-invade and exploit division, and if none of them are still alive, that gives some lives affected already) and that affected the citizens 70 years who were living in segregated colonial rule... and some of them were unable to build the infrastructure that would be handy because the west/east had given weapons and money to rebels and the east/west were giving weapons and money to support a friendly dictator... and that had an effect 40 years on on others were still living under segregated rule, and didn't have the money they needed to build nice hospitals or roads etc... etc...

and oddly enough this had an affect on the people who are born today, I can't think why.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Thank you! I was looking for a thread on this topic. Heard on the BBC this morning: Europeans are supposed to go on a guilt trip... for what? For having developed and maintained a civilization so desirable that others risk their lives to reach it?

I'm not sure "compassion" is synonymous with "guilt". Also, I'm not sure how "desirable" a civilization is if an economic union with a population of approximately half a billion can be destroyed by admitting several thousand refugees. Seems more "precarious" than "desirable". If the "unskilled immigrants = social collapse" trope were true, wouldn't we expect countries like the United States to have become some kind of primitive backwater by the twentieth century?

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perhaps not, but how is a present-day citizen of one of these African countries affected by what happened 200+ years ago?

Given that most of the countries under discussion only regained their independence in the mid-twentieth century, this seems a little glib. I usually assume that anyone offering the "who could possibly be affected by this thing that existed within living memory" argument is arguing in bad faith.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The first world plundered the third world to become the first world. And continues to plunder the third world.
So, we created the situation and continue to benefit.
Yeah, not our problem; send the filthy buggers back.

ETA: Cheer up, people; 27 fewer to worry about, innit.

[ 12. October 2013, 15:47: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Does it make any difference that many of those who drowned off Lampedusa were Christians? Thought not, still Africans. [Disappointed]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Silly Sioni. Colour of skin, gender, continent, country, then religion. Get your priorities in order.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's certainly a headache but I'm not sure these migrants are without qualifications as stated in the OP. The qualifications may not be recognised in Europe but that doesn't mean migrants are without skills or talents.ngol Horde, followed by goodness knows what.

Indeed - most of the asylum seekers who come to the UK have better qualifications that those already born here.

It takes a hell of lot of ability to get here in the first place.

We should welcome them with open arms.

Not only because the Bible says that we should but also because we need their superior skills.

[ 12. October 2013, 19:30: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We should welcome them with open arms.

Not only because the Bible says that we should but also because we need their superior skills.

Shouldn't we decide whether or not to accept an asylum seeker based on the terror that he's escaping rather than his qualifications?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Yes. If the authorities hadn't allowed those Moabite immigrants in we wouldn't have all the problems they and their descendants caused that really upset our way of life.

<Warning, contains sarcasm>

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

It is very simple.

We should do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

What would you need if you were in their situation?

There is your answer.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It is very simple.

We should do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

What would you need if you were in their situation?

There is your answer.

What if I am not them?

(That is to say, what I require in a given situation may not be what you require in that situation)

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

From to OP:

quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
immigrants, most of whom have no qualifications and are unlikely to ever acquire any?

I find this statement offensive and racist.

Where asylum seekers are allowed to integrate into society there is no reason why they shouldn't acquire them.

I'm not sure whether the racism in that statement lies with the writer of the post or with the attitude to immigrants of the receiving countries.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If the "unskilled immigrants = social collapse" trope were true, wouldn't we expect countries like the United States to have become some kind of primitive backwater by the twentieth century?

Insert joke about the government shutdown here.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We should welcome them with open arms.

Not only because the Bible says that we should but also because we need their superior skills.
Shouldn't we decide whether or not to accept an asylum seeker based on the terror that he's escaping rather than his qualifications?

Far from weakening any case for welcoming them that gives two reasons for accepting asylum seekers.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We should welcome them with open arms.

Not only because the Bible says that we should but also because we need their superior skills.
Shouldn't we decide whether or not to accept an asylum seeker based on the terror that he's escaping rather than his qualifications?
Far from weakening any case for welcoming them that gives two reasons for accepting asylum seekers.

Surely it undermines it? There's a difference between asylum seekers and common or garden immigrants. Asylum seekers are seeking asylum because they are suffering some kind of danger or persecution. Surely the strength of their claim should be made on the severity of that danger or persecution? If you start to consider them on the basis of whether or not they hold a university degree you stop deciding their cases based on their plight. In effect, you stop treating them as asylum seekers.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

With Boogie and Balaam here. Surprised such an offensively racist post has come from the OP [Ultra confused]

As for the nationalism (continent-ism?) of 'our Europe' - there is no such thing as 'our Europe'. 'The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it' Psalm 24:1. The whole Earth belongs to the whole of God's creation. Including brown-skinned immigrants.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surprised such an offensively racist post has come from the OP

There may be a bit of a tangent here, but as far as I can see the OP has asked a question: should we do (a) or do (b) and given a few arguments either way. How on earth is that 'offensively racist'?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surprised such an offensively racist post has come from the OP
There may be a bit of a tangent here, but as far as I can see the OP has asked a question: should we do (a) or do (b) and given a few arguments either way. How on earth is that 'offensively racist'?

'most of whom have no qualifications and are unlikely to ever acquire any' is what is racist. Since when did being an immigrant = incapable of gaining qualifications?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
'most of whom have no qualifications and are unlikely to ever acquire any' is what is racist. Since when did being an immigrant = incapable of gaining qualifications?

I agree that it doesn't, but it might not be an unreasonable guess if one knows the background of those on board? (I must confess that I don't.)

