It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Questions for the Pro-Immigration Camp

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Following today's 'news' (it's not news to most of us) that more than nine million people in England and Wales – equivalent to one in six of the population – are now from a “non-white” background, I have some questions I'd like to pose to those of you who think people like me are 'bigots' for caring:

1) Do you believe in democracy (in it's purest form - will of the majority)?

2) Do you believe in individual liberty so long as the individual causes no physical harm in doing so?



To be honest, I'll be surprised if any pro-immigration participants answer both of these honestly. Here's why...

- If you don't believe in democracy, then you either believe that a minority should be permitted to dictate to the majority in what's best for them; or you believe that an individual should be free to live as they choose so long as they harm no-one (presumably you'll have answered "yes" to the second question).

- If you do believe in democracy then you'll be forced to admit that people in various nations should have been given a specific vote on mass-immigration, or at the very least that people should have been free to vote, unhindered by any means, for anti-immigration political parties.

- If you do believe in individual liberty, then you'll acknowledge that the state has no right to tell people not to employ bigotry - as distasteful, short of violence, as it can be.

- If you don't believe in personal liberty then, either you do believe in democracy or you're a hideous little fascist.



See, mass-immigration is not just an isolated issue as far as I'm concerned. It embodies the questions of how free a nation is to govern itself, to preserve itself, to think freely, to have its own culture and to determine its future. And this is what makes me most angry about the whole immigration issue - it's got nothing to do with hating 'brown people' whatsoever - it's to do with the very essence of liberty, of the people who comprise a folk.

1/6 of the people in my country (if not more considering my country England has a much higher percentage of immigrants and their offspring than Wales does, and that the hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans here are not accounted for in this statistic) originate wholly, or partially, from a different part of the world and a different culture. Now let's please leave aside the debate over whether that's a good or bad thing. Let's also leave aside the hateful, ridiculous claims that "England has no indigenous people". What we can surely agree on is that the altering of a nation's ethnic composition on this scale is a significant occurrence for that nation. So answer me this:

Should the nation have been given a say?









edit on 19/5/2011 by Cythraul because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I know I'm not English (I'm American) but I'm pro-Immigration and wouldn't mind answering them directly and clearly since I feel there is a fair bit of similarity in our situations (although you can simply trade the Muslim radicals for Mexican gangs and drug traffickers over here).


1) Do you believe in democracy (in it's purest form - will of the majority)?


No, mob rule has never been an acceptable way to run a nation that is anything but entirely homogeneous (which I'm not sure one could ever actually put together). That said, the rights of the minority do not trump the rights of the majority and vise versa.


2) Do you believe in individual liberty so long as the individual causes no physical harm in doing so?


Yes more often than not. There are some small allowances that can be made for communal purposes, but those should be handled locally by the local people alone.

Add to all this, that every nation has the right and ability to govern it's own borders and immigration policy. I can say that most of these immigration debates center around two sides that act childish or speak childish untruths, half truths, or simply wasteful things.

The way I see it, being reasonable is the only way to get things done unless the situation is terribly dire or dangerous. Anyone not being reasonable doesn't get much of a say.

Peace
KJ



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
In my opinion, the short answer is yes. The people should be given a say in who is allowed to immigrate to their country.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
It's a difficult subject in my opinion. It is true that Britain has and still relies on immigration for our economy to survive. Like it or not but immigrants are doing many of the Jobs British people think are below them .

It is also due to our history and our commonwealth, that includes the West Indies, Pakistan and India. Much of the immigration has come from our commonwealth. These people helped establish a British Empire and also fought alongside British people in both wars to ensure our nations survival.

One could argue our nation would not exist without immigration. As far as Eastern European's go, due to freedom of movement of EU citizens there is not a great deal you can do about this and remember Brits benefit from this too. There are huge ex pat communities of Brits around Europe.

I live in an area with very low immigration so I probably dont see or appreciate the scale of the problem that obviously is of genuine concern to many in the UK.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

2) Do you believe in individual liberty so long as the individual causes no physical harm in doing so?


Yes more often than not. There are some small allowances that can be made for communal purposes, but those should be handled locally by the local people alone.

Thank you for your honest response. However, I feel that on the subject of personal liberty - it's all or nothing. Otherwise society reaches a point where some people's freedoms are acceptable and others' aren't. The only way to solve this is to have a logical, set parameter. That parameter - in most historically free or libertarian nations, has been that you're free to do as you like so long as you do not harm or steal (as per the English Bill of Rights).

So with that in mind, do you support the right of people to be vocally racist, for example? I mean, I'm sure it would appal you, as it does me, but as far as the law is concerned, it must be permissible?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 

Fair points all of them - but should we have been given a say?

Should we have been given the freedom to make the (in your eyes) wrong choice?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 

Fair points all of them - but should we have been given a say?

Should we have been given the freedom to make the (in your eyes) wrong choice?




Lots of decisions have been made on our behalf in the past, unfortunately we can't change history. We go to wars that people dont vote for and ironically those wars, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya will cause more displacements of people who will eventually end up as immigrants in one country or another.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


That is just the 'rationale' that they thought they could hide their real agenda behind - studies have comprehensively debunked the economic 'benefit' of mass immigration from third world countries.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul
Thank you for your honest response.


You're welcome and I appreciate your courtesy. It's refreshing.


However, I feel that on the subject of personal liberty - it's all or nothing. Otherwise society reaches a point where some people's freedoms are acceptable and others' aren't. The only way to solve this is to have a logical, set parameter. That parameter - in most historically free or libertarian nations, has been that you're free to do as you like so long as you do not harm or steal (as per the English Bill of Rights).


I don't disagree, but I'm saying things like the local fire fighters or public libraries, whereas more staunch libertarians than myself would prefer to keep those all private along with even police. Small local initiatives chosen by the local people are acceptable to me.


So with that in mind, do you support the right of people to be vocally racist, for example? I mean, I'm sure it would appal you, as it does me, but as far as the law is concerned, it must be permissible?


Of course vocal racism is perfectly distasteful to me, but it should be perfectly legal along with blasphemy and other offensive speech.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


That is just the 'rationale' that they thought they could hide their real agenda behind - studies have comprehensively debunked the economic 'benefit' of mass immigration from third world countries.


Can you link me to theses studies Johnny.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Lots of decisions have been made on our behalf in the past, unfortunately we can't change history. We go to wars that people dont vote for...

Aha, but it's deemed socially acceptable to protest those wars. It's near-enough been made illegal, as well as socially suicidal, to protest immigration.

But I'm glad you agree we should have been given a choice, and thus should be from now onwards. It's all good saying "what's done is done" but personally I'd like to see a few politicians hang for their misdemeanours.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
1) Do you belive in Democracy ?
2) Do you belive in Liberty ?

Friend I believe there is a third !
3) Do you believe in a truely Free World ?

Using your Country for example.1 it is not Your Country ! 2 the Country does not belong to your Queen ! or your Government ! This world and it's rescources belongs to all living things equally .All living things have a birth right to access of free water for example ? So no government has a right to sieze it, and no councils have a right to charge you for it ! Under these rules and Government, you can be fined or jailed for not watering your pets.Yet if you can't pay for water you can be penalized or denied ! How does that work ??? A guinea pig has more rights than you do !
No Government has the right to issue and enforce passports and immigration period ! Do migrating birds such as geese need passports when they cross borders ???

The whole immigration issue can be summed up under 2 banners ,1 racism or 2 protectionism .Racism, well we don't need to go there as that speaks for it's self .
The greatest issue I see with immigration is protectionism of rescources and jobs mixed with consumerism .
This is simply bad management at the top by the same bastards that control that water and passports no ???

OP you speak from the perspective of people comming into to your Country .That is a one sided argument , what about all the UK born that migrate out ? and there are just as many ! Do your own countrymen then, not put the same social pressures on those countries ?
Lets take you for example and turn it around , say you have the desire to move to Australia as many of your countrymen do .Do you wish you could do so freely without all the crap and redtape ?

The bottomline is how Governments manage their countries, they are complete failures.Offshoring jobs and many other things. Most of the problems in the system are caused by imbalances This is deliberate to keep everyone in the ant farm down and in place .
The social issues stem from both the above and one last thing .Intergration and this I believe is not what it seems .One common complaints is that the foriegn immigrants are racist by banding together and not intergrating .I don't believe this to be the case .1) I believe in many cases they are not made to feel welcome !
2) If you are a stranger in a strange land you gravitate to familiar people .For example you go from the UK to France on holliday.You are in a night club ,would you talk to the local's or do you gravitate to a table of English ? Can you see my point ?
So go hugg a immigrant today, you might be supprised


As for mass immigration there is no such thing ! It is a one on one personal thing no ???
edit on 19-5-2011 by 13th Zodiac because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2011 by 13th Zodiac because: additional comment



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
In my opinion, the short answer is yes. The people should be given a say in who is allowed to immigrate to their country.


Is this on a one on one individual basis ???



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 13th Zodiac
 

I think, largely, you and I come from the same perspective. I too believe that it's the governments, not the immigrants, who are to blame. That's exactly the point of this thread. You raised some issues which I don't feel are entirely appropriate for this thread and I'm probably going to regret responding to them; but here goes...


Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
Using your Country for example.1 it is not Your Country ! 2 the Country does not belong to your Queen ! or your Government ! This world and it's rescources belongs to all living things equally .All living things have a birth right to access of free water for example ? So no government has a right to sieze it, and no councils have a right to charge you for it !

My country does not belong to my Queen or the government - you're right! But let us remember that a government is a by-product of a tribe wishing to govern itself fairly. Our modern western governments have become bloated and do not do what they were originally intended to do, but originally: government = elected members of tribe. The government were of the tribe and they governed in the tribe's best interests. Or do you do deny that human beings are tribal? Furthermore, do you deny the existence of race? You even said it yourself here:

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
2) If you are a stranger in a strange land you gravitate to familiar people .For example you go from the UK to France on holliday.You are in a night club ,would you talk to the local's or do you gravitate to a table of English ? Can you see my point ?

See - people gravitate towards members of their own tribe. A tribe is defined, speaking politically correctly here, by its culture. But culture is a product of ethnicity. So when we gravitate towards human beings that are familiar to us, we are - at the root of it - gravitating towards our own folk groups. And what are nations if not grand examples of similar folk sticking together?


Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
No Government has the right to issue and enforce passports and immigration period ! Do migrating birds such as geese need passports when they cross borders ???

No, but geese generally do not migrate with swallows, as far as I know. Borders themselves are not necessary, or would not be if people weren't drawn to migrate by the promise of money and valued their own heritage.


Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
The whole immigration issue can be summed up under 2 banners ,1 racism or 2 protectionism .Racism, well we don't need to go there as that speaks for it's self .

Well, no, it doesn't really. There are as many different definitions of racism as there are people who use the word. I think racism is wrong, but to me racism is judging someone by their race. However, to some people I know it's racist to even suggest that different races exist and that they originated in different parts of the globe. So before racism can be assumed unquestionably wrong, we would need to define what constitutes racism.


Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
OP you speak from the perspective of people comming into to your Country .That is a one sided argument , what about all the UK born that migrate out ? and there are just as many ! Do your own countrymen then, not put the same social pressures on those countries ?

Are there just as many though? Australia, as a western - white nation, was originally founded by Brits, among other Europeans. So I don't see what difference Brits moving there makes. But anyway - let's say you're correct. By saying I need to take responsibility for ex-Englishmen who've migrated elsewhere, you're actually acknowledging that there exists a common bond and mutual-responsibility between me and members of my ethnic-group/nation. You can't have it both ways. Either ethnic groups have no significance, and I'm not responsible for others in my group; or they do have a significance in which case I can be put to task for the decisions of my fellow kin. Which is it?







 
2

log in

join