Home

TheSinner.net

The Muslim Immigration Debate

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby RedCelt69 on Wed May 11, 2011 8:09 pm

Hennessy wrote:In fact all the sources I've presented so far you've met with youtube videos of the EDL and off-topic cant about the "Christian majority". What country are you living in? Christians in this country have so little influence on political decision making it's frankly laughable to compare it with the overarching presence of Islam in the political and philosophical history of the Middle East. In fact it's the unchecked import of those ideas into a secular society I find troubling.

You're jerking that knee so hard it's a miracle it hasn't flown off your leg.


I'm slightly preoccupied with the whole exam thing. Else I might give you a better-formulated counter-argument. But, from the above, I can point out that I haven't once mentioned a Christian majority. We're a multi-faith society. Thankfully, compared to many countries, a very secular multi-faith society. I just can't get anxious about one particular group of immigrants... no matter how much I despise the processes of the vocal minority. But they're a vocal minority within a minority population. Yes, the whole ethos of how they treat women troubles me... with arranged marriages (when they aren't voluntary) and so-called honour-killings. It is a religion which is a few hundred years younger than Christianity. I'm hoping that it matures a little quicker than Christianity did over the last few hundred years when it comes to morality. Mixing in with us heathens is a good way of speeding up that process so, all-in-all, I'm not against Islamic immigration.

I've had a few Muslim friends over the years. They grew up in the UK and are very Westernised (compared to their parents). They're very much less anti-us than if their parents hadn't come here. The on-going problem they have with the West is the uneven treatment of Israel... by us, but (in particular) America. Which is why I mentioned it earlier. The sooner that mess can be sorted out, the sooner the sharp-divide (and recruiting weapon of the extremists) will go away and all non-Muslims can hate Muslims (of every variety) a little less than they currently do.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby Gubbins on Wed May 11, 2011 11:17 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction.

Then I apologise. It came across as one. My point remains, however: consider what you picked up on first. Did you pick up on the fact that increased crime in Sweden correlates with immigration, or did you pick up on the fact that Hennessey singled out Muslims? People have become very polarised about such debates. Not without reason - racism is a terrible thing - but fear of racism and being labelled a racist is preventing open discussion on these topics.

RedCelt69 wrote:You mentioned migrant ghettos. Have you ever looked at emigrating, yourself? Everywhere Brits go, they form ex-pat communities, sticking together... sometimes stubbornly refusing to learn the language of the country they are in, preferring the company of other Brits. I often wonder why such people emigrate in the first place... and then wonder why we, as a nation, expect people coming to our country to behave better than we do in others.

My parents have emigrated to a rural community in Portugal. They are not part of a ghetto and specifically avoided moving to Spain because of the British ghettos that have grown up there. They are learning the language (it takes some time) and done their best to integrate themselves into the society and cultures of the Portuguese. I myself am technically an immigrant from Australia, having been born there, though I consider myself British. I am fully aware of the sentiments surrounding immigration, naturalisation and the reasons people enter migrant ghettos. I am also aware that when the rate of naturalisation exceeds the rate of immigration, such ghettos do not form.

RedCelt69 wrote:
Gubbins wrote:- Returning families with a strong connection to the UK/EU (e.g. British Australians, Kiwis or Americans);

My record is slightly scratched, I know, but what about Aborigines, Maoris and Native Americans? If it's an American, do they have to show their British Lineage? Will they turn up at the embassy seeking a visa with a genealogist in-tow, listing their descent from the Mayflower?

I have said already that I don't propose this as a solution, merely an example framework that I would forward should the need arise. It is not something I have given a great deal of thought. I merely put it forward as a more-moderate revision of Hennessey's original tenets. I included this particular clause for my own - perhaps selfish - reasons, as I've described above. If someone from a similar ethical background (what one might call "Britishness") was to come to the UK, they would require less integration into society than someone to whom Western society was anathema. As a culture, we are able to absorb more of such people while retaining our cultural and ethical identity, therefore keeping more people happy... which is surely what this is all about.

RedCelt69 wrote:We are all migrants or the children of migrants. Migration isn't the problem. Hating people who don't look like us (or believe like us) is the problem.

It is a problem, and a very serious one. But it say that it is the only problem, or that it is a problem that should be solved at the expense of everything else, is a complete fallacy. We have to balance the needs of all people, and sometimes that means giving a voice to the majority over a minority.
...then again, that is only my opinion.
Gubbins
 
Posts: 1210
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:56 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby wild_quinine on Thu May 12, 2011 12:04 am

RedCelt69 wrote:There isn't a "Liberal and Left" club where we all get together and decide what to mock.


No, the socialists have pretty much got that one sewn up.

You don't have to be anti-Jew to be anti-Israel.


I've tried reading that straight five times now, and each time my brain mentally adds "...but it helps!" with an ironic thumbs up sign and a wink.
wild_quinine
User avatar
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 11:57 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby RedCelt69 on Thu May 12, 2011 6:53 am

wild_quinine wrote:
You don't have to be anti-Jew to be anti-Israel.


I've tried reading that straight five times now, and each time my brain mentally adds "...but it helps!" with an ironic thumbs up sign and a wink.


I know. It's easy to find it funny - from a distance. But it is a so-often made assumption; being against Israel* means that, yeah, you're into the whole jew-hating meme that's been around since they killed the Baby Jesus. Or you're a New World Order conspiricist, who think that a Jewish elite run the world. It's a lot less complicated than that, for some.