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
'most of whom have no qualifications and are unlikely to ever acquire any' is what is racist. Since when did being an immigrant = incapable of gaining qualifications?
I agree that it doesn't, but it might not be an unreasonable guess if one knows the background of those on board? (I must confess that I don't.)

Even those without qualifications can gain them while living in their host country. The idea that being an immigrant prevents one from learning and gaining qualifications is bizarre, racist and just not true at all.

The real criminals, as has been said upthread, are the people traffickers.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

Recalling the TV drama called 'The march' I came across this, which I think is good comment on the present situation: http://forthefainthearted.com/2013/10/04/again-and-again-and-again/

I just happen to have come home from an 'African evening' for the purpose of raising money for a kind of 'holocaust memorial church' in Rwanda. The lady who cooked the African food for us came from Zimbabwe, and, although not herself one of the official speakers, gave us an impromptu five minutes about her own upbringing. Her father came from a poor family, mother was rich, and they decided to spend every penny on their children's education, and not on non-essentials like crockery. We had just been watching a moving film from the charity 'Mary's meals', and she said she identified with the children in the film: education was so important. (She is now a very successful human rights lawyer in this country.) The main speaker was involved with twinning our local school with one in Kenya: clearly our children could learn an awful lot from African schoolchildren about what education is worth.

My understanding is that many of the recent refugees were mainly Syrians and Afghans.

Ever since returning from a year's teaching in Africa in the late 1960's, I have been saddened by the way the continent is misunderstood and stereotyped. This happens for a number of reasons, including, I believe, latent racism, contempt and condescension towards African people, and a mistaken belief that we British are better than other people. Africa is poor, and while it is not helpful to blame ourselves for this, it's not helpful to blame Africans either.

There are signs that the economy in many of Africa's 53 or so nations is beginning to take off. How on earth will we cope with a rich Africa?

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
(...) as far as I can see the OP has asked a question: should we do (a) or do (b) and given a few arguments either way. How on earth is that 'offensively racist'?

Thank you. My intention in the OP was to juxtapose positions on an issue which I thought most people agreed does pose a problem (or challenge, if you prefer that type of phraseology) to society in Europe.

The idea was to invite thoughts on how that problem/issue/challenge could be tackled in a way that is (a) humane and (b) economically and socially viable in the long term.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

The problem here is fear - fear of the unknown, of 'other' people and of scarce resources being swamped.

Except that our resources (here in Europe) are not scarce - they are abundant! We throw away food, we recycle little (Go to a small village in Uganda and you will see real recycling) We waste energy. We shut ourselves away and ignore community.

Maybe we need a little shaking up and change?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
How on earth will we cope with a rich Africa?

For a start, all the fashionable lefties will start hating them instead of us. For seconds, we'll just emigrate to where the money is so that we can get plenty of it for ourselves. After all, if it's so obvious that Europe can cope with a massive influx of Africans then surely Africa, being much larger, could easily cope with a massive influx of Europeans.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Thank you! I was looking for a thread on this topic. Heard on the BBC this morning: Europeans are supposed to go on a guilt trip... for what? For having developed and maintained a civilization so desirable that others risk their lives to reach it?

Aside from the other comments on this, assuming you're European, and (like me) living on the fruits of this, how much did you or I individually contribute towards developing such a desirable civilization? Or did we just fluke the benefits because we just happened to have been born here?

For me, realizing how lucky I am makes me want to share those benefits with people who didn't luck out being born to the same advantages, not hoard it all Gollum style.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

This is a problem which, sadly, is well known here. A boat carrying many asylum seekers was dashed against the rocks of an Aust island. Most were lost. In the last couple of weeks, another boat, barely off the Indonesian coast, capsized and again many more were drowned. These are just 2 examples.

Some of those seeking asylum may not have been refugees within the convention. Statistics show that somewhere around 90% of those whose claims are processed are found by departmental officials to be genuine refugees. Many of the others take their claims on appeals through tribunals and the courts and a few of these are successful - because the legislation severely restricts the bases upon which appeals may be allowed.

What has been the reaction of most politicians, and of the radio shock-jocks? To demonise any person seeking to reach our shores by unauthorised boat. To ignore the reality that few people fleeing the war in Afghanistan will have correct paperwork and to assert that they therefore cannot be genuine in their claims. it is our national shame.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The problem here is fear - fear of the unknown, of 'other' people and of scarce resources being swamped.

Except that our resources (here in Europe) are not scarce - they are abundant!

People wanting to see a doctor in a place that is very popular with migrants - Peterborough, for example - might take a very different view about 'abundant resources'.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Aside from the other comments on this, assuming you're European, and (like me) living on the fruits of this, how much did you or I individually contribute towards developing such a desirable civilization? Or did we just fluke the benefits because we just happened to have been born here?

For me, realizing how lucky I am makes me want to share those benefits with people who didn't luck out being born to the same advantages, not hoard it all Gollum style.

Personally, I feel very fortunate to have won first prize in the lottery of life.

But how do we 'share those benefits'? Surely to be fair we have to share with everyone who isn't as fortunate as ourselves? But that's billions of people. How can we 'share our benefits' without destroying our own society?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I often think the life-boats bobbing around mid-Atlantic minutes after the Titanic went down makes a sobering lesson in life .
Heart-rending yes , but when destruction is staring you in the face saving your own skin soon becomes the priority.

OK Britain could take a million of these folks, maybe even 10 million at a push. But without effective birth control in blighted lands those disadvantaged millions will be replaced in a short period of time.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Meanwhile in the real world….

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Meanwhile in the real world….

quote:
While they wait for the grants given to asylum-seekers, which are subject to long delays, the migrants can use a local currency in Riace, with vouchers bearing portraits of ... Che Guevara.

