|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Lampedusa
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
People should be allowed to live in whichever country they want.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
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: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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?"
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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]](smile.gif)
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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"
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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?)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
@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 ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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)?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