If you're hating two groups of thugs who are intent on killing each other, it is a whole lot easier to feel more hatred for the ones that use bullets and gunships, rather than the ones who use stones and glorified fireworks. They have a history of being shat on (from a great height) throughout their history (Chosen People? Really?) and the "never again!" attitude is an understandable one, as they try to secure a homeland within which they will never surrender under another king's sandal or lunatic's jackboot... if only they could learn to be better neighbours (with the Semite non-Jews, as well as with their own consciences) the world would be a step closer to knowing a more long-lasting peace.


*Israel = shorthand term for Israeli government policy. There are, thankfully, Jews around the world (the liberal lefties, bless 'em) who also find Israeli government policy abhorrent... including within Israel, itself.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby macgamer on Thu May 12, 2011 7:09 am

RedCelt69 wrote: if only they could learn to be better neighbours (with the Semite non-Jews, as well as with their own consciences) the world would be a step closer to knowing a more long-lasting peace.

*Israel = shorthand term for Israeli government policy. There are, thankfully, Jews around the world (the liberal lefties, bless 'em) who also find Israeli government policy abhorrent... including within Israel, itself.

Israel has been pretty patient with the various Palestinian factions, but it is difficult to negotiate with when the leaders of both Fatah and Hamas essentially want to see the destruction of Israel and this is what Mahmoud Abbas said recently: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1854/abbas-agenda

'In a recent discussion of the anticipated Palestinian state, Mahmoud Abbas, leader in the territory, said he "would not tolerate one single Jew in his new country, Palestine." Speaking before journalists in Ramallah, he clearly noted, "We have already said, completely openly, and it will stay that way: "If there is a Palestinian country with Jerusalem as its capital, we will not accept that even one single Jew will live there."'

Can you negotiate effectively with that? If the Palestinians had the firepower of Israel I don't doubt Abbas' chilling words - there wouldn't be one single Jew living there.

The belligerence of both sides is wrong which is why I hate this lazy group-think of 'Palestinian Good. Israeli bad.'
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby RedCelt69 on Thu May 12, 2011 7:36 am

Oh, Jesus. It wasn't an invitation to pick a side and grab the pom-poms. If one of the hate-mongers hates the other hate-mongers, ask yourself why before you reach for your ra ra skirt.

macgamer wrote:Hennessy, you have certainly raised a topic the Liberal and Left just don't want to engage with. Anyone who raises it is dismissed lazily as a racist or (insert minority here)-phobic.

macgamer wrote:The belligerence of both sides is wrong which is why I hate this lazy group-think of 'Palestinian Good. Israeli bad.'

The person who has adopted the moral compass of Thomas Aquinas (will you be celebrating the anniversary of what would have been his 800th birthday?) twice suggests that I am the lazy one. Hoo boy.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby RedCelt69 on Thu May 12, 2011 10:52 am

Gubbins wrote:As a culture, we are able to absorb more of such people while retaining our cultural and ethical identity, therefore keeping more people happy... which is surely what this is all about.

I'm not a Utilitarian.

What is our cultural and ethical identity, exactly? Do you mean the hodge-podge of imported things that our migrant ancestors brought to these isles? As a Scot, should I cherish the bagpipes (invented in Turkey) while wearing tartan (a Victorian re-invention) and eating from a tastefully-decorated box of shortbread? Our cultural identity is a short-lived one. Our ethical identity is a changing beastie that includes tolerance of humans who look different to how we look.

Gubbins wrote:
RedCelt69 wrote:We are all migrants or the children of migrants. Migration isn't the problem. Hating people who don't look like us (or believe like us) is the problem.

It is a problem, and a very serious one. But it say that it is the only problem, or that it is a problem that should be solved at the expense of everything else, is a complete fallacy.

Can you give some details as to why it is a very serious problem?

Gubbins wrote:We have to balance the needs of all people, and sometimes that means giving a voice to the majority over a minority.

Back to Utilitarianism and the lynch-mob mentality, then? When you say "sometimes" which times are they? Who decides?
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby Gubbins on Thu May 12, 2011 7:46 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:
Gubbins wrote:As a culture, we are able to absorb more of such people while retaining our cultural and ethical identity, therefore keeping more people happy... which is surely what this is all about.

I'm not a Utilitarian.

I am. At least, I am, to the point of considering people's happiness paramount. Perhaps that's where our disagreement lies. What do you consider so important in this case that it should be placed above the balance of happiness of the migrants and those already living in the area they are migrating to?

RedCelt69 wrote:What is our cultural and ethical identity, exactly? Do you mean the hodge-podge of imported things that our migrant ancestors brought to these isles? As a Scot, should I cherish the bagpipes (invented in Turkey) while wearing tartan (a Victorian re-invention) and eating from a tastefully-decorated box of shortbread? Our cultural identity is a short-lived one. Our ethical identity is a changing beastie that includes tolerance of humans who look different to how we look.

Oh, don't be so twee... surely you jest!

Here is what I refer to as cultural or ethical identity. Suppose you move to a distant, foreign country. Pick whichever one you like, so long it is comparatively removed from European ways. What would you miss about your homeland? That is your cultural identity. What local laws and practices would you find alien or disturbing? That is your ethical identity. Each individual's identities average out into a national whole. Both are maleable, both can change, both do change. We have the power, as individuals and as a society, to decide if we want them to change - or be changed for us by outside influences. Nevertheless, as individuals and as a society, we have the right to practice and protect the identity we have without fear of persecution.