Wow. Just wow.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Meanwhile in the real world….

Brilliant!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Meanwhile in the real world….

Good for them. But again, just because one village does that voluntarily doesn't mean every village, town or city should be forced to do it.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
.... without effective birth control in blighted lands those disadvantaged millions will be replaced in a short period of time.

There may not be effective birth control there, but in many of the countries from which migrants come, rates of infant mortality (death under one year) and childhood mortality (death under 5 years) fulfils a similar purpose, if one is solely concernedwith population control. Definitely worth fleeing from.

In any event, birth control usage in Britain is nothing to be proud of, as shown by our teenage pregnancy statistics.

Incidentally Marvin, who are these "fashionable lefties"? I might a leftie but I don't see it as fashionable at all! Government policy is driven entirely by global, liberal economics, and even that of the EU is timid regarding corporate dominance. Come to think of it, shouldn't corporations, rather then the current and past behaviour of nation states, take some of the responsibility for migration from poorer to richer countries at this time?

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

Incidentally Marvin, who are these "fashionable lefties"?

Political discussions would contain a lot fewer posts here if such straw-men and women were not held on to.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

In Terry Jones' children's book Nicobobinus, the protagonists arrive in a city that seems delightfully civilized, but eventually they discover that all its power, warmth and comfort derives from the poor miserable dragons chained in its cellars. That seems to me a metaphor for our world – we allow evil to flourish and then complain when the results wash up on our shores, dead or alive. What happened in the past is important, and should not be forgotten, but what we have to do is deal with what is going on now.

The real criminals aren't the traffickers – wicked as they are, they are small beer compared with all the people exploiting the misery of poorer countries: selling weapons and instruments of torture to corrupt regimes because they are our 'friends' (sometimes even when they aren't our friends – a customer is a customer, after all); speculating in food; destroying rainforests and communities in order to satisfy our demand for palm oil and beef; investing in dirty energy projects; trading with companies who use bonded labour. This is a global problem, so we need to resolve it globally.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Good post Q-lib . [Overused]

Evidence , if ever evidence were needed, we do indeed inhabit a fallen world .
[Votive]

Let us lay down our weapons to feed the hungry and clothe the naked .

But yeah , back to the real world .

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Africa is poor, and while it is not helpful to blame ourselves for this,

Oh, actually, I think it is. Not only were many of our countries built on African backs, not only did we sow the seeds of the preset fruit, but we continue to profit at the cost of Africans.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

So what do you want us to do? I'd appreciate details rather than general socialist soundbites.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

[Roll Eyes]

So you'd be happy with general fascist soundbites?

Don't think their are simple solutions. We need to examine our various dealings and change what we accept. We'll take chocolate for starters. The importers of chocolate cold have completely ethically sourced chocolate with minimal effort, at a cost which would not even be noticed by the consumer.
The economic might of the recipient nations could force reforms.
It is a fallacy that business could not make profit, pay reasonable wage, treat workers humanely and sell moderately priced goods all at the same time. It is Greed, pure and simple.
Yes, there are problems this will not immediately solve. And no, this is not quite easy or simple.
None of that changes the accuracy of what I stated.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Africa is poor, and while it is not helpful to blame ourselves for this,
Oh, actually, I think it is. Not only were many of our countries built on African backs, not only did we sow the seeds of the preset fruit, but we continue to profit at the cost of Africans.

Thank you for this neat summing up of the relationship between Africa and 'us'. Perhaps there are some people who need to acknowledge the truth you're stating here, but I do think the idea needs to be cautiously handled. Let me expand a bit on what I meant by saying 'it is not helpful to blame ourselves' for African poverty.

I don't think that either the 'Scramble for Africa' in the 19th Century or the way 'we' still exploit it in the 21st Century are the only reasons why, for the time being, Africa remains behind the rest of the world in terms of prosperity. The most important reason is, I think, Geography, where formidable problems, instead of providing healthy challenges to human development, have combined to stifle it. (As a continent, only Antarctica has fared worse in this respect!)

The second most important set of problems are Historical: this might be summed up by saying that West Africa might have produced strong states at the same time Europe did, but, as luck would have it, didn't.

My point was that colonial and post-colonial wrongs tend to become the only explanations for African poverty. I think it is for that reason that African politicians themselves have tended to stop blaming colonialism for the problems their countries face.

However, the pursuit of truth, by historians for example, is another matter. Recent revelations of how Mau Mau detainees in the 1950's were treated were shocking: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22790037
and monetary compensation was wholly appropriate. The destruction of records by the colonial authorities relating to these events was also shocking. Even Stalin left records intact, on the grounds that History would ultimately vindicate him!

Finally, of course, this is just one aspect of considering one's own responsibility on this vast stage, as a citizen for example.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

People should be allowed to live in whichever country they want.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
People should be allowed to live in whichever country they want.

What about the people already living there? Do they get a say in the matter?

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
People should be allowed to live in whichever country they want.
What about the people already living there? Do they get a say in the matter?

Angloid:

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
People should be allowed to live in whichever country they want.
What about the people already living there? Do they get a say in the matter?

On whether *they* should be allowed to live in whichever country they want? I bet they'd all say yes to that. It's *other* people that are the problem, isn't it?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
People should be allowed to live in whichever country they want.

And what happens if everyone decides they want to live in (say) Switzerland? How would that work, exactly? Would the Swiss government be obliged to carve huge dwellings deep into the roots of the mountains just to house everyone? How would they create the billion or so new jobs that would be required? Where would the required quantity of food come from?

