Brexit

[ruffrecords]

The U.K. shutting its borders and restricting free-movement of people and goods was never on the table. It would kill off your economy overnight.

The current' meaning' of free movement of people was never in the original EEC agreement. It covered only EU nationals traveling to EU countries where they already had a job to go to. It never meant migration of the jobless. That is a large part of the problem. In product development we call it creeping featurism. There's probably an equivalent for the political situation.

Cheers

Ian

 

[mattiasNYC]

I don't think they are stupid, they are just more interested in other things than politics.  I could rely on them to tell me about every celebrity show on TV and run rings around me on an I phone and texting, but I don't expect them to know that it stems from the victorious Roman legions bringing home bundles of reeds and firewood (fascio).  Or that it came to be used for trade guilds with left wing politics.  Or that Mussolini's government was socialist in character.

Mussolini's government was only socialist in character if by socialist you mean not socialist. No true socialist would accept the kind of rule Mussolini had and call that socialism. Not a single one. Fascism is not socialism. Totalitarianism is not socialism. You can't simultaneously have the people in control of the means of production and at the same time have a small elite running a totalitarian state in control of the very same means of production. It's just not mutually compatible.

 

[DaveP]

Obviously, not as we know socialism today, but interesting that both Italy and Germany incorporated the word National Socialism in their descriptions of government.  It was not considered to be opposite and anathema at that time. as it is today.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

Obviously, not as we know socialism today, but interesting that both Italy and Germany incorporated the word National Socialism in their descriptions of government.  It was not considered to be opposite and anathema at that time. as it is today.

DaveP

I don't agree. Again, re-watch Chomsky's explanation of why the word was abused.

And even if you're right you shouldn't then call it Socialism if we "know better" now compared to what they knew back then.

It wasn't socialism.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

America has illegal immigrants  not legal immigrants.  The Obama administration prefers undocumented immigrants rather than illegal for self serving purposes. ( To create votes for the democrats. )  The republicans look the other way (to favor business interest. ) 

When did the term illegal become a racist/nazi term.    The issue here is to punish the businesses from hiring "Illegal immigrants ",  So real immigrants that have gone through legal immigration can entry this country. 

It is a problem in America and needs to be handled with immigration policy that is already in place in America.

But who decides an immigrant is legal? The only people who could "legally" decide who's legal or not are the native Americans. All the others are somehow illegal immigrants.
I cannot help being shocked by how you seem to think the  America is the USA.

 

[fazer]

What babble abby.  I'm a us citizen and so are the native americans.  If I used america as a term for the USA then let me clear that up.  I'm talking about the USA not South America or Central America.  If you come across the border without a request through US Immigration or a passport with request for a visa, you are here illegally.  Never mind terrorist coming in illegally to do harm.  All you have to do is apply for immigration to the USA.  There are plenty of legal immigrants here and I have no problem with that.  They have visas or are applying for citizenship.    You do what you want in Europe but don't tell us what to do in  the USA.  We fought that war a long time ago.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Maybe you guys are just misunderstanding each other. Fazer, when you wrote "America has illegal immigrants  not legal immigrants.  " it looks by itself as if you don't think there is such a thing as a legal immigrant, and that all are illegal. Is that where there's a disconnect perhaps?

 

[fazer]

It must be Mattias.  I was only trying to show that undocumented and illegal are the same thing in the US.  I know Abby to be a very smart person on this forum and could not believe  the reply.  But typing on a forum and talking in person create very different reactions.    I know there is a language and culture barrier to some but also the subtle differences in meanings of words create confusion even when you speak the language.  Thanks for pointing that out to me Mattias.  Sorry for the confusion Abby.   

 

[abbey road d enfer]

It must be Mattias.  I was only trying to show that undocumented and illegal are the same thing in the US.  I know Abby to be a very smart person on this forum and could not believe  the reply.  But typing on a forum and talking in person create very different reactions.    I know there is a language and culture barrier to some but also the subtle differences in meanings of words create confusion even when you speak the language.  Thanks for pointing that out to me Mattias.  Sorry for the confusion Abby. 

I don't think there's any confusion. And you can believe my reply, too. Myself, as as a French citizen of only about 5 generations, and several members of my family being from direct foreign parency, I don't feel entitled to any right in deciding who's to be allowed in or out of "my" country. So many of us are of illegal immigrant's descent; being from Mayflower's descent does not obliterate the fact that the US soil has been stolen from the natives.
I'm not advocating uncontrolled immigration; criminals, spies, wife-beaters, integrist predicators, crooks, radicals, mafosi, ..., should be detected and taken care of (which does not just mean sending them back with a slap on the wrist, IMO) when trying to immigrate, but the current screening criteria are too unfair and counter-efficient. The distinction between war/political refugee and economic/weather refugee is just not right, since the latter is the cause of the former most of the times.
Anyway, the industry knows that immigrants, illegal or not, are a necessity for the building, agricultural, canning, crop-picking, animal slaughter activities. Since money has more clout than right of soil or right of blood, illegal immigrants have a great future ahead of them. I would wish the energy and money spent in chasing that category of immigrants was redirected to chasing the real villains trying to import drugs, crime and terrorism.

 

[DaveP]

Abbey,
I understand your point, but it's not really practical.
If we took your principal seriously then only the descendants of the very first peoples to occupy a land would have the right to it.  The rest of us would be obliged to stay in Africa.

So only Pre-Roman Celts would be able to have Europe, the Vikings Scandinavia and the Mongols Asia.

I think we have to recognise that conquest and Empires were an unfortunate part of our past, never to be repeated, but we have to find a practical way to live with the consequences today.

DaveP

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Abbey,
I understand your point, but it's not really practical.
If we took your principal seriously then only the descendants of the very first peoples to occupy a land would have the right to it.

Read carefully; that's not what I wrote. I didn't say "only natives have the right to live here", I said "invaders don't have the right to deny others the right to come in".

I think we have to recognise that conquest and Empires were an unfortunate part of our past, never to be repeated, but we have to find a practical way to live with the consequences today.

I certainly won't deny that. But I certainly would not advocate that having some of my ancestors conquer/invade a territory gives me a right to repel/expel others. That's what many animal species do; I claim that, as human beings, we have to act differently.

 

[DaveP]

But I certainly would not advocate that having some of my ancestors conquer/invade a territory gives me a right to repel/expel others. That's what many animal species do; I claim that, as human beings, we have to act differently.

You may not have a right,  but the elected government has a duty to maintain law and order.

If there is no control over borders then anarchy and chaos will reign and law and order will break down.

If there was a country that practiced open borders and prospered, then we would all copy the principle but there are none.

Just because some cultures do not practice birth control and consequently have to export their surplus population, does not mean that we are obliged to be responsible where they are not.

DaveP

 

[fazer]

Well it was a bunch of banter.  I overestimated you Abby.  If you can't see the reason for having control over who comes into your country then have fun in France.  We'll be controlling our border soon.  Thank God were not in the European Union with that kind of attitude.  That would never fly here.  Oh and by the way I don't hate immigrants nor blame them for the problems here.  I blame both parties for the party they have at the American tax payers expense.      Any more post becomes a waste of time with your argument

 

[abbey road d enfer]

You may not have a right,  but the elected government has a duty to maintain law and order.

If there is no control over borders then anarchy and chaos will reign and law and order will break down.

If there was a country that practiced open borders and prospered, then we would all copy the principle but there are none.

And again, I will say: read carefully. I advocated action from the government to control immigration, but not on the current criteria that are based on xenophobia and racism.

Just because some cultures do not practice birth control and consequently have to export their surplus population, does not mean that we are obliged to be responsible where they are not.

You could return the compliment to the British governments that sent their surplus of convicts, whores, adventurers, and famine-driven peasants to America, Australia and wherever...

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Well it was a bunch of banter.

  Thank you for the nice words, but I think you just need to learn how to read.

  Any more post becomes a waste of time with your argument

Just the same, any attempt at text explanation seems to be wasted on your irretractable position.

 

[DaveP]

You could return the compliment to the British governments that sent their surplus of convicts, whores, adventurers, and famine-driven peasants to America, Australia and wherever...

You know yourself that, that was when the world was half empty and that birth control had not been invented. We have had birth control for almost 120 years now and the world is full.

DaveP

 

[abbey road d enfer]

You know yourself that, that was when the world was half empty

Which makes conquering/invading other lands justifiable? Oh, I forgot, acts of limitations...

  We have had birth control for almost 120 years now and the world is full.

Recent history tells us that birth control was not accessible for young Irish unmarried mothers until 1961. Check Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home. Only 50-some years ago. Current reality in Africa and India is that birth control is also inaccessible, for just about the same reason, bigotism. Although it may be argued it's not our fault, I would think it over.

 

[Banzai]

The current' meaning' of free movement of people was never in the original EEC agreement. It covered only EU nationals traveling to EU countries where they already had a job to go to. It never meant migration of the jobless. That is a large part of the problem. In product development we call it creeping featurism. There's probably an equivalent for the political situation.

Cheers

Ian

The original agreement 60 years ago? You have to allow for some sort of progress, either positive or negative. Any changes since then were agreed to by the UK, and included the same rights being granted to its citizens. It's too easy to portray these things as one sided, with a centralised government in Brussels imposing its law on EU members...

In any event, there's no problem with Brits not wanting any more immigrants, but would be good to recognise the 100'000 odd Brits who leave the UK every year, emigrating to foreign countries. That is only possible because other countries are still open to them.

Start closing your borders to foreign nationals, and all that will change.

 

[DaveP]

No, we are not responsible for other countries policy on birth control.

Ireland  used to be under strict Catholic control but it did not matter much in terms of population because there was enough room to go around, they have a very large immigrant population from eastern Europe, which is their choice and responsibility.

If countries like India can make atomic bombs and a space program, then they can have birth control, the Chinese managed it.

If Africa can adopt mobile phone technology, then they are not so backward that they can't control their own populations through education about birth control.

Other countries have different cultures and ideas about family size, but we have no responsibility to soak up the results of their choices, they have to learn themselves, I fail to see where bigotism enters the argument or applies to this conversation.

There has to be some limitation or else the Italians will still be paying for the Roman Conquest, The Mongols for the rape of Europe and the French for Napoleons adventures  and Charles X's in Algeria, not forgetting of course the British Empire.

I don't belong to the section of society that lives in perpetual guilt over what their ancestors did 100's of years ago.

DaveP

 

[DaveP]

In any event, there's no problem with Brits not wanting any more immigrants, but would be good to recognise the 100'000 odd Brits who leave the UK every year, emigrating to foreign countries. That is only possible because other countries are still open to them.

Start closing your borders to foreign nationals, and all that will change.

This is something I know about.
You may be right, but in the case of France they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.  Most Brits going to France are not looking for jobs, they have retired.  As I said earlier, we are buying their run-down housing stock and renovating it, deserted villages are coming back to life.  Our UK pensions are spent in French supermarkets and builders merchants etc.  Our community tax boosts the local economy and we have to pay for health insurance through our Carte Vitale, so we are not a burden on their system at all, we are an asset.

Incidently, those 100,000 are releasing badly needed UK houses for others, just a thought.

DaveP