Migration augments the national identity. This augmentation can be positive or negative. I'm not saying which it currently is - I don't pretend to know. But there is currently a widely-held reaction among certain sectors of the population that any reference to negative ramifications of migration is immediately equitable to racism.


RedCelt69 wrote:
Gubbins wrote:
RedCelt69 wrote:We are all migrants or the children of migrants. Migration isn't the problem. Hating people who don't look like us (or believe like us) is the problem.

It is a problem, and a very serious one. But it say that it is the only problem, or that it is a problem that should be solved at the expense of everything else, is a complete fallacy.

Can you give some details as to why it is a very serious problem?

I was referring to hating people being a serious problem - I should have been more clear. In that context, I stand by my statement: hatred of other people is not the only problem that exists to be solved.

Migration, however, can cause problems. I am not saying it is requires remedial action in this country at this time. However, we should not be afraid of saying so if it is. I listed two major problems with free migration in my first post. The closest example we have to the end-state of such migration can be seen in the modern Israeli-Palestine conflict. This has had a destabilising influence which has spread throughout half the world.

There is also a potential affect on the migrants. People migrate for many different reasons: personal safety in some cases, but most usually economic, educational, health or social reasons. In the broadest terms, some migrants have a net positive impact, some a net negative. A sufficient number may come with a net negative impact that a system collapses.

As a crude example, ten million HIV positive Africans could descend on us, which would cripple an already-strained NHS. Their treatment and ours would suffer, and the reason that they migrated in the first place (HIV treatment) would no longer be possible. Everyone would suffer. With controlled migration this wouldn't happen.

Another, less crude example: the Former Soviet Republic of Fubarstan joins the Malapropian Union. Ten million Fubarians come into the MU in search of jobs. There are not ten million jobs to be filled in the MU, but they come with the false expectation that they will get a job. They end up in a worse situation than they would if they had stayed in their country of origin. Eventually they are pushed into going back home, with everyone coming out from the experience worse than if migration didn't happen.

Migration causes problems. It can also bring benefits. There is, as I have said, a balance between the two that needs to be struck.

RedCelt69 wrote:
Gubbins wrote:We have to balance the needs of all people, and sometimes that means giving a voice to the majority over a minority.

Back to Utilitarianism and the lynch-mob mentality, then? When you say "sometimes" which times are they? Who decides?
[/quote]
The "sometimes" and the "who" I have purposely not specified. That is a question of governance, and it is up to the people whether or not they are happy with their system of governance.

We do, however, have to balance the needs of all people if we want to live in the society of equality we have created. To create unbalance in the direction of a group of people is discrimination. A member of the majority has the same rights as a member of the minority. Giving them these rights need not lead to an anarchic society any more than limiting an individual's rights need lead to a fascist society. The balance of an individual's rights to society's rights needs to be maintained, as do the rights of one social, cultural or ethnic group against another.
...then again, that is only my opinion.
Gubbins
 
Posts: 1210
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:56 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby RedCelt69 on Fri May 13, 2011 1:43 pm

Gubbins wrote:
RedCelt69 wrote:I'm not a Utilitarian.
I am. At least, I am, to the point of considering people's happiness paramount. Perhaps that's where our disagreement lies. What do you consider so important in this case that it should be placed above the balance of happiness of the migrants and those already living in the area they are migrating to?

My dismissal of utilitarianism was more of a philosophical stance than anything but no, there are more important things than the maximum amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people. Take a look at any anti-utilitarian literature for the reasons why. But basically, utilitarianism and (for that matter) democracy are based on the principle that a lynch mob makes the better judgements. Every aspect of what we, in the "civilised" world describe as "rights" are put in place to protect the weak from the powerful, the few from the many - which is positively anti-democratic. And anti-utilitarian.

Gubbins wrote:Oh, don't be so twee... surely you jest!

Well, yes, I jest. But there was also an element of truth in the humour. Our culture and national identity are short-lived (but inherited) traditions which have no real meaning other than "they've been like this for a while... or at least in my lifetime". Being anti-change isn't (in my opinion) a good way of judging what should and should not happen. Things always change. Change is good. Stagnation... not so good. We are a mongrel nation derived from imported people and ideas. I struggle to see why that is suddenly a bad thing.

Given your example (and it is only one part of your interim make-do policy) you referred to the immigration of Americans, New Zealanders and Australians... because their cultural influx wouldn't be so destructive because, well, they're quite like us. I know it is something that (ideally) should be left out of the picture and people who are anti-immigration don't consider themselves to be racist... but you picked out 3 countries from which a "returning ex-pat" community would be white. Do you remember when Hong Kong's lease came to an end and the territory was handed back to China? There was a suggestion that all Hong Kong citizens should have the right to come to the UK under a British citizenship. That idea didn't last very long. Also, shamefully, there was the whole issue of the Ghurkas. It's OK for them to fight and die for the UK but Jesus, don't think for a moment that we'd welcome so many brown people with open arms. And, when it comes to knowing our culture, you'd be able to include the entirety of the Indian sub-continent. The British Empire left its mark in a lot of places around the world.

When it comes to the current discussion, there's more concern about Muslisms coming to Britain than Poles, Czecks... or whatever other European nationality has recently acquired EU membership. From what you (and others) have suggested, the biggest problem is the cultural differences inherent in such migration.

Well, yes, there are differences which make me uncomfortable (that have already been mentioned) but they are small when the numbers are taken into account. So is the problem (which you went on to broaden) to do with sheer numbers and the capacity to cope with mass immigration?

