Ship of Fools: Freedom of movement as a basic human right

Thread: Freedom of movement as a basic human right 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=029264

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

During South African apartheid, blacks were not allowed the same freedom of movement as whites; they could not travel or settle freely within their own country. Most people rightly think that this was an abuse of their human rights.

However, we don't have the same opinion when it comes to global freedom of movement. As a British passport holder, I am very aware of the privilege it gives me, that I can easily visit most countries in the world, and for most, could probably get a visa and stay to live work if I wanted to. Most people in the world don't have that luxury.

So, why do we think that freedom of movement should be an unquestioned human right within the borders of the country we happen to have been born into, and not within the planet we happen to have been born into? Are the reasons anything other than pragmatic (affluent nations would initially get flooded; tax and citizenship would become complicated; security would be compromised; it would require international agreement)?

One day, will our descendants enshrine freedom of movement as a basic human right, and look back at our primitive cultures for failing to give people this simple right, to travel and settle with freedom?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I've long thought freedom to travel and settle anywhere on earth must be avilable to all. I'm not sure I would call it a human right, but as funds, goods and jobs can be moved anywhere, people should be able to go likewise.

It's a consequence of globalization, only one that rich countries don't like.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

If you believe at all in national governments, then the first duty of a national government is to look to the wellbeing of the people of its nation. That will include ensuring the security of its borders against outside threats (which in turn may well require some degree of immigration control) and it will also include ensuring a peaceful, prosperous, and at least minimally cohesive society within its borders. That may well also require some kind of immigration policy, although what exactly that will consist of will vary between different times and circumstances. It also suggests some kind of control over the ability of business to move capital and jobs around.
If you don't believe in national governments- and that could be from a left-internationalist perspective or a right-libertarian one (and don't forget that the neo-liberal right really loves internationally mobile labour, just as it loves internationally mobile capital), these considerations don't apply. But I believe that the nation state is usually pretty much the biggest unit that can give us any real sense of connection between citizens (and if any are too big to do that, they're too big).

[ 12. August 2015, 12:25: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

It's not just rich/poor. As a USA passport holder I can't move to UK and job hunt without some hard-t-get permissions. Nor can Brit easily move here and take a job.

While some of the barriers are possibly about protecting local taxpayers from being inundated with newcomers looking for free schooling and health care (reasonable to want, but expensive to provide), the barriers to moving are much broader than protecting rich countries from poor immigrants.

Does seem that the more integrated we become globally the less movement governments allow! But maybe that's because (a) more people are traveling - easier to have open borders if only a few use them - and (b) governments are more believing resources (including jobs) are limited and people competitively consume them, instead of thinking people create resources.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If you believe at all in national governments, then the first duty of a national government is to look to the wellbeing of the people of its nation.

To what extent should that priority be upheld, if the practical result is a 'fuck you' to people of other nations? (I'm thinking of refugees here, but also those who are exploited for our benefit - workers in other nations who create goods for us, but in conditions and with pay that would not be allowed here*), when the only thing they have done wrong is not be born within the borders of our nation?

* Due to, as Sioni said, the fact that goods have freedom of movement, but people do not.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I've long thought freedom to travel and settle anywhere on earth must be avilable to all.

As humanity was fruitful, spread, and populated the earth, this was a given. There was only the practical issue that if you moved somewhere new, if people were already there, they might welcome you... or they might fight you.

Where did the concept of defined borders that shouldn't be crossed come from? Was it mainly defence from 'barbarians' (the Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall, etc.)? I suppose the whole concept would have been totally alien to many cultures - it doesn't seem to fit into Middle Eastern, African or Aboriginal cultures (am I right in thinking that this was something imposed on Africa and the Middle East post-war, with the strange arbitrary straight-line borders that we created?)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

AFAIUI, the UK government had no immigration policy whatsoever until the 20th century. That meant we had successive waves of immigration from Europe - mainly Irish escaping famine, religious dissenters like the Huguenots, and Jews, once Cromwell let them back in (1656).

Taking the Irish alone, millions came to the UK in the 19th and 20th centuries, almost entirely for economic reasons (that, and not wanting to starve to death). We coped. We did more than cope. We took their labour and built a nation with it.