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
People should be allowed to live in whichever country they want.
And what happens if everyone decides they want to live in (say) Switzerland? How would that work, exactly? Would the Swiss government be obliged to carve huge dwellings deep into the roots of the mountains just to house everyone? How would they create the billion or so new jobs that would be required? Where would the required quantity of food come from?

Any country would only gradually become more populous. As it did so, it would become a less desirable place to live. Demand would then wane. Everywhere would find a level. Market forces would apply and all that.

For example, if we had genuinely open borders, then people would move to where pay was higher; pay would then fall in those areas, due to over-supply of labour. Pay would rise in countries where no-one wanted to live, due to under-supply of labour. Over time, production cost would equalise across borders and the UK might be able to manufacture competitively again.

Theoretically, we might actually end up with fairness - over a long, long period of time.

I've never been sure why the right wing are anti-immigration. Surely open borders would be the ultimate test of market forces?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Any country would only gradually become more populous. As it did so, it would become a less desirable place to live.

That, of course, is the Number One Reason why the people who already live there don't want it to happen.

quote:
pay would then fall in those areas, due to over-supply of labour.

That's Number Two.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

So in a hypothetical "freedom-to-roam" world there would be permanent movement. Guess who would make the quicker, and better moves? Those that are strong. I hope I am not saying anything that will get me into trouble here, but there are several parts of Africa where racist crimes (not involving any non-Africans) are proliferating. I've seen it "live" in Zimbabwe. The fighting for the "best places" (i.e., settling in, say, Switzerland as opposed to Romania)among immigrants would be strong in this hypothetical scenario.

I wonder: Aren't stable societies much better at looking after the weaker members of their kin?

If I cannot be responsible for every person on the planet, surely I am responsible for my kin (and before anybody asks, this does not necessarily mean those of my race or family, but those who are close to me and/or depend on me)?

If that is so, is it legitimate to make moves to protect the stability of one's own society?

If all societies make these moves, this will slow down volatility and stabilise the system. Which is what a system needs to continue to be a system.

Unless of course we follow the arguments put forth by some of us which imply that there is no problem at all.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
People should be allowed to live in whichever country they want.
What about the people already living there? Do they get a say in the matter?

As far as I know anyone who makes it to the Florida Keys from Cuba gets to stay in the USA. Before 1997 anyone who made it to Hong Kong undetected was welcome. The countries to which people moved, as well has the people themselves, have done well out of it.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
As far as I know anyone who makes it to the Florida Keys from Cuba gets to stay in the USA.

That's got nothing to do with welcoming immigration, and everything to do with ongoing attempts to destabilise Cuba by giving all the best and brightest of that country a massive incentive to leave.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
As far as I know anyone who makes it to the Florida Keys from Cuba gets to stay in the USA. Before 1997 anyone who made it to Hong Kong undetected was welcome. The countries to which people moved, as well has the people themselves, have done well out of it.

And long may this continue (unless Cuba becomes free again, which would be even better). But the U.S. is big, Cuba is small. We can handle it, and these refugees ssimilate well. My only concern is if these thousands heading toward Europe become overwhelming millions, when Europe already has millions of immigrants, including what they call "third-generation immmigrants" (a term unheard of over here), who are not assimilating.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
As far as I know anyone who makes it to the Florida Keys from Cuba gets to stay in the USA. Before 1997 anyone who made it to Hong Kong undetected was welcome. The countries to which people moved, as well has the people themselves, have done well out of it.
And long may this continue (unless Cuba becomes free again, which would be even better). But the U.S. is big, Cuba is small. We can handle it, and these refugees ssimilate well. My only concern is if these thousands heading toward Europe become overwhelming millions, when Europe already has millions of immigrants, including what they call "third-generation immmigrants" (a term unheard of over here), who are not assimilating.

I can't claim of know all the immigrants, but I know quite a few first and second generation immigrants who are assimilating just fine, at work and elsewhere. They include Iraqis, Pakistanis, East Europeans and others from God knows where (I think that includes Somalia and who wouldn't get out of there??). Their kids speak English, the women speak English and in what's hardly a united society in the first place, the differences between immigrants, even those from outside Europe and the 'native' British, isn't so vast as the scaremongers would have us think.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I've never been sure why the right wing are anti-immigration. Surely open borders would be the ultimate test of market forces?

Deep down, the Neocons really are in favor of open borders. Open borders really must accompany the free market. Free trade primarily benefits the rich. What politician wants to tell voters if your job gets shipped to China then you should move to China? But it makes sense that if country A specializes in widgets to the extent that there are no widget jobs in country B that all the widgeters in country A should move to country B. The only other option is to change careers which may mean making less than you originally did.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Desert Daughter:
If I cannot be responsible for every person on the planet, surely I am responsible for my kin (and before anybody asks, this does not necessarily mean those of my race or family, but those who are close to me and/or depend on me)?

If that is so, is it legitimate to make moves to protect the stability of one's own society?

Yes it is. As Edmund Burke wrote in Reflections on the Revolution in France:

quote:
To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
People should be allowed to live in whichever country they want.
What about the people already living there? Do they get a say in the matter?
On whether *they* should be allowed to live in whichever country they want? I bet they'd all say yes to that. It's *other* people that are the problem, isn't it?

I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately obtuse here or not, but for the avoidance of doubt I was asking whether you think indigenous inhabitants of a country should be allowed a say on whether their wannabe new neighbours should be allowed in.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
People should be allowed to live in whichever country they want.
What about the people already living there? Do they get a say in the matter?
On whether *they* should be allowed to live in whichever country they want? I bet they'd all say yes to that. It's *other* people that are the problem, isn't it?
I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately obtuse here or not, but for the avoidance of doubt I was asking whether you think indigenous inhabitants of a country should be allowed a say on whether their wannabe new neighbours should be allowed in.