That's where I would share an element of concern. Let's return to the Poles as a reasonable example.

Rather than the open-door policy that was given to us by both the Tories and Labour, I would suggest that a more controlled migration policy were put in place. Not to stem the numbers (which, as UKIP like to remind us, we can't do when they're from the EU) but to count them all in and count them all out, so that we actually know the figures rather than a wild guesstimate. I find that ridiculous. We're on an island with a migration system. Is it really beyond our control to log the movement of migrants and immigrants? Also, rather than just knowing how many people we have arriving, if we knew where they were moving to we could increase the resources in the appropriate parts of the country, so as to allow for that influx. At the moment (as an example) you have schools which are seeing an increase in Polish-speaking children where they don't have the resources to teach them without conflicting with English-speaking kids. If the government knew that n Poles were moving to a given town, they could provide that town with the resources to cope. Or, mad idea that it is, provide better-suited locations to the immigrants.

Basically, so long as the local resources aren't jeopardised, migration can be perfectly managed.

With Islam... the religious differences are greater (but that's only a potential problem for the "native" religions) and their treatment of women is less than ideal (to us, having made a long fight towards female equality) but, as I've already said, having them live here will strengthen that equality. Speak to a girl whose parents moved here from Pakistan and ask her what her options are like when compared to her female cousins back in Pakistan. The children of migrants lessen the cultural differences that their parents brought with them.

Similar things have happened during every other previous incursion of this island. Integration is only a problem when you have one group of people hating another group of people. Which, I think we both agree, is a problem. But surely, getting to understand those who are different to us is a much better thing than the alternative?

As a footnote to all of this, Scotland's population has been relatively static (around 5 million) for a long time. There are easy jokes to be made about Scotland not being somewhere anyone would want to live (although my Polish next door neighbour quite likes it), but when all's said and done (and in contrast to the BNP's banners) this country is not full.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby Hennessy on Fri May 13, 2011 2:54 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... ree-travel

Heads up, there is something in the air.

I don't condone the rise of parties described as "far right" in countries like France, the Netherlands, Denmark and elsewhere but it's important to realise they and the EDF are a somewhat overblown manifestation that is symptomatic of widespread views on immigration. If you really wanted to cut the voting base from under these parties and achieve a rational re-centering of the debate then it is possible to meet them halfway.

That's why I don't get the Left's overall stance on this issue - surely you could reclaim the self-described "white working class" that form the majority of EDF membership for Labour by imposing the measures suggested by Gubbins. I don't agree that would conclusively end the problem (see the measures I proposed for that solution), but the Left would garner itself more votes, and crucially more time before the majority of people are thinking along the lines of the EDF and electing these parties to positions of real responsibility.

If the Tories are the ones to do this then they've won those votes without contest (and even they hesitate to even enter the area in force because it opens them up to accusations of racism). If neither of the major centrist parties do anything then the debate is gifted to the "far right" (I really do despise that term), and all anyone else can do is snipe from the sidelines, which is exactly what has been happening.

We're getting a bizarre disconnect between the more centrist views of national newspapers, which reserve ridicule and condescension for the EDF and others like it, but are simultaneously unwilling or unable to explain why these parties keep growing across Europe.
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby RedCelt69 on Sat May 14, 2011 1:44 am

Is every political party meant to keep moving far enough into the "center" (or hoovering up the extremes) until they have a majority? Or are they meant to represent their core beliefs and argue their case well enough for the voting public to give them that majority? Should the Green Party opt for an increase in everyone's carbon footprint? Should the Left cater to the beliefs of the Far Right before the further right Tories get them?

I wouldn't want to belong to the same party as people like that. I don't want to belong to the same species as people like that. I just wish that they'd evolve the fuck up.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby Hennessy on Sat May 14, 2011 4:38 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:Is every political party meant to keep moving far enough into the "center" (or hoovering up the extremes) until they have a majority? Or are they meant to represent their core beliefs and argue their case well enough for the voting public to give them that majority? Should the Green Party opt for an increase in everyone's carbon footprint? Should the Left cater to the beliefs of the Far Right before the further right Tories get them?

I wouldn't want to belong to the same party as people like that. I don't want to belong to the same species as people like that. I just wish that they'd evolve the fuck up.


The name that most springs to mind when you mention the importance of core beliefs is Michael Foot. Foot stated his party's core beliefs and stuck to them admirably in 1983, producing one of the most left-wing manifestos since the end of the Second World War. If you need to refresh your memory on the importance of remaining a true believer and eschewing any kind of compromise maybe this link will help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_longes ... in_history

I could go further but it'd be even more off-topic. Fact is you get power from the majority, and the majority are in the centre. The majority have some sympathy with anti-immigration stances. Here's another left-wing source to support that view, as I don't want to seem like I'm just banging the same drum over and over again:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 27052.html

The Independent, like all newspapers, finds ways to fit the evidence into their existing theory of how the world works. Like I said it's part of the bizarre disconnect nobody wants to acknowledge because they fear being called a racist. I was so afraid of being called a racist when I started this thread I put in a disclaimer. But we do need to have this discussion soon, and whoever has the balls to start the argument, left, right or far whatever is going to win those votes and shape those policies. Who dares wins.

I can see you straining against it Redcelt, and I wish we lived in a world where conviction mattered more than power too! Unfortunately historically that would probably have meant a second Dark Age beginning in 1983.
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby RedCelt69 on Sat May 14, 2011 5:10 pm

Hennessy wrote:I can see you straining against it Redcelt, and I wish we lived in a world where conviction mattered more than power too! Unfortunately historically that would probably have meant a second Dark Age beginning in 1983.


