Does a strict border control (e.g. after Brexit) promote racism and/or xenophobia?

After Theresa May basically saying that Brexit's main achievement would be to contain EU immigration I realized that this sounds wrong. Why is there this notion that someone deserves to have a job in a certain country more than someone else because they were born there (essentially because of their nationality)? Maybe I'm completely wrong but I feel like in general laws about border control promote racism to an extent (since it creates an "us" vs "the others" mentality) and that whether you are a citizen of a country or not should not play a role on whether you can work there or not. I know this sounds kind of extreme so I'm wondering what other people think on that.

Because we want to prioritise British citizens for jobs in Britain. It has nothing to do with race, but the left wants to portray it that way so they can cry racism because they have no substantiated arguments. A black British citizen is just as entitled at the opportunity to get a job as much as the white person.

Applying your logic, we could question why any country has any borders at all

It should create an us mentality because that is what part of belonging to a nation is all bout.

Should you get greater rights to work in a country and use its services than someone not born here? Ofc you should as thats the privilege of being a citizen and the fact the society is able to offer services is down to the citizens who went before, most likely your parents. Its perfectly fine to give priority to citizens of that nation.

Would you be happy if people came to stay at your house whenever they wanted?
Its neither racist or xenophobic. The rules arent based on race.

But my point is why should British citizens be prioritised? The country in which someone is born by luck shouldn't affect the chances they have to get a job if they are willing to move somewhere else.
I'm not saying countries shouldn't have borders I'm just saying the role of the borders should not be to keep law abiding people out of a country.

I do understand the argument about being able to use the services of a country because of citizens who were there before and paid taxes etc. (even though theoretically a citizen pays taxes for services they use themselves not for those their children will use in the future).

Owning a property and saying "Only British people can enter" is racist. You might be perfectly entitled to do it according to the law because you own the property but that doesn't mean that the idea behind it isn't racist.

The next time someone says to me, what exactly do you mean by the lunatic left? Aren't you being a bit harsh?

I shall lead them to the original post on this thread.

Services and infrastructure are built up over time. This will have been started off by their parents and is continued by themselves for their children, so you are wrong. You need to see the bigger picture.

Racism isnt illegal if its private to that individual and doesnt fall foul of any particular public order offence, such as incitement. You can prevent anyone entering a private dwelling if its yours. You cnat oif you offer a service to the public, though.

Whats your example got to do with your OP? Seems completely irrelevant.

All countries control their borders, so they know who is coming and going and only those it wants are allowed in. What right does someone who hasnt contributed have to ccome and take advantage of whats on offer? None.

Using the same argument unemployed people who haven't "contributed" because they have no income should not be citizens of the country either.

Also if services and infrastructure only exist because of past citizens who paid taxes no one would have to pay for them again. More expenses incur and new citizens pay for them and thereby can use them.

The person doesnt say they have any political preference. they dont even indicate if they are British and they don't appear to be very old either. Why do you always have to spin it into politics, when its a straight question about countries and borders. Unsurpisingly you provide no constructive answer.

I treated it as a lunatic left wing political post because it WAS a lunatic left wing political post.

Straight out of the No Borders Network.

I treated it as a lunatic left wing political post because it WAS a lunatic left wing political post.

Straight out of the No Borders Network.

Without boarders, what does citizenship and nationality even mean? Being British would no longer mean anything. If Britain is to survive as a nation, realistically, the whole world can't come here.

After Theresa May basically saying that Brexit's main achievement would be to contain EU immigration I realized that this sounds wrong. Why is there this notion that someone deserves to have a job in a certain country more than someone else because they were born there (essentially because of their nationality)?

Maybe I'm completely wrong but I feel like in general laws about border control promote racism to an extent (since it creates an "us" vs "the others" mentality) and that whether you are a citizen of a country or not should not play a role on whether you can work there or not. I know this sounds kind of extreme so I'm wondering what other people think on that.

that's the idea of citizenship - you're born here, you belong here. your blood is bonded to the land in some political sense, because this land was made into this democracy by your ancestors, and because of them you have the privilege to inherit your citizenship. harsh but that's the way it pretty much has to be in terms of the west vs the rest. our ancestors created this nation-state and we are the inheritors by blood and birth right.
if you pay taxes here, or your ancestors paid taxes here, then you get certain rights in return for those taxes, such as the right to vote. if we allowed everybody to come here, what would be the point of citizenship? what would be the point of the nation-state? the nation-state isn't just some imaginary concept - it represents a historical community of not just a way of life but the representation of blood, sacrifice and struggle that our ancestors endured to get us to the point where we are today - we wouldn't be a democracy without a nation and a concept of the continuation of blood and ideas. it represents the past and the present and hopefully the future. there is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of a legitimacy of a particular people, or nation, existing in a certain geographical space. the nation is one level higher than the family - and if families have the right to exist as a specific and unique group in the world, why can't nations? it's not to be taken to be absolutely exclusive in the sense that you can never come here and join us (because obviously families grow via marriages to other families after all), it's simply a matter of whether you are socially qualified to even be able to integrate with it in the first place.
people can migrate here, but if you're suggesting that we abandon the idea of citizenship and hence we ought to allow anybody to live and settle here via their pleasure, then democracy will literally rupture, there wouldn't be any space left to live, all the jobs will be taken by people who used to work probably for literal peanuts and our way of life will simply whither away in favour of whatever culture moves here in the largest numbers.
do you want a UK where it's no longer the UK and a settlement of, say, the middle east? or africa? or do you want the enlightenment-style western liberal democracy that has existed here for over 100 years? because if we let in all of those former civilisations, our way of life will be displaced by islam and similar ways of life.
immigration policy can literally be the self-destruction button of a nation-state, and our nations, like others in europe, have been messing around with that button without realising the consequences. the consequences are that we are a nation that has 4 out of 10 of the most islamic cities in europe. literally. no joke. look it up.



...but we are "us"...and they literally are "them". and I'm not talking about race. I'm talking about civilisations, and the clashes between them. you cannot just pretend that people overseas don't want our way of life to end in favour of their own. you'd have to be both blind and deaf to assume that. in the middle east, they've had misogyny, brutality, homophobia, dictation etc for literally thousands of years and they are barely closer to democracy overall than they ever were. so to assume that people are just going to move here and suddenly say "yes! I get it now! democracy is the true way!" after only spending a few days, months or years here is like thinking that a UK citizen would suddenly move to baghdad and, after a few months, say "allah hu'akbar! islam is the true way in life!" - is that likely? so why would a muslim from the middle east suddenly accept democracy after literally thousands of years of their people and their families being indoctrinated into such a culture that specifically rejects that enlightenment stuff? so you must understand that there *are* really divisions between cultures. there is the west, and then the rest. and thankfully, "the west" isn't just in the literal west but also in the east (i.e. japan, hong kong, south korea). "the rest" is luckily arrested to the middle east and africa mostly. they need to democratise over hundreds and hundreds of years before we can truly say "yes, these people are mostly fit to be able to move here in these kinds of numbers without social problems".

BUT I'm kind of moving completely off point because this is EU migration, not international migration
...but that's not to say that eastern europe is seriously part of "the west" yet, to be honest. poland, romania, serbia, former yugoslavia, etc were soviet satellites for generations. it's not like you can just snap your fingers and expect democracy to embed itself within one generation like it did in the UK over hundreds of years. poland, for example, is actually pretty racist. and against abortion rights. they have a whole ****ing lot of social development to do. but that's what soviet-style communism will do to a nation.