What is wrong with border controls?
- Thread starter SuburbanCasual
- Start date
snorbury said:
I describe myself a Conservative Nationalist. I get on with all my neighbours, including a black Kenyan, an Australian Jew, an Iraqi and a second generation British middleastern family.
I think you're getting your nationalists mixed up with your racists, IMHO.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
tbaldwin said:
The figures you put forward are a complete exaggeration made up to give your weak argument some legitimacy.
It is only in recent times that states have had immigration controls. I don't recall in the fifties massive hoards of people crossing borders to come here.
Most of those that have recently come to work here from poland have now reportedly returned home. When it comes down to it, home is where people want to be.
What would your response be if the Spainish authorities decided to repatriate those hundreds of thousands of middle-aged and elderly UK ex-pats who have settled there?
MC5 said:
1 Of course they are BUT nobody knows how many people would come. The govt predicted 15,000 poles would come to the UK for work................
2 Very very weak arguement.In the 50s the only time anyone apart from the very rich went abroad was when there was a war...My Grans generation never even went up North let alone abroad.
3 Complete bollocks.
4 Wouldnt mind at all.
1 So your point was preety meaningless
2 Its a lot easier to migrate if youve got money regardless of immigration controls...Many migrants to the UK are amongst the richest people in the countries they come from.
3 Based on what? Not from what is see in London and knowing a fiar few poles thats not what they say at all. The Guardian polish special mentioned a polish mag in london claiming there was 1 million poles in the UK...
4 So do i,but i also bet people who cant get inot the UK mind..But everytime somebody minds something doesnt mean we need to change policy,does it?
2 Its a lot easier to migrate if youve got money regardless of immigration controls...Many migrants to the UK are amongst the richest people in the countries they come from.
3 Based on what? Not from what is see in London and knowing a fiar few poles thats not what they say at all. The Guardian polish special mentioned a polish mag in london claiming there was 1 million poles in the UK...
4 So do i,but i also bet people who cant get inot the UK mind..But everytime somebody minds something doesnt mean we need to change policy,does it?
Dissident Junk
picking oakum
What's wrong with border controls?
I'd like to think about this differently, if I may, and also refer to this . . .
This point of MC5's is interesting because until relatively recently (EU etc) a UK citizen needed to obtain a visa to visit another European country. Many non-EU citizens need to get a visa to visit the UK (Jamaicans, for example, now need one). This is a form of border control, whether it works or not.
So if we disapprove of border controls, then we would argue against the visa system. Do we really want to do that? What are the implications of having no visa system?
And when it comes down to communities, lets not forget that many city and town communities, historically, had border controls - they had walls and gates, with watchmen and guards.
In fact, it could be fair to say that some city/town communities in the UK have spent more years having border controls in the form of walls and gates, than not having some form of control. So this notion of no border controls for communities is quite a modern phenomenon, rather than the other way round (for many cities in the UK, wall use ended between the 16th and 17th centuries).
If we are anti-border controls, then we should consider whether the walling practice of medieval towns was wrong. But was it?
The Ring of Steel is a type of border control for the city of London. Are we saying this is wrong? Considering why it was implemented?
To me, border controls are primarily defence mechanisms, not racist ones. And I dislike the racist argument used to blind concerns about whether or not we may need a strenghtening of border controls in some areas.
Again, the reason why massive hordes of people did not enter Britain in the 50s was that, either, they could not afford the journey, and there were not so many ways to get here. Airtravel was the preserve of the rich, as was passage on a boat . . . which is why early Muslim communities (in Liverpool, for example) were sailors. Remember: WI immigration was supported by British companies, in the form of a promise of jobs once they got off the boat, which made the expense seem viable. Again, British migration to Australia was supported for years by assisted passage.
I think Britain has fewer border countrols now than it has done for hundreds of years, if you consider both state and interior controls. And the cost to get to British shores has dropped dramatically, and it is easier than ever to travel.
I'd like to think about this differently, if I may, and also refer to this . . .
MC5 said:
This point of MC5's is interesting because until relatively recently (EU etc) a UK citizen needed to obtain a visa to visit another European country. Many non-EU citizens need to get a visa to visit the UK (Jamaicans, for example, now need one). This is a form of border control, whether it works or not.
So if we disapprove of border controls, then we would argue against the visa system. Do we really want to do that? What are the implications of having no visa system?
And when it comes down to communities, lets not forget that many city and town communities, historically, had border controls - they had walls and gates, with watchmen and guards.
In fact, it could be fair to say that some city/town communities in the UK have spent more years having border controls in the form of walls and gates, than not having some form of control. So this notion of no border controls for communities is quite a modern phenomenon, rather than the other way round (for many cities in the UK, wall use ended between the 16th and 17th centuries).
If we are anti-border controls, then we should consider whether the walling practice of medieval towns was wrong. But was it?
The Ring of Steel is a type of border control for the city of London. Are we saying this is wrong? Considering why it was implemented?
To me, border controls are primarily defence mechanisms, not racist ones. And I dislike the racist argument used to blind concerns about whether or not we may need a strenghtening of border controls in some areas.
Again, the reason why massive hordes of people did not enter Britain in the 50s was that, either, they could not afford the journey, and there were not so many ways to get here. Airtravel was the preserve of the rich, as was passage on a boat . . . which is why early Muslim communities (in Liverpool, for example) were sailors. Remember: WI immigration was supported by British companies, in the form of a promise of jobs once they got off the boat, which made the expense seem viable. Again, British migration to Australia was supported for years by assisted passage.
I think Britain has fewer border countrols now than it has done for hundreds of years, if you consider both state and interior controls. And the cost to get to British shores has dropped dramatically, and it is easier than ever to travel.
Pigeon said:Dude, keep yr wig on. I made a flippant comment about your claim to know what "they" would all say. Chill.
Mind you, if forced repatriation isn't racist, I'm the Grand Wizard of the KKK.
If you're the grand wizard of the KKK your're not fucking welcome on this messageboard.
PROVE to me that forced repatriations are racist, they are no such thing.
Ah, well- best not answer it then, eh?tbaldwin said:
tbaldwin said:
So "the point" is whatever you choose it to be at any given time. Bit of a Lewis Carroll fan, are we?
Oddly enough, mind, I though of you the other day watching a channel 4 news report about "illegal" immigrants travelling from Africa to the Canary Islands. Those fortunate enough to actually survive the journey end up locked in a detention centre built to hold 300 but actually housing something like 1600. They're literally lying on top of each other. And each and every one of them was adamant that, in the same circumstances, they'd do it again, control or no control.
So forget about some hypothetical humanitarian disaster: deal with the one we've got now.
TonkaToy said:
What's the purpose of forced repatriation, of immigration control, other than the exclusion of individual men and women deemed undesirable by the state?
Automatically, some "mainly white" people become citizens with rights while other "mainly brown" people, to use your words, become shuttlecocks to be bounced from one state to another.
Sounds purty dam racist to me.
Similar threads