I honestly don't care. We're all travelling on the same lump of partly-cooled molten rock.

Here's one way of looking at the whole migration thing. Imagine an aircraft that's travelling to a far-distant destination. Some passengers, unhappy with their seating arrangements (for whatever reason) want to change seats. Some people (in the general vicinity of the newly-acquired seat) aren't too happy about it. Their reasons for not being happy are hard for them to articulate, to rationalise, or to make any sense of whatsoever... but their discomfort is vocalised particularly loudly if the person that's now sitting next to them looks too unfamiliar to their own reflection.

Those in 1st class are more particularly panicked when the curtain between the classes is parted and a "lesser" person comes and sits with them. They didn't pay for a 1st class ticket, so why should they be allowed to reap the benefits that can be afforded to those that did? A Socialist in 1st class points out that those sitting in the prime seats (with more leg room) can do so, because they (or their fathers, or their father's fathers) manipulated their way up the hierarchy by exploiting those who aren't in 1st class. A Capitalist laughs, mutters something about "might is right" before asking if the curtain could be replaced by a steel door, to "keep the beggars out". A passenger who agrees with this last sentiment had only recently arrived through the curtain... and he'd be happier if none of his previous neighbours joined him.

Meanwhile, the cabin crew have no real reason to show concern for any of the passengers wanting to change their seats. The only problem would be if all of them sat on the port, starboard, front or rear... because then the plane would be less manageable. So long as that doesn't happen, and the migration from seat to seat is managed without upsetting the overall balance of the plane... all is still good. Apart from those complaining about their new neighbours. And they're still struggling to justify their reasons for complaining. But they're not racist, OK?

The plane continues its flight.

As does the partly-cooled lump of molten rock.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby jollytiddlywink on Sat May 14, 2011 10:50 pm

There's a lot going on in this thread, so I hope I'll be forgiven if I don't manage to quote exactly who said what, or if I leave out some people's contributions.

I am always struck, when debates like this take place, on the absurdity of British people decrying immigration. Millions of British people moved to the US, to Canada, to South Africa, to Australia, to New Zealand. This happened in the past, yes, but it is still happening now. The clearest example I've ever seen of the blatant double-standard which some (I emphasise SOME) anti-immigration arguments contain appeared in the comment section of a BBC article a few years ago. An Englishman was bemoaning all the foreigners moving to the UK, taking jobs, etc. This Englishman lived in France. Pot calls kettle...

Quite a few of the posts have centred around immigrant coming to the UK and not adopting British, or Western, values. If we're going to say that immigrants must adopt British values, we might have to insist that the French all piss off and go home. If we're going to insist on Western values, then we're going to have to welcome the Poles with open arms. For that matter, we'd best welcome the Japanese with open arms, because they are now a very westernised country.
So far as I've seen, there hasn't been much effort go into defining either British culture/ethics/political norms, or into defining what Western culture (I hesitate to say civilisation) is. The awkward thing about speaking of 'western culture' is that the term came into use just as speaking about 'the white race' went out of fashion. It remains awkward today because the 'western world' remains almost entirely white. This is not to say that speaking of western culture is racist, but that this very strong correlation exists between 'western' and 'white' and should be borne in mind.

Many of these arguments against immigration concern failure to assimilate/a rejection of British values/threat of terrorism. Macgamer, if I recall, submitted a curiously religious idea of what it is to be British, which is odd, since until very recently, a large part of being British was an explicit anti-catholicism. So he's on shaky ground there. La plus ca change...
I must submit that if it's religious extremists who live in sectarian communities and engage in home-grown terror campaigns that we oppose, perhaps we should lobby for all the Irish people in the UK to be repatriated. Or if religious groups want to ignore secular legal principles and impose their religious standards on everyone, we'd best not let any catholics or Christian Voice types into the country. Or if its people who don't live up to British standards of fair play, decency and tolerance that we must guard against, we'd better deport Nick Griffin and the EDL. The point I'm driving at is that all of the problems mentioned as part of the 'immigration problem' can also be found within non-immigrant communities and people.

I should perhaps declare my own feelings on the subject, since everyone else so far has said so, explicitly or otherwise. I can't see that immigration is anything to get worked up about. People and peoples have moved around since time immemorial, and nobody yet has figured out any way to stop them. People have moved to and from these islands for as long as they have been inhabited, which is why the BNP notion of 'native Britons' is such utter shit. My main thoughts on immigration are that the way the British government handles refugees and those seeking asylum is a national disgrace; this country should stand for freedom, safety and security, and should welcome with open arms any and all who can no longer stay in their own country from fear of persecution. The way that student visas are now handled is an unmitigated disaster. Immigration as a whole is more complicated; I can't quite agree with redcelt that there is nothing at all to worry about, but hennesey's idea of almost stopping all immigration at least in the short-term is, I feel, border-line draconian and unwarranted (apologies if I've misrepresented your stances).
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby RedCelt69 on Sun May 15, 2011 10:03 am

jollytiddlywink wrote:People have moved to and from these islands for as long as they have been inhabited, which is why the BNP notion of 'native Britons' is such utter shit.

I caught this when it was first broadcast by Channel 4... and it still makes me smile. (Ignore the reference to Nick Griffin, as he has point-blank refused to undergo such testing.)

Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby wild_quinine on Sun May 15, 2011 11:03 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:it is a so-often made assumption; being against Israel* means that, yeah, you're into the whole jew-hating meme ... It's a lot less complicated than that, for some.