Given the statistic I heard this morning (in connection with rural broadband) that 5% of the population live on 50% of the land, there's little excuse for our government's pathetic and miserly attitude to immigration.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Remember Doc, the Irish lived in the same country as the UK throughout the 19 Century and before, and the Northern Irish continue to do so since partition. Citizens of Eire had special dispensations following independence, and enjoy freedom of movement within the European Union.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I suppose that in the past there was more equality between nations, so the movement wasn't largely in the same direction. Now, the gap between rich and poor nations is so great that there will inevitably be more movement towards the richer ones.

It's been said that very high levels of immigration into the Roman Empire eventually contributed towards the weakening of the Empire. There may be some truth in this, more or less, but all civilisations must crumble, or at least be transformed so rapidly that some of the people alive at the time find it bewildering. This is how the world works, though, so it's pointless to fight against it.

However, freedom to settle anywhere in the world without having to deal with discriminatory visa requirements is unlikely to be a reality until we get a world government.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

On the general question I would like to know what is the nature of a "human right". Where does it come from? How is it discovered? Is it natural or the product of positive law? I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Bentham that natural rights are 'nonsense on stilts".

Whether it is regarded as a natural right or not ISTM that if individuals could live wherever they choose it would result in no end of discord and violence.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Isn't the concept of passports and border control relatively recent?

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

I think the freedom to LEAVE your nation is a basic human right. The freedom to live in any other nation--not so much, for reasons mentioned above.
I would say, though, that the right to travel/live where one chooses within one's nation is a basic human right.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If you believe at all in national governments, then the first duty of a national government is to look to the wellbeing of the people of its nation.
To what extent should that priority be upheld, if the practical result is a 'fuck you' to people of other nations? (I'm thinking of refugees here, but also those who are exploited for our benefit - workers in other nations who create goods for us, but in conditions and with pay that would not be allowed here*), when the only thing they have done wrong is not be born within the borders of our nation?

* Due to, as Sioni said, the fact that goods have freedom of movement, but people do not.

We also have an obligation, of humanity, to provide refuge to those in danger. That sits alongside our oblugation to our own people and, OK, you're right, if push comes to shove it outranks it. NB tho' refuge doesn't necessarily mean settlement: if my life is in danger at home and I go and stay with a friend, it doesn't mean that I get to live at his house for the rest of my life. You may recall that in the early 2000s, after Bosnia had settled down a bit, David Blunkett, as Home Secretary, told Bosinian refugees in the UK (specifically young Bosnian men) that it was now time for them to go home and rebuild their country. he was criticised for that in the usual quarters, but I think he was quite right.
The answer to the second case that you mention is to put some teeth into institutions like the ILO and make decent employment more widdely available; and to keep some control on business to stop them relocating offshore.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

It seems that a nation that allows freedom of movement across its borders can not long afford to also have much of a social safety net.

Also, were the American Indians wrong to have a problem with European settlers practicing the freedom of movement?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Also, were the American Indians wrong to have a problem with European settlers practicing the freedom of movement?

But we're no longer an agrarian-based society, where the amount of land under your direct control dictates the number of mouths you can feed.

The UK passed that point somewhere in the early part of the 20th century, other countries much sooner. Our ideas about freedom of movement are often tied up with the idea of 'not enough resources'. They need updating.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
On the general question I would like to know what is the nature of a "human right". Where does it come from? How is it discovered? Is it natural or the product of positive law? I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Bentham that natural rights are 'nonsense on stilts".

I don't know about natural or positive law, but it's not abnormal to think that all humans should have a handful of things that they are entitled to have and pursue enshrined in some way - the UN seems to think so. They're discovered by humanity as we grow and mature and become (hopefully) more civilised and compassionate to one another.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Whether it is regarded as a natural right or not ISTM that if individuals could live wherever they choose it would result in no end of discord and violence.

Maybe. But, as I said, that's a pragmatic reason. However, I am not arguing in favour of total freedom of movement. If I want to move to Manchester, I can move to Manchester - but I need to find a house that I can afford, and probably a job there. I can't just walk into someone's house and tell them I'm moving in with them, or pitch my tent or build a house in a public park. Article 3 of the UN Convention of Human Rights says that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person". The right to liberty and the right to security can often be in conflict. Rights often are; hence the courts.

The list of basic things that people think that that everyone should have the right to is a longer list than it was in the past. Whatever rights are, we have generally come to realise/discover that people should be entitled to more of them than we used to think. It would be strange to think that this process will not continue. We used to think that slavery was OK. Now we don't. It used to be standard to presume guilt, now we presume innocence. This is moral development in humanity. There have been many of these developments.