I'm looking at both sides of the question. I'm sorry if that seems deliberately obtuse. I've yet to meet an anti-immigration person who thought that there should be similar controls on *their* freedom to live where they want.

So are you proposing that people should be asked "Should other nationals be able to live in this country?" or "Should people (you included) be allowed to live where they want?"

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

What I'm saying is that citizens of a country should have a say in the laws of their country, including immigration laws. Your 'people should live where they like'-line suggests that those views would be overruled.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I've yet to meet an anti-immigration person who thought that there should be similar controls on *their* freedom to live where they want.

I can't imagine why I'd ever want to live anywhere else, but if I did try to do so I'd expect to have to abide by any visa/work permit/etc decision the other country made. And that includes abandoning my plans if that decision was "no".

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I've yet to meet an anti-immigration person who thought that there should be similar controls on *their* freedom to live where they want.
I can't imagine why I'd ever want to live anywhere else, but if I did try to do so I'd expect to have to abide by any visa/work permit/etc decision the other country made. And that includes abandoning my plans if that decision was "no".

Fair enough. You're the first [Smile]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What I'm saying is that citizens of a country should have a say in the laws of their country, including immigration laws. Your 'people should live where they like'-line suggests that those views would be overruled.

Well ideally we wouldn't have "countries"

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Well ideally we wouldn't have "countries"

But we do, and people rather like living in them.

(What would we have instead?)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Well ideally we wouldn't have "countries"

Then what would we have? What would your "ideal" world look like?

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

I'm putting this badly. Put it this way: none of us expect to have a say as to whether someone from another town can move to the town we live in. Why assume that at some higher level, in relation to larger pieces of land, we do need or should have that power of veto?

If it's possible to run the USA while allowing freedom of movement between states for the population, why wouldn't it be possible to run a much larger union with freedom of movement?

Why just accept that the ability to restrict people's freedom of movement kicks in at national level (and anyway, what with the EU, it doesn't work like that already).

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I would like to see immigration much much more open, but even I don't see how fully open borders would be good. We can't invite the whole world into our country for the same reason we can't invite our whole country into our houses--we can't afford to. The number who would come would far exceed the number we can ensure basic human rights like food, schooling, and shelter to since few of them would be able to bring much in the way of money or possessions.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

The comparison with the EU is maybe a bit flawed. I think I know a little bit what I'm talking about because I am a great and enthusiastic "user" of the freedom of movement clause: Since the mid-1990s, my pattern has been Germany - Spain- UK - France - UK - Germany - Finland - France. More to follow shortly (I hope).

But each time I moved, it was for a job. And I only moved once the ink was dry on the contract. In other words, I did not move as much away from a place as towards one.

In that sense, I like to believe that I did not put much strain onto the host nation's budget, infrastructure, or nerves, because I earned my keep, payed their (in some cases eye-wateringly high) taxes from day one and obey their laws.

And free movement in Europe means, at the moment, that many young people in, say, Spain or Portugal or Greece, who cannot find jobs in their home countries, move to Germany, which heavily advertises for said young people to please come hither, because Germany needs workers. So everybody is happy (except for some people in Spain, Portugal etc accusing Germany of creaming off their best and brightest. But that is a tangent).

The refugee problem is different in that these people do not move towards jobs. If we agree that these people deserve better than their actual fate, we must set up structures that can integrate them. We in Europe are crowded, tightly coupled societies, and if we want the arrival of the immigrants to be a success (i.e., once they are physically safe get them "established" in a job which gives them dignity and an income, and the receiving nation a pair of hands to contribute to the workforce), we need to think very carefully about how and where these people will be settled. How we get them into work. At this moment the receiving infrastructure in Europe is close to zero. This needs to change quickly. It requires courage, imagination, and zillions of Euros from our side. And a strong will to integrate from theirs.

Let's hope for both.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm putting this badly. Put it this way: none of us expect to have a say as to whether someone from another town can move to the town we live in.

We don't have a say in who moves into the house across the road from us, no. But we do have a say (through the planning process) in whether a massive housing estate should be built on the local park in order to house another few hundred people who want to move to the town from elsewhere.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm putting this badly. Put it this way: none of us expect to have a say as to whether someone from another town can move to the town we live in.

Do Swiss immigrants still have to get approval from the community in which they live?

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
However, the pursuit of truth, by historians for example, is another matter. Recent revelations of how Mau Mau detainees in the 1950's were treated were shocking: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22790037
and monetary compensation was wholly appropriate. The destruction of records by the colonial authorities relating to these events was also shocking.

What I find more shocking is the double standards being applied in this case, when are the victims of the Mau Mau terrorists going to receive their compensation?

But anyhow, back to the issue raised in the OP.

As Christians we should be concerned, but the response is not to throw open our doors and let in all and sundry, it is neither economically feasible, nor is it truly in keeping with Christian teaching as I see it.

As an economic argument, the resources of the UK are not infinite, nor excessive (or surely we wouldn't have to 'exploit' Africa for its resources...) and the continuous increase of population continues to add greater stress on the infrastructure and resources that we do have. We can't actually afford these people (especially when we can't afford ourselves!)

As a Christian I see it as my duty to help all those who God loves and has given life to, but that does not necessarily mean doing everything for them, or providing in this place for them. Surely a more humane response is to come alongside them where they are, and help people to better the places from which they come, helping them to build up the lands in which they live so that all may benefit not just those who manage to illegally enter another country...

Those who show the best example are those who return to where they originally escaped because they are not selfishly thinking only of themselves but of the entire family of their country.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
However, the pursuit of truth, by historians for example, is another matter. Recent revelations of how Mau Mau detainees in the 1950's were treated were shocking: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22790037
and monetary compensation was wholly appropriate. The destruction of records by the colonial authorities relating to these events was also shocking.
What I find more shocking is the double standards being applied in this case, when are the victims of the Mau Mau terrorists going to receive their compensation?

Britain has regarded the Mau Mau has terrorists throughout. It is only recently that the wrongs by the forces of supposedly more civilised nations have been acknowledged.

quote:

But anyhow, back to the issue raised in the OP.

As Christians we should be concerned, but the response is not to throw open our doors and let in all and sundry, it is neither economically feasible, nor is it truly in keeping with Christian teaching as I see it.

As an economic argument, the resources of the UK are not infinite, nor excessive (or surely we wouldn't have to 'exploit' Africa for its resources...)

What utter bollocks! The resources of Africa weren't exploited, they were stolen. Where economic deals were struck they were to the colonizing power's favour to an obscene extent.

quote:

and the continuous increase of population continues to add greater stress on the infrastructure and resources that we do have. We can't actually afford these people (especially when we can't afford ourselves!)

The demands of many immigrants are often less than those of people already here so they are actually more affordable, if you insist on economic rather than a moral argument.

quote:

As a Christian I see it as my duty to help all those who God loves and has given life to, but that does not necessarily mean doing everything for them, or providing in this place for them. Surely a more humane response is to come alongside them where they are, and help people to better the places from which they come, helping them to build up the lands in which they live so that all may benefit not just those who manage to illegally enter another country...

Those who show the best example are those who return to where they originally escaped because they are not selfishly thinking only of themselves but of the entire family of their country.

And you are back to the concept of "them" and "us" which in an era of global trade is obsolete. Goods, funds, investment and jobs move freely around the world, why not the people to buy goods, perform work and, perforce, live there?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Even if people can move freely without buggering anything up (which I doubt) would you accept that the UK government's resources aren't infinite? That there are a limited number of hospital beds, school places, social housing places, prison places, etc.?

Would you be prepared to open the doors without providing immigrants with the full panoply of government assistance?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And you are back to the concept of "them" and "us" which in an era of global trade is obsolete. Goods, funds, investment and jobs move freely around the world, why not the people to buy goods, perform work and, perforce, live there?

Say a factory moves from Country A to Country B because the people of Country B are willing to work for less in order to secure the jobs in the first place. Would it really be fair to the people of Country B if all of the factory's workforce upped sticks and moved with it, meaning that no-one from Country B would be able to work there anyway?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

@Marvin: Why shouldn't it be? Relocating the factory's personnel to Country B will still give their economy a boost. The factory workers will need houses, food, clothing... their children will have to go to school... even if nobody from Country B is actually working at the factory the factory workers will be spending money locally. The people it isn't fair to are the ones in Country A whose jobs depended on business from the factory workers; country B is still ahead of the game.

[ 16. October 2013, 13:36: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Even if people can move freely without buggering anything up (which I doubt) would you accept that the UK government's resources aren't infinite? That there are a limited number of hospital beds, school places, social housing places, prison places, etc.?

Would you be prepared to open the doors without providing immigrants with the full panoply of government assistance?

That illustrates the contradiction. Goods and capital move around the world and that disrupts economies and societies too. Maybe not as obviously as people with skin colour unlike our own speaking different tongues and worshipping their God on another day, but, just as an example, overseas investment in professional football here has had a massive effect. Foreign ownership of businesses in the UK takes them out of UK regulation to a great extent and contributes to tax avoidance/evasion on such a scale that we might be able to afford to support more people.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The people it isn't fair to are the ones in Country A whose jobs depended on business from the factory workers

Well maybe they should all move to Country B as well!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Why not? That is after all the advice the government gives to people in areas of high unemployment - 'Get on your bike and go somewhere where there is work.'

If you really believe in the free market, what's different about making these people move to another country in search of jobs?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Why not?

Because it's bloody stupid!

Can you imagine what would have happened if, say, all the call centres or textiles factories that moved to Asia some years back had simply taken all their existing staff with them? Where would they all have lived? How would the public services and utilities have coped?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Even if people can move freely without buggering anything up (which I doubt) would you accept that the UK government's resources aren't infinite? That there are a limited number of hospital beds, school places, social housing places, prison places, etc.?

Would you be prepared to open the doors without providing immigrants with the full panoply of government assistance?
That illustrates the contradiction. Goods and capital move around the world and that disrupts economies and societies too. Maybe not as obviously as people with skin colour unlike our own speaking different tongues and worshipping their God on another day, but, just as an example, overseas investment in professional football here has had a massive effect. Foreign ownership of businesses in the UK takes them out of UK regulation to a great extent and contributes to tax avoidance/evasion on such a scale that we might be able to afford to support more people.

Illustrates the contradiction how? Forgive me, but I'm afraid I cannot see how your answer in any way addresses my point that opening the UK up to unlimited, unfettered immigration from Africa would place impossible burdens on this country's finances.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Its a moral question, like most political problems. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Do I want other people to tell me where I can live or work? No, I don't. So I have no right ordering other people about either.

And if I have no right to do it, I have no right to elect a government to do it for me. Wrong doesn't become right just because the sinners are wearing uniforms and have a warrant card signed by the queen.

I don't think governments have the moral right to order people to live in one place rather than another. Its a matter of freedom.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its a moral question, like most political problems. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Do I want other people to tell me where I can live or work? No, I don't. So I have no right ordering other people about either.

And if I have no right to do it, I have no right to elect a government to do it for me. Wrong doesn't become right just because the sinners are wearing uniforms and have a warrant card signed by the queen.

I don't think governments have the moral right to order people to live in one place rather than another. Its a matter of freedom.

That's what I meant [Smile]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I don't think governments have the moral right to order people to live in one place rather than another. Its a matter of freedom.

If a government doesn't have the moral right to prevent people choosing to live in a country, does it in your view retain the right to decide whether those who choose to settle should be entitled to, say, welfare handouts?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its a moral question, like most political problems. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Do I want other people to tell me where I can live or work? No, I don't. So I have no right ordering other people about either.

And if I have no right to do it, I have no right to elect a government to do it for me. Wrong doesn't become right just because the sinners are wearing uniforms and have a warrant card signed by the queen.

I don't think governments have the moral right to order people to live in one place rather than another. Its a matter of freedom.

See, I find that a very strange way of thinking. If a government can't forbid people to enter a country, why does it have the right to stop hostile take-overs? It seems to me that deciding who is in and who is out is one of the basic functions of a government.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm putting this badly. Put it this way: none of us expect to have a say as to whether someone from another town can move to the town we live in.
We don't have a say in who moves into the house across the road from us, no. But we do have a say (through the planning process) in whether a massive housing estate should be built on the local park in order to house another few hundred people who want to move to the town from elsewhere.

In practice you don't, not in urban areas of England anyway. The grounds on which councils can deny permission are very restricted, and large private developers nearly always get their way. And if they don't they van appeal to the government who almost always jump in their favour. Our planning laws are weaker than those of most developed countries. (Including large parts of the USA - for example English local government can't do restrictive zoning, which most US cities have - though as I think zoning is a bad thing, I don't mind that)

In rural areas its the other way round - basically planning law boils down to Thou Shalt Not. Unless you are a farmer, in which case you can do anything you like other than build houses for people who aren't farmers to live in. The spirit of the enclosures and the clearances lives on, and the working class are being cleansed from the land.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its a moral question, like most political problems. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Do I want other people to tell me where I can live or work? No, I don't. So I have no right ordering other people about either.

And if I have no right to do it, I have no right to elect a government to do it for me. Wrong doesn't become right just because the sinners are wearing uniforms and have a warrant card signed by the queen.

I don't think governments have the moral right to order people to live in one place rather than another. Its a matter of freedom.
See, I find that a very strange way of thinking. If a government can't forbid people to enter a country, why does it have the right to stop hostile take-overs? It seems to me that deciding who is in and who is out is one of the basic functions of a government.

Things may be different where you are but our government is very reluctant to stop "hostile" take-overs. Most governments are in the pocket of business to an extent that overrides the democratic process.

Instead of confronting business with its practices that are in conflict with those of mankind, most governments seek to divide the electorate on grounds of age, race, income, wealth ..... it's a lot easier than dealing with the elephant in the room.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm afraid I cannot see how your answer in any way addresses my point that opening the UK up to unlimited, unfettered immigration from Africa would place impossible burdens on this country's finances.

You do realise that immigrants as a whole claim benefits at a vastly lower rate and are more likely to be in work than the indigenous population? Based on your 'impossible burdens' theory, we should simply swap Britons for Africans, and the country's finances will be secured.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm afraid I cannot see how your answer in any way addresses my point that opening the UK up to unlimited, unfettered immigration from Africa would place impossible burdens on this country's finances.
You do realise that immigrants as a whole claim benefits at a vastly lower rate and are more likely to be in work than the indigenous population?

I suppose it depends which immigrants one is talking about, but presumably one of the reasons why some immigrants claim fewer benefits is that they aren't entitled to them?

Also, we aren't just talking about benefits in terms of job seekers' allowance, etc. but also school places, NHS treatment, social housing and so forth.

quote:
Based on your 'impossible burdens' theory, we should simply swap Britons for Africans, and the country's finances will be secured.

Really? I appreciate that 'African' is an extremely broad-brush term, but is the average African as able, as skilled, as educated, as economically productive as the average Briton (another broad-brush term)?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
NHS treatment

I'm going to stop you right there. Young Master Tor recently had his tonsils out at Big Northern Hospital.
The consultant, his registrar, the anaesthetist and two of the theatre nurses were all first generation immigrants.

The Africans who make the perilous and difficult journey from their homes to Europe are usually the brightest and best in their community. So yes, I expect they're better educated and harder workers than pretty much every single NEET in the land.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Surely a more humane response is to come alongside them where they are, and help people to better the places from which they come, helping them to build up the lands in which they live so that all may benefit not just those who manage to illegally enter another country...

That bit sounds good, but you're going to get a lot of opposition and mainly not from the left (to be fair not necessarily Cameroon).
Unfortunately we should have started that a bit earlier* now we have to pick up the pieces and yes, please lets do that other thing too. Vote for it or at least don't vote against it, (there's also quite a few charities that work towards those aims).

What would be bad would be to use the other needs as an excuse to actively not love our neighbour now, and then conveniently find some other excuse.

*or stopped what we were doing.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
NHS treatment
I'm going to stop you right there. Young Master Tor recently had his tonsils out at Big Northern Hospital.
The consultant, his registrar, the anaesthetist and two of the theatre nurses were all first generation immigrants.

Yeah, we're quite good at taking the best hospital staff from other countries. I'm not sure what that has to do with the point I'm making, though.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its a moral question, like most political problems. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Do I want other people to tell me where I can live or work? No, I don't. So I have no right ordering other people about either.