I don't think you can get much less complicated than that.

But, let's not kid ourselves, any successful view of Israel or Palestine is likely to be vastly, vastly more complex.

If you're hating two groups of thugs who are intent on killing each other, it is a whole lot easier to feel more hatred for the ones that use bullets and gunships, rather than the ones who use stones and glorified fireworks.


I don't know where you're coming from here. But easy things are not always good. It is easier to believe whatever everyone else believes than to investigate for oneself. It is very, very hard to have a point of view which pretends to neutrality in a violently polarised debate.

if only ... / ... the world would be a step closer to knowing a more long-lasting peace.


Mr. Celt, I would not like to live in your peaceful world. I would like to live in my peaceful world instead.

This only has to escalate a little.

There are, thankfully, Jews around the world (the liberal lefties, bless 'em) who also find Israeli government policy abhorrent...


Ah, the Good Jews [TM].
wild_quinine
User avatar
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 11:57 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby RedCelt69 on Mon May 16, 2011 12:55 am

wild_quinine wrote:
If you're hating two groups of thugs who are intent on killing each other, it is a whole lot easier to feel more hatred for the ones that use bullets and gunships, rather than the ones who use stones and glorified fireworks.


I don't know where you're coming from here.

Imagine that both the Israelis and the Palestinians had access to nothing more elaborate than thrown stones or homemade "rockets" with the navigation skills of the thrown stones. The level of hatred would be evenly spread between two groups of people who can't let go of their historical differences.

The same would be true if both groups had access to high-tech military equipment. Then again, if that were the case, there would have long-ago been a two-state agreement made and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

wild_quinine wrote:Mr. Celt, I would not like to live in your peaceful world. I would like to live in my peaceful world instead.

This only has to escalate a little.

Not really. My peaceful world allows for differences of opinion.

wild_quinine wrote:
There are, thankfully, Jews around the world (the liberal lefties, bless 'em) who also find Israeli government policy abhorrent...


Ah, the Good Jews [TM].

By my definition of the word "good", yes. Silly liberal, that I am. If you think that Israeli government policy towards Palestinians is "good" then I seriously suggest that you educate yourself a little better than you already have. Or use a better dictionary.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby Gubbins on Mon May 16, 2011 12:13 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:My dismissal of utilitarianism was more of a philosophical stance than anything but no, there are more important things than the maximum amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people. Take a look at any anti-utilitarian literature for the reasons why. But basically, utilitarianism and (for that matter) democracy are based on the principle that a lynch mob makes the better judgements. Every aspect of what we, in the "civilised" world describe as "rights" are put in place to protect the weak from the powerful, the few from the many - which is positively anti-democratic. And anti-utilitarian.

Utilitarianism =/= democracy =/= lynch mob mentality.

The reason lies in the difference between what people want and what they think they want. Under a true democracy, lynch mob mentality rules. Under a (idealised, utilitarian) representative democracy, elected representatives are chosen with a moral drive matching the people's. Everyone thinks they want a million pounds, but if you were to give people a million pounds, then some of them would be much less happy than they otherwise would be. The same can be applied to government policies such as immigration.


Well, yes, I jest. But there was also an element of truth in the humour. Our culture and national identity are short-lived (but inherited) traditions which have no real meaning other than "they've been like this for a while... or at least in my lifetime". Being anti-change isn't (in my opinion) a good way of judging what should and should not happen. Things always change. Change is good. Stagnation... not so good. We are a mongrel nation derived from imported people and ideas. I struggle to see why that is suddenly a bad thing.

I agree that a conservative, anti-change policy is detractive, but equally change for change's sake is not good either. We have the power to choose which changes to embrace, and we should use that power wisely. Identity is precious to many people, and one can't simply ignore that fact in the name of change. What is the drive behind Scottish Independence (let's not open that can of worms here) about if not national identity? Equally, one cannot talk about preserving from migration the culture, identity and practices of remote tribal people in the Amazon or New Guinea if we are to deny the same to ourselves.

Cultural and national identity are rather ephemeral, but the changes that occur aren't necessarily appreciated on a short timescale. Consider examples where Britons have migrated abroad and the effects they've had on their host cultures. When we "colonised" the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., we all but obliterated the native cultures through force of numbers. (Technology also helped, but consider how India fared with its much larger native population). These cultures still exist, but these are nations marred by cultural divisions that have come from uncontrolled migration, and migration without sympathy to the local culture. Like you said, the British Empire left its mark in a lot of places.


...immigration of Americans, New Zealanders and Australians... because their cultural influx wouldn't be so destructive because, well, they're quite like us. ... you picked out 3 countries from which a "returning ex-pat" community would be white. ... The British Empire left its mark in a lot of places around the world.


And continuing on this point, I picked these four countries simply because they are the largest sites of emigration from Britain. They are not some kind of definitive list. And of course a "returning ex-pat" community would be white: Britons, as a race, are! But to take your example of Hong Kong, let me introduce an acquaintance of mine. He was born to British parents in Hong Kong, and has Hong Kong identity (whatever the adjective is). If some kind of limit has to be put on migration into the UK, who should have preference to move back? Should he, with all his family now living in the UK, or should someone with family in China who also happened to be born in Hong Kong? I would say he does, as his family are already here. Let us not confuse this with the very separate example of the Ghurkas, which brings me to your next point.