Of course, there were practical and pragmatic reasons to continue with slavery. But they were separate from the moral issue of whether or not slavery was wrong. And guess what, despite the practical issues, we coped. Of course there are practical reasons for restricting freedom of movement for people. But they are also separate from the moral question of whether its a freedom that we should allow. We are happy for animals, birds, sea creatures McDonald's and Coca Cola to cross every national border. Why should we not extend this right to ourselves?

Oh, and having now read the UN Universal Declaration of Rights, I've noticed article 13:

quote:
Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

I'm trying to get my head around (2). It presupposes that at least one other country will actually let you in (as does the asylum clause of Article 14). It's obviously there to combat unlawful detention, but it kind of skirts the fact that somewhere there has to be a country that is willing to welcome the stranger, without telling those countries that they actually should.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems that a nation that allows freedom of movement across its borders can not long afford to also have much of a social safety net.

Well, yeah. It's kind of like nuclear disarmament. No-one wants to go first.

But again, the practical reality is a different question to whether or not it's morally right or not. As impractical as universal nuclear disarmament is, doesn't mean that most people don't think that it should happen, somehow. It's the somehow that gets in the way of the good and right thing happening.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

But government is the art of the practical: it is about trying to get as close as you can to what you believe is 'the good and right thing', while accepting that you will probably fall short, although you might creep incrementally closer to it. The point about social security systems is that they work best when they are expressions of social solidarity based in some way- not necessarily social insurance-on the principle of contribution. If you have a heterogeneous society or one whose cultural composition is constantly changing, the shared values that underpin social solidarity are with the best will in the world harder to achieve, if only because you are having constantly to teach them to incomers. This is not ot to say that a social security system can't be used as a means of strengthening solidarity- the best ones always are just that- but it adds a diffficultdynamic to it, especially if you are going to extend full social rights to people at the point of entry. So if you do permit immigration you probably do need to do it conditionally- refugees excepted, but IMO they should be (properly) supported by a system which is not part of the national social security system, because they are guests rather than full members of society.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Siegried

quote:
I think the freedom to LEAVE your nation is a basic human right. The freedom to live in any other nation not so much

Why do you think so? Furthermore, If one has a right to leave one's nation, then mustn't there be an obligation on the part of another to provide a place? Or are you saying that some countries have such an obligation but not others?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I don't think you can really talk about freedom of movement without asking questions about what a person is going to do once they arrive. Some of this discussion is about freedom of residence.

Most countries have a complex visa system (personally ours is TOO complex) where permission to arrive is not permission to do anything and everything. I've had very little difficulty in asking countries to let me visit them for a while, but there's usually an explicit condition that I don't obtain employment even briefly, let alone try to settle down permanently.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Why do you think so? Furthermore, If one has a right to leave one's nation, then mustn't there be an obligation on the part of another to provide a place? Or are you saying that some countries have such an obligation but not others?

This is a nonsense statement. I have the right to obtain a divorce, but I don't have the right to select another woman and force her to marry me.

I have the right to sell my house, but I don't have the right to force you to purchase it.

All "the right to leave my nation" means is that you are not the property of the country in which you reside. If you are, let's say, Belgian, and you want to go and live and work in Australia, the Belgian government doesn't get to tell you that you can't leave, and that your industrious effort belongs to Belgium.

It doesn't mean that you can force Australia to take you.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's a consequence of globalization, only one that rich countries don't like.

Except the neo-liberals. It's called getting workers for peanuts. However, freedom of movement globally is impractical. There is only so many people any one place can receive.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Siegried
quote:
I think the freedom to LEAVE your nation is a basic human right. The freedom to live in any other nation not so much
Why do you think so? Furthermore, If one has a right to leave one's nation, then mustn't there be an obligation on the part of another to provide a place? Or are you saying that some countries have such an obligation but not others?

I have a right to leave my house. That doesn't mean you have to let me move in to yours. Something like that, maybe.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
if people were already there, they might welcome you... or they might fight you.

Where did the concept of defined borders that shouldn't be crossed come from?

You answered your own question. If you migrated to a new area, the people who were there already might welcome you, or might fight you. That's a defined border - the people who are already there assert that they use this area, and they're going to control whether or not you get to use it too. Of course, you might beat them in a fight...