And if I have no right to do it, I have no right to elect a government to do it for me. Wrong doesn't become right just because the sinners are wearing uniforms and have a warrant card signed by the queen.

I don't think governments have the moral right to order people to live in one place rather than another. Its a matter of freedom.
See, I find that a very strange way of thinking. If a government can't forbid people to enter a country, why does it have the right to stop hostile take-overs? It seems to me that deciding who is in and who is out is one of the basic functions of a government.
Things may be different where you are but our government is very reluctant to stop "hostile" take-overs. Most governments are in the pocket of business to an extent that overrides the democratic process.

Instead of confronting business with its practices that are in conflict with those of mankind, most governments seek to divide the electorate on grounds of age, race, income, wealth ..... it's a lot easier than dealing with the elephant in the room.

Whether or not it does though, we tend to think our government has the right to defend our rights. If it doesn't have the right to determine who does or does not get to live in a certain place, I don't see why it gets to govern the behavior of those who live in that place. After all living there is one of the most important behavioral choices of those who are there.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
NHS treatment
I'm going to stop you right there. Young Master Tor recently had his tonsils out at Big Northern Hospital.
The consultant, his registrar, the anaesthetist and two of the theatre nurses were all first generation immigrants.
Yeah, we're quite good at taking the best hospital staff from other countries. I'm not sure what that has to do with the point I'm making, though.

You're saying that immigrants are an expense to be borne. I'm saying they're an asset to be welcomed. Now do you see the difference?

[ 16. October 2013, 18:29: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Africans who make the perilous and difficult journey from their homes to Europe are usually the brightest and best in their community. So yes, I expect they're better educated and harder workers than pretty much every single NEET in the land.

What's perilous and difficult about boarding a flight from Lagos to Heathrow? If immigration is unfettered (which is what we've been discussing here) that's what'll happen, won't it?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Things may be different where you are but our government is very reluctant to stop "hostile" take-overs. Most governments are in the pocket of business to an extent that overrides the democratic process.

Instead of confronting business with its practices that are in conflict with those of mankind, most governments seek to divide the electorate on grounds of age, race, income, wealth ..... it's a lot easier than dealing with the elephant in the room.
Whether or not it does though, we tend to think our government has the right to defend our rights. If it doesn't have the right to determine who does or does not get to live in a certain place, I don't see why it gets to govern the behavior of those who live in that place. After all living there is one of the most important behavioral choices of those who are there.

Our governments certainly have the right, and I'd go further to say they have the duty to defend our rights. Unfortunately they mostly defend economic rights, which are often at odds with those of most interest to the people. If governments put the horse back at the front of the cart we might be able to see what is really important. I'm not holding my breath though.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Africans who make the perilous and difficult journey from their homes to Europe are usually the brightest and best in their community. So yes, I expect they're better educated and harder workers than pretty much every single NEET in the land.
What's perilous and difficult about boarding a flight from Lagos to Heathrow? If immigration is unfettered (which is what we've been discussing here) that's what'll happen, won't it?

*ahem* Thread title?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
*ahem* Thread title?

I thought the discussion had moved on (at least in part) to a discussion about the merits (or otherwise) of allowing completely free movement of labour.

[ 16. October 2013, 20:10: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
*ahem* Thread title?
I thought the discussion had moved on (at least in part) to a discussion about the merits (or otherwise) of allowing completely free movement of labour.

Fair enough. If we have free movement of capital and goods, we must also have free movement of labour. Simples.

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

Haven't read the whole thread, but I do know that in Malta which has at least as great a problem of refugees arriving from Libya (the traffickers departure point) there is a tremendous Christian response headed by St. Andrew Scots Church in Valetta. Google "out of Africa Into Malta" and you should get some of the details. Sorry, I don't know how to include links here.

Most impressive is the recent micro finance project to try to give people a future, and which includes poorer Maltese as well.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

That's fine then. They can all stay in Malta, and everyone will be happy. Right?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's fine then. They can all stay in Malta, and everyone will be happy. Right?

If you think Britain is crowded, you should try Malta.
Malta: pop: 416,055, per sq mile: 3,421 (8th in world)
UK: pop: 63,705,000, per sq mile: 679 (50th)

Sure, some parts of the UK are empty but Malta is pretty quiet, outside the resorts and the area clustering around the harbours.

I was surprised to see that not only is the UK less crowded than the Netherlands, Belgium, Bangladesh and Japan but also less crowded that India!

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

I have friends from Malawi, they say there is no work there. The people want to work, they want to make and buy modern technology & goods. There is a huge market waiting to be developed, even ignoring helping people live better lives there is money to be made.

It seems a silly situation that benefits no-one!

I also heard a Radio 4 program yesterday about developing a cheap android for 1/10th the price of western models and mass-producing these for the huge rural Indian market. This was a Government-initiated scheme that is working.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

I was surprised to see that not only is the UK less crowded than the Netherlands, Belgium, Bangladesh and Japan but also less crowded that India!

Selfish and backward though it may sound , there are those of us who'd like to see it stay that way .

I'm not hopeful though as progressives seem firmly committed to immigration , multiculturalism and population increase .
Having said that I'm not sure even progressives think it's a good idea to accept large numbers of people from disadvantaged countries . ISTM you'd simply be shifting a dependency culture from one location to another .

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

The UK Gov't has green-lighted foreigners (French & Chinese) to supply our future power.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
The UK Gov't has green-lighted foreigners (French & Chinese) to supply our future power.

I'm less worried about the French and Chinese involvement than the guaranteed minimum price, which is no less than twice the current wholesale price. That's the way to fight energy price inflation!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0