Well, yes, there are differences which make me uncomfortable (that have already been mentioned) but they are small when the numbers are taken into account. So is the problem (which you went on to broaden) to do with sheer numbers and the capacity to cope with mass immigration?

That's where I would share an element of concern. ... Basically, so long as the local resources aren't jeopardised, migration can be perfectly managed.



I would say yes. The problem is to do with the incapacity of local resources to deal with the sheer numbers of large-scale migration. As long as these are not jeopardised, migration can be managed. Resources can include teaching, healthcare and government administration, but also more intangable things like the willingness of indigenous populations (such as our own) to deal with the increased load put upon them.

The exact resources aside, my point is that migration is such a taboo subject at the moment that no-one is in a position to decide when these resources become strained. Who will decide if this point has come? Some people feel it has come already, and they are making their voice heard through the disturbing growth of very-right-wing parties. If we are to avoid such dangerous polarisation of society, this taboo must be lifted and free debate allowed to take place.


Let's return to the Poles as a reasonable example.

Rather than the open-door policy that was given to us by both the Tories and Labour, ... count them all in and count them all out, so that we actually know the figures rather than a wild guesstimate. ... If the government knew that n Poles were moving to a given town, they could provide that town with the resources to cope. Or, mad idea that it is, provide better-suited locations to the immigrants.


I agree: counting in and counting out is a good idea. Personally, I think this would be helpful and is the only "control" that is necessary for the moment. I also think that your proposed incentive of better locations, rather than caps on numbers, is preferable at this time.

The scale of the recent Polish immigration caused a bit of a hiccup in Britain. My experience has been that it has been a net gain for the country, but not everyone has that experience. I grew up near Inverness, where integration means coming to terms with the differences between Celtic and Rangers (or Cale and County), and where there was one black kid in a school of nearly 700 (though thankfully he was never singled out because of it). Take some statistics from the last few years:
- Approximately 5000 Poles settled in Inverness in the period between 2004 and about 2008, and 3000 in the first 17 months: this in a city with a population of 57,000.
- 55% of Poles in the area are working below their qualifications: partly due to a lack of jobs in the area, partly due to a lack of English language skills.
- Even local Polish groups are saying there aren't enough jobs for them, and that government calls for more foreign workers in the area are "irresponsible".
Would it not have been better if some of these people had been given an incentive to live in an area of the UK that could better cope with these sort of numbers? This influx has bred considerable concern and resentment among many Invernesians. There is a real risk of this turning into all-out hatred, and is purely a function of the speed and magnitude of migration of a single culture into an area which is not used to it.

Similar things have happened during every other previous incursion of this island. Integration is only a problem when you have one group of people hating another group of people. Which, I think we both agree, is a problem. But surely, getting to understand those who are different to us is a much better thing than the alternative?

As a footnote to all of this, Scotland's population has been relatively static ... this country is not full.


It would be much better to get people to understand each other, but that isn't going to happen overnight, and it isn't going to happen if a million people a minute arrive on our shores (or anyone else's for that matter). Integration takes time for both migrants and hosts, sometimes generations - as you point out. If we are to stop hatred and violence as a result of resentment, we need immigration to be controlled in times when the country and the feelings of its populations are strained.

Let's take those previous incursions. The Roman occupation of England, the Scots migration into Pictland, the Anglo-Saxon invasion, the Danelaw, the Norman Conquest, and all the others down through the ages. Each left its mark indelibly in the country's psyche. Each imposed its own laws, language and morals on an unwilling population. Sometimes it was by force, sometimes it was by sheer power of numbers. What if we were to look at the same scale of migration today?

Consider an extreme future where there are a billion climate change refugees in the world. We are told by the alarmists that this could happen soon. Many of these would be wanting to come to Britain, being a rich country speaking a popular language with slacker immigration laws than, say, the US (@jollytiddlywink take note). At a time when we would be coping with rehousing our own population, how would we cope with 60 million immigrants? Could we support them? What would that do to the country, its people and way of life? Do they have a right to come here? Do we have a right to stop them? Do we have an obligation to help them? Should we concentrate on our own problems?

I chose an extreme example to highlight the potential problems, but the same questions can be asked of migrations which are less-obviously damaging to the host countries. At what point should we say "we are full", or more likely "you are coming in too fast"? We currently have no framework on which to base this decision and act upon it. If it comes to this point, and we are not ready, we risk dangerous levels of violence, and in the worst case, all out civil warfare. If we are to avoid future conflict, we need established law that says, broadly: "if (x) conditions are met, we can put (y) controls in place to limit immigration". What (x) and (y) are is another debate, but I think it would be foolish to wait until policy must be driven by reactionary necessity rather than considered, timely thought.
...then again, that is only my opinion.
Gubbins
 
Posts: 1210
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:56 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby Gubbins on Mon May 16, 2011 1:16 pm

jollytiddlywink wrote:Quite a few of the posts have centred around immigrant coming to the UK and not adopting British, or Western, values. ... So far as I've seen, there hasn't been much effort go into defining either British culture/ethics/political norms, or into defining what Western culture (I hesitate to say civilisation) is. ... Many of these arguments against immigration concern failure to assimilate/a rejection of British values/threat of terrorism.

For my own arguments, I have purposely avoided specifics such as what "British" or "Western" culture, ethics or politics entails. The problem is that, if you ask ten British citizens what "Britishness" entails, you will get ten different answers. Even if you ask ten Britons what it means, you will still get ten different answers. What it means to be "Scottish", or "British", or whatever, only makes sense when you take the national average which reflects a distribution of views. The likeness of this distribution to that of another nation determines how similar they are.