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given the statistic I heard this morning (in connection with rural broadband) that 5% of the population live on 50% of the land, there's little excuse for our government's pathetic and miserly attitude to immigration.

But if you believe in things like the Welfare State, or limited housing density, or public transport, aren't there things to consider other than people per square mile?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given the statistic I heard this morning (in connection with rural broadband) that 5% of the population live on 50% of the land, there's little excuse for our government's pathetic and miserly attitude to immigration.
But if you believe in things like the Welfare State, or limited housing density, or public transport, aren't there things to consider other than people per square mile?

I believe that Jesus Christ saved me. The Welfare State, decent affordable housing and adequate public transport, plus universal healthcare and education were put in place between 1945 and 1950 because the electorate wanted them but lasted barely 25 years. Since the Oil Crisis they have steadily been flushed away down the toilet.

It's not a matter of practicalities. If tariff barriers can be dismantled, those for people can be too. It's a matter of will, although I fear the won'ts will prevail [Frown]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[U]niversal healthcare and education were put in place between 1945 and 1950 because the electorate wanted them but lasted barely 25 years. Since the Oil Crisis they have steadily been flushed away down the toilet.

I was born way after the Oil Crisis and I'm pretty sure I've been using the National Health Service all my life...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems that a nation that allows freedom of movement across its borders can not long afford to also have much of a social safety net.
Well, yeah. It's kind of like nuclear disarmament. No-one wants to go first.

Um, what? Not about "going first". Free migration is not going to result in an equilibrium. MN is correct, but incomplete. Everything costs money; infrastructure, education, public services, etc. Someone needs to pay for this and more people means more costs.

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

But again, the practical reality is a different question to whether or not it's morally right or not.

Morals are not absolute. There are people who believe denying succor is perfectly moral. We generally call them conservatives.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given the statistic I heard this morning (in connection with rural broadband) that 5% of the population live on 50% of the land, there's little excuse for our government's pathetic and miserly attitude to immigration.
But if you believe in things like the Welfare State, or limited housing density, or public transport, aren't there things to consider other than people per square mile?

Saying that there'll be additional pressure on the Welfare State is making an assumption about the economic activity of migrants. As far as I can tell, the migrants I know are incredibly hard-working, pay their taxes and contribute to society far more than many indigenous families.

Public transport is a problem currently, but single-passenger car movements are by far the greatest problem for our roads. More buses, fewer cars. Perhaps that nice Mr Corbyn can sort it out.

Housing density: we need more houses, whatever we do. If we didn't let anyone else in the country for the next ten years, we'd still need, what, a couple of million new homes to make up for the ones we haven't built in the last twenty. We've built on somewhere around 7% of the UK. If you account for 'natural spaces' within urban environments, that figure falls to 2.27%.

We need to get over ourselves. There is literally and figuratively, plenty of space.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

We should send more people to the rest of the UK; there's lots of space outside England.

Migrants tend to want to go to where the jobs are, though, and where previous incomers of their own ethnicity already live.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But again, the practical reality is a different question to whether or not it's morally right or not.

Who was it who said that nothing can be right in theory and wrong in practice? That strikes me as basically correct.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Saying that there'll be additional pressure on the Welfare State is making an assumption about the economic activity of migrants. As far as I can tell, the migrants I know are incredibly hard-working, pay their taxes and contribute to society far more than many indigenous families.

Well, yeah - that's because we're only letting the good ones in! If there was total freedom of movement we'd get all the bad ones as well.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Saying that there'll be additional pressure on the Welfare State is making an assumption about the economic activity of migrants. As far as I can tell, the migrants I know are incredibly hard-working, pay their taxes and contribute to society far more than many indigenous families.
Well, yeah - that's because we're only letting the good ones in! If there was total freedom of movement we'd get all the bad ones as well.

This assumes also that people who work hard and pay their taxes don't need social services. Given that this country, at least, does not require a living wage be paid to its workers, and given that many people working a full work-week (40+ hours) still can't make ends meet and rely on various social programs (both governmental and extra-governmental), that's really not a defensible assumption.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Thinking out loud - is freedom of movement a relatively new concept?

Back not long ago when travel was by foot, or donkey or horse if you could afford an animal, you didn't get very far very fast.

In eras before factory jobs, you probably didn't head to the big city expecting to find a job and paycheck. Where would you go? And why? An adventure (Marco Polo). Or driven out by famine (Irish potato famine). Wherever you went, you'd be on your own to survive, whether begging or carving a farm out of unused land (or killing a farmer to take his land).

Maybe governments have invented passports and quotas and other restrictions in response to newly lots more movement? And lots less empty space for someone to move to and live on.

Just wondering if maybe any past "right to movement" was more theoretical than practical reality.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

AIUI medieval and early modern societies were generally very keen to restrict freedom of movement even within (anachronistic term but I'll use it) nation states. The 'masterless man' was seen, probably rightly, as a threat to the existing order of society. What makes that change is large-scale industrial capitalism, which wants to attract workers and isn't too worried about the order of society so long as its profits are safe. Hence the movements which different scholars have characterised as being from gemeinschaft to gessellschaft (Toennies), civil association to enterprise association (Oakeshott), or social rights to civil rights (Marshall); what they have in common is the shift from traditional associations and the idea that you have an inherent place in society to conditional and contractual relationships.

[ 12. August 2015, 22:02: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Saying that there'll be additional pressure on the Welfare State is making an assumption about the economic activity of migrants. As far as I can tell, the migrants I know are incredibly hard-working, pay their taxes and contribute to society far more than many indigenous families.
Well, yeah - that's because we're only letting the good ones in! If there was total freedom of movement we'd get all the bad ones as well.

We're not "only letting the good ones in". We have a total open door policy to 440 million people. They can all come, if they want. Your argument is ... poor.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Why do you think so? Furthermore, If one has a right to leave one's nation, then mustn't there be an obligation on the part of another to provide a place? Or are you saying that some countries have such an obligation but not others?
This is a nonsense statement. I have the right to obtain a divorce, but I don't have the right to select another woman and force her to marry me.

Your equivalence doesn't work. When I got divorced, I lived as a single person, but was free to marry again. For the right to leave a nation, there is no such equivalent. If I leave one country, I have to go to another country. It's that or live in Antarctica / the ocean / outer space, which I presume you're not arguing towards.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But again, the practical reality is a different question to whether or not it's morally right or not.
Who was it who said that nothing can be right in theory and wrong in practice? That strikes me as basically correct.

--Tom Clune

Well, yes. I've acknowledged that it's not practical now. But I could see that it may be perfectly practical in 100, 200 or 500 years. Who knows what direction humanity will take (I'm more of an optimist than a pessimist there)? And if it does happen, I can imagine that our descendants would look back on us amazed that we didn't allow it, because, once practical and feasible, it does seem to me to be wrong to deny people freedom of movement.

That is why I mentioned nuclear disarmament. I think it should happen. At the moment, ISTM that it is practically impossible that it can happen. The only way it could happen would be some huge international agreement where everyone disarms at the same time, or passes their weapons over to some kind of United Nations body that would then dispose of them. I can't see how this is practically possible. Maybe it never will happen. Maybe pragmatism will always stand in the way. Doesn't mean I don't think that it should happen, or that it won't, even if I can't see how it might come about in practice right now.

Same with open borders. The only way it's not going to cause total chaos is if everyone does it at once (and even then, there might be some temporary chaos). As things stand, that's not going to happen. But maybe some day the world's governments will be in a place where it can happen.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Actually no, the only way it's not going to cause total chaos is by making different parts of the world more equally attractive to live in.

The Western World is rather conflicted about this. We simultaneously advertise ourselves as the best place to be, and do everything we can to maintain a top ranking, but then are terribly put out that that makes us attractive.

It's rather reminiscent of a top hotel becoming upset when some piece of riff-raff has scraped together enough money to book a room.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Why do you think so? Furthermore, If one has a right to leave one's nation, then mustn't there be an obligation on the part of another to provide a place? Or are you saying that some countries have such an obligation but not others?
This is a nonsense statement. I have the right to obtain a divorce, but I don't have the right to select another woman and force her to marry me.
Your equivalence doesn't work. When I got divorced, I lived as a single person, but was free to marry again. For the right to leave a nation, there is no such equivalent. If I leave one country, I have to go to another country. It's that or live in Antarctica / the ocean / outer space, which I presume you're not arguing towards.

Freedom to leave and freedom to move are not the same thing. Nations might cooperate to some extent but they are (mostly) sovereign unto themselves. If your nation so 'Go, we don't mind' no other nation has the obligation to say 'Welcome'! So, in essence, by itself it is a hollow freedom.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[U]niversal healthcare and education were put in place between 1945 and 1950 because the electorate wanted them but lasted barely 25 years. Since the Oil Crisis they have steadily been flushed away down the toilet.
I was born way after the Oil Crisis and I'm pretty sure I've been using the National Health Service all my life...

That's just the floaty remnants. Wait till the next round of flushing.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

It's rather reminiscent of a top hotel becoming upset when some piece of riff-raff has scraped together enough money to book a room.

We must maintain our standards, don't you know.

memo to corporate: Consider substantial rate increase.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

It's rather reminiscent of a top hotel becoming upset when some piece of riff-raff has scraped together enough money to book a room.
We must maintain our standards, don't you know.

memo to corporate: Consider substantial rate increase.

Quite.

And the whole problem is that we're entirely obsessed with our own standards and don't consider whether the lack of amenity elsewhere has anything to do with it.

We are so obsessed with figuring out how to withdraw our carrots from view that we barely notice that many of the people headed in our direction are being whacked with great big sticks. True freedom of movement will exist when people feel that staying put is a viable option.

[ 13. August 2015, 00:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Furthermore, If one has a right to leave one's nation, then mustn't there be an obligation on the part of another to provide a place? Or are you saying that some countries have such an obligation but not others?

After the Prague Spring my father-in-law's family decided to emigrate, but they required an exit visa to leave Czechoslovakia. The document they obtained enabled them to leave the country for about a week for a holiday in Scotland. They took with them only enough stuff to make it look as though they were just going on holiday. My father-in-law was about fourteen at the time, and they didn't tell him anything until the day of their departure for fear he would accidentally let slip something to his classmates. Even then, they were reliant on the border guard deliberately looking the other way.

This is the sort of situation that the UN declaration is supposed to prevent.

[ 13. August 2015, 05:39: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Why do people want to move? Usually for some good reason. Like war or similar, lack of security, loss of hope for the future, stress from want for basic necessities.

I have thought that our countries, which are attractive as destinations, might have a little better insight into the issues of how the global economy is set up so that people in disadvantaged countries see their economies serving the 'have' countries, and realize that nothing is going to change in their countries because there are military and other means to keep the economic order as it is. Our countries tend to ally ourselves with the elite of poor nations, and see that trade is the key to everything, even when it is not. This make the local population unhappy, particularly when they can easily see how well we live via global communications. It is a situation where free trade agreements and various organizations like WTO, GATT and the IMF etc seem to be influenced by our wealthy countries.

I am struck with the local indigenous farmer situations where they cannot compete with the multinational agri-businesses, and are forced off the land into cities where quality of life is often poor, employed jobs have long hours and low pay or employees must live in compounds, and they feel crushed, without hope. This isn't even about direct risk from violence. In my office, we employee some people from South America, India and the Canadian north. It is quite plain to me why they all want to be here.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And I want to change how the global economy is set up. Accepting unrestricted migration as a 'fact' of globalisation in the end just reinforces an unjust system.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I'm feeling a but guilty about being silent yesterday. On a train, I had been prevented from listening to my phone, on which I was playing "Journey Into Space" a 1950's SF radio series, which, curiously for what ensued, was building up to dealing with issues of treatment of minorities. And the swarming in of marauding Martians.

A family had ensconced themselves around me and were conversing quite loudly about this and that, and what the home visitor said about the care of the expected baby and how they weren't going to do it, while pretending they were, before they segued into sending the wrong message to the migrants and how awful it was that while on holiday on the beaches of Greek islands holidaymakers were being bothered by people asking for money, and that they should all be sent back.

I listened for a gap into which I could insert the idea that they might be being sent back to be shot or blown up, or disappeared in the night, or raped, but there wasn't one, and I was alone, and a chicken. I didn't even do it as a parting shot - I had to thank the potential grandmother for standing to let me off the train, and it didn't fit.

How should one deal with these situations?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

As lilBuddha says, no nation is under an obligation to accept any- and every-one who wishes to enter. It's hard to say this given Australia's appalling record over recent years in accepting refugees, and in the demonisation of those fleeing danger, but for many years now there has been too much emphasis on expanding the population.

The watch cry has been "Populate or perish" ignoring the physical limitations of the country. Given the general lack of rain and the poverty of much of the soil, the maximum population sustainable here is less than two-thirds that already here. Despite that there remain plans and rhetoric for an ever-increasing growth in population.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

This will happen when the world's anthem is John Lennon's Imagine.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0