I've tried to portray my interpretation of what happens when cultural assimilation fails. In summary, it leads to is a bimodality in this distribution. If a nation can't agree internally on its own politics (which is driven by culture and ethics) then how does it present itself to the world? I've mentioned what happens with lack of integration in the certain countries, but such a bimodality is at the heart of problems in South Africa, and the Israeli-Palestine and Sunni-Shia conflicts in parts of the Middle East. Much of the problems here are bound up in politics, leading to an ouroborean cycle driven deeper by the cultural and ethical divide.

I can't see that immigration is anything to get worked up about. People and peoples have moved around since time immemorial, and nobody yet has figured out any way to stop them. People have moved to and from these islands for as long as they have been inhabited, which is why the BNP notion of 'native Britons' is such utter shit.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Stricter immigration controls apply in many countries, notably the US and (increasingly and rather hypocritically) Australia. The latter - being also an island - has had more success in keeping migrants out.

As an insular nation which has not suffered external invasion for the best part of a millenium, the concept of a native population applies better to Brtain than to most parts of the world. The majority of Britons can't name any of their ancestors who were born outside of Britain. Most probably had substantially more than half their medieval ancestors living in Britain: something that can't be said of most other European countries, certainly. We are often ridiculed on "the Continent" for our insular mentality, which the debate over immigration is bound up in, and which is why this debate has such poignancy in this country.
...then again, that is only my opinion.
Gubbins
 
Posts: 1210
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:56 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby jollytiddlywink on Sat May 28, 2011 9:52 pm

Gubbins wrote:For my own arguments, I have purposely avoided specifics such as what "British" or "Western" culture, ethics or politics entails. The problem is that, if you ask ten British citizens what "Britishness" entails, you will get ten different answers. Even if you ask ten Britons what it means, you will still get ten different answers. What it means to be "Scottish", or "British", or whatever, only makes sense when you take the national average which reflects a distribution of views. The likeness of this distribution to that of another nation determines how similar they are.


A fair point, but we don't spend time sitting down and going through a list of questions to determine if someone is British or Scottish, we just know. And I think that anyone arguing that immigrants have failed to assimilate should point out in which regards they want immigrants to assimilate: should they adopt proper Brummie/South London/Weegie accents, or should they subscribe to things like tea and biscuits and being vaguely dismissive of the French?

Gubbins wrote:I've tried to portray my interpretation of what happens when cultural assimilation fails. In summary, it leads to is a bimodality in this distribution. If a nation can't agree internally on its own politics (which is driven by culture and ethics) then how does it present itself to the world? I've mentioned what happens with lack of integration in the certain countries, but such a bimodality is at the heart of problems in South Africa, and the Israeli-Palestine and Sunni-Shia conflicts in parts of the Middle East. Much of the problems here are bound up in politics, leading to an ouroborean cycle driven deeper by the cultural and ethical divide.


Unless I've managed to miss a whole load of rioting on this island, I hardly think that a lack of assimilation here can be compared with the enormous divisions caused by apartheid, 80 years (or many centuries) of ethnic/sectarian violence in the Middle East, or a nearly 1400 year old religious split. The last two of these would better apply to the relations between England (and later) Great Britain and the United Kingdom and Ireland than they would to the situation of immigrants in 21st century UK. Any nobody on the thread has yet suggested kicking out all the Irish.

Gubbins wrote:
jollytiddlywink wrote:I can't see that immigration is anything to get worked up about. People and peoples have moved around since time immemorial, and nobody yet has figured out any way to stop them...

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Stricter immigration controls apply in many countries, notably the US and (increasingly and rather hypocritically) Australia. The latter - being also an island - has had more success in keeping migrants out.

As an insular nation which has not suffered external invasion for the best part of a millenium, the concept of a native population applies better to Brtain than to most parts of the world. The majority of Britons can't name any of their ancestors who were born outside of Britain. Most probably had substantially more than half their medieval ancestors living in Britain: something that can't be said of most other European countries, certainly. We are often ridiculed on "the Continent" for our insular mentality, which the debate over immigration is bound up in, and which is why this debate has such poignancy in this country.


I'll have to call you on that one. Neither the island nor the political grouping Great Britain was a nation, at any point in history, and the label 'nation' applies even less well to the current UK, and even less well to the UK as it was prior to 1922. And as for foreign invasions, off the top of my head, there have been several French invasions and occupations, of varying sizes, on Scottish territory (it was the guns of a French fleet which levelled St Andrews castle), both before and after the Treaty of Union, various French and Spanish landings on what is now Irish territory, and Spanish, Dutch and French landings at various points on the coasts of England and Wales. For that matter, William of Orange invaded England in 1688, dispersed the garrison of London, effectively deposed James II and summoned Parliament to retrospectively issue him an invitation.

If the majority of citizens in the UK can't name any of their ancestors who were born outside the UK, then a great many of them are not well versed on their family histories, and there's no need to go any farther back than about 1939. Large swathes of the population on the west coast have Irish ancestry, and there was an influx of tens of thousands of refugees from all over Europe before 1939, and then of exiles and members of governments in exile and Free Forces.

And I'll stand by my point that, strict immigration controls or not, nobody has yet figured out a way to stop immigration from happening. The US may have strict immigration laws, but they've still got roughly 10 million illegal immigrants in the country, approximately 1 in 30. And they don't seem to be turning into a new South Africa or Israel-Palestine. I still don't really see what the fuss is.
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron