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

I think it very much depends on the political party enacting the strict border policy. If it's a party like UKIP or the Republicans under Trump, then yes. This is because issues surrounding immigration and border control are at the forefront of their policy.

On the other hand, if the policies are enacted by a party-in-power which doesn't put immigration as a 'big issue' in their manifesto, then probably not. Countries such as Canada and Australia are examples of this.

Reply 21

MagicNMedicine

20

Border control doesn't promote racism in itself.

However what we may see is that the Conservatives see many other things in society crumbling around them, the NHS, the train network, affordability of housing, and realise that they only have a one-ticket approach to campaign in the election which will be about trying to appeal to peoples' resentment of foreigners by saying we are the party that will be tough on migration, Labour and Lib Dems will be soft on letting foreigners in. If they direct the political discourse in the country in that direction, rather than about actually tackling social problems then it will end up promoting racism.

We saw this in the London mayor election, where Zac Goldsmith pretty much went on a one-ticket approach: Sadiq Khan has spoken at events in the past alongside Muslim speakers with unsavoury political views, therefore Sadiq is going to lead to terrorism. And also trying to stir up his Muslim background with other ethnic groups in London, saying Sadiq wants to take your jewellery and all that. And then Zac pleaded to being the victim saying it was unfair that he was labelled a racist.

Reply 22

jape

16

I don't want to spend an extended period of time in a country I can just walk right into. It's dangerous.

Plus, there's the strain immigration puts on the welfare state and the fact that the welfare state ensures the quality of immigrants who want to come in the first place are sub-par (for clarity, I do not mean "brown", I mean less likely to found businesses and create wealth).

Reply 23

sleepysnooze

3

Original post by thecsstudent

I hope you realize that your arguments about "inheritance", "blood" and "ancestors" are probably the same arguments royalty and aristocracy once used to project as to why they had more rights than anyone else. If we wanted to maximize meritocracy who someone's ancestors are should have no role in what they can make of their future.

except nobody has a right to dominate others via the victims' own money, do they? because that is aristocracy and monarchy (etc). what I'm actually referring to is the continuous, generational struggle for democratic control. we inherit democracy because our forefathers gave it to us from the cold, dead hands of aristocrats, lords, kings, etc (well, theoretically. in the case of britain. which is an example of evolutionary democracy). aristocrats don't have a natural right to rule because it is not axiomatic that we should be ruled by dictators. it is axiomatic that we are ruled by ourselves, because it's our land, our taxes, our society and our business. I hope that provides clarification, because I am by no means using "aristocratic" logic because the means and ends of aristocracy cannot be justified. it would be like saying "my grandfather was a bank thief, therefore I get to keep all the wealth he stole" - how about no - the money he stole belonged legitimately to others, so it never "belonged" to him in the first place, just like the rule of aristocrats.

and if there are no ancestors, what is a nation? just a faceless plot of land? do you not understand that nations are containers of no only social rules but shared histories and bloods as well? I'm not just making that up, that's pretty much a fact. how can you have a nation suddenly spring up as if there was no context for it?

I completely agree that there are differences in cultures between countries and that the people that were born in the same nation usually share a common history (and I say usually because it's probable that most UK citizens do not come from families that have lived in the UK since the 1700s). But to generalize and say that people who come from eastern countries are pro - communism and against democracy is extreme.

no, I said soviet communism degenerated (or simply stalled) the values of those societies - I didn't say they were still communist - I doubt they ever truly were *that* communist. they had it forced upon them.

Why would someone that enjoys and can live in a non-democratic nation move to a democratic one?

because even if they inhabited the nation, they wouldn't join the nation, because in order to be a real member of that nation you have to belong to that nation, i.e. share in its values, customs, beliefs, histories (etc) to some extent, whereas with middle easterners they'd inevitably be stuck in the ideologies of "the old country". that's why naturalisation, when it is legal, takes so long. and even then, it's shaky grounds in my opinion in some cases. and this is why we have "islamic communities" within our otherwise pretty homogenous nation. islam is a splitting of the social fabric because the islamic communities aren't a part of our nation. they are a part of our geography and within the boundaries of our "state", but not our nation, because, by definition, they do not share our values, beliefs, histories (etc). they might have *some* sense of british values, but honestly, you won't find much of it in places like bradford, birmingham, tower hamlets etc. people will tow the "oh I'm british" line in public but the mosques are often hailing allegiance to other nations, especially those like saudi arabia or pakistan, because they get a lot of their money from those nations.

Even if they are forced to immigrate for financial reasons and not political ones they would not move to a democratic nation. You can find racists and communists in every country even in the UK what does that have to do with where a person can live?

there's no such thing as "forced to immigrate for financial reasons" seeing as africa is a place where basically everybody lives in dire poverty, yet they aren't "forced" to move, aren't they
and there will always be racists in every country, but they are more likely to exist in non-western non-liberal nations. i.e. eastern europe being at the top of the bottom, alongside south america, then the middle east and africa being at the bottom. those places simply were not brought up with the handed down logics of tolerance like people in places where the europeans colonised or inhabited. at least usually that's been the case. it is actually the case that colonisation "civilised" many parts of the world. I'm not saying colonisation is good, because it's immoral and wrong, but to recognise a certain outcome from a bad act is not to be deluding oneself.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 24

username1921011

14

Original post by thecsstudent

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.

If there is any point to the nation state then surely it is to promote its citizens (whatever their origin) before the rest of the world. Governments have a responsibility to their constituents and their citizens which means acting in a way that is right for those people first and foremost.

Currently the unemployment level for those seeking work according to the ONS is 1.62m (that is looking for jobs, not economically inactive ie caring for kids etc) Most people need 2 jobs per household to get by and adding people to the system has driven down wages and worker importance. Compare the prevalence of zero hour contracts, minimum wage work per 1000 to say the 1980s and you'll see a higher percentage of people these days have to do hard work for no money with the overhanging issue they can be sacked on a whim or pressured to leave by being given no hours because there are hundreds of people queuing up to take their job as soon as they're sacked.

Perhaps supporting those who are getting screwed by the system, considering Britain has enormous poverty issues. For example food poverty "in 2012-13, the Trussell Trust foodbank network, an Oxfam partner, provided over 350,000 people in the UK with food parcels - more than double the year before" http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/...y/food-poverty "More than 8 million in UK struggle to put food on table, survey says .... Almost 2 million more children than now will be in poverty in 15 years' time, says thinktank" https://www.theguardian.com/society/food-poverty. Fuel poverty "In 2013, the number of fuel poor households in the UK was estimated at around 4.5 million representing 17 per cent of all UK households" https://www.gov.uk/government/collec...rty-statistics etc (I've literally copied and pasted this from another post I made, its important info)

With those stats in mind, surely the government has a responsibility to its citizens to prevent them starving, to allow them on to the housing market (the average age for buying a first house has skyrocketed), to give them a decent standard of life and to not sell them out to globalism. Having workers from all over allowed in unrestricted doesn't benefit the working class, a lot of people who have moved over to work are disillusioned as they work so hard for so little (at least in my anecdotal experience) and it drives down the wage of the current unskilled workers in the country at the time as well as having knock on effects that essentially make them poorer. It benefits business owners and the rich who can exploit this cheap labour at the expense of everyone involved (see sportsdirect which has been in the news for its abuses, amazon has too etc etc).

Plus the principle of unrestricted movement is terrible because it allows everyone to move in and take advantage of a booming economy then move out when that economy subsides (as they always do due to market fluctuation) which badly affects the people too poor to move around for jobs because they have no chance to become better. When literally 300 people can just take your job, there is no security, no happiness as companies leverage your need and the fact you cant climb up the ladder because if you ask for a reasonable wage they'll sack you and bring in someone else. Add to this people use such issues to cash in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/property-market/12157946/Generation-Rent-London-to-become-a-city-of-renters-by-2025.html most of London is rented ie people bought property and knowing there would be a huge need for it screwed over those who want a house because they can't afford to outright buy or mortgage because (a) there's little property, and (b) what property there is is artificially inflated in price due to the greed of those with money meaning its not purchasable on the driven down wage people are offered.

Minimum wage is not a living wage. At a calculation of £6.50 an hour on an average working week a person has, after necessities, around £1000 spare a year or £22.25 a week. At the current over 21 rate (I used £7.20 despite the government website saying £6.95) on the same calculation (not adjusting for inflation which has been high in recent years each year) you get a spare income of £3455 a year, or £72 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXQ8Wdhucdw None of this includes costs of kids or pets, or any other expenses for example this person doesn't have a car (tax, fuel, repairs), and there will be lots of miscellaneous expenses, house repair, luxuries, birthdays etc etc. Long story short, building a financial base from the bottom is hard and is only getting more difficult.

Allowing totally unchecked work migration might be 'just wrong' according to you but it prevents the selling out of the nation states working class to the point they never have the chance to better themselves - I've seen the struggle to keep financially solvent in action (hell to a lesser degree its been what I've grown up with) and it's not a good way to live. Anecdotal example to hammer home the point, a relative lost three days pay because the clutch on their car broke and they couldn't afford the £200 replacement until their next paycheck came in (as it was a driving job for which you had to have your own motor) - living day to day with no security is hard and a lot of the pro-globalist lot dont seem to see this.

Reply 25

astutehirstute

11

Original post by thecsstudent

First of all I repeat I never said there should be no borders. I just said maybe borders should not have their traditional sense of keeping people out but should be used for other reasons.

And I don't think being British or American or whichever other nationality should mean more than what it really is, which is the fact that you were born in a certain country. Also, even if Britain opened its borders the whole world would not move there. Not every person wants to become an immigrant and not every person wants to immigrate to the same country. If more people than the country can handle arrived they would eventually leave if they had no job to keep them there.

Your first point was, when you first made it, and remains now you repeat it, completely asinine. A border which fails to keep "people out" is pointless.

Your second point is so bizarre, it beggars belief. We are an unbelievably rich country in global terms. America is even richer. Lands of milk and honey for the poor, the desperate the sick the deprived.

According to the World Bank 767 million people were living on less than $1.90 a day in 2013.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/poverty-and-shared-prosperity

10.1% of the world's population living on less per day than people in the UK spend on half a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Without borders millions would come here. Millions. There would be nothing to stop them.

Good God, millions are already waiting in camps in Turkey!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36808038

Reply 26

astutehirstute

11

Original post by 999tigger

You just seem to make stupid posts accusing people of being left wing when in fact this wasnt about politics. It was about why we have borders and nationality to which you contribute nothing. What a surprise.Not.

This whole thread is about politics. Immigration and border control is the hottest topic in the whole of British politics. It is radioactive. It is SO toxic that the Prime Minister of our country announced, yesterday, that it is government policy to withdraw from the biggest single market in the world, solely because we can't accept free movement of people from the EU.

And you expect people who live in the political real world, who understand what is politically possible, what will gain democratic consent, to not point how how batshit crazy a proposal to remove ALL borders is? Because borders are "racist"???

As I said and will say again, it is left wing lunacy.

http://noborders.org.uk/aboutnoborders

Reply 27

demaistre

4

So does me locking my door at night mean I hate everyone else?

Reply 28

thecsstudent

OP

13

Original post by demaistre

So does me locking my door at night mean I hate everyone else?

A house and a country are completely different. You own a house and you can let whoever you want in it. Right now it's also a country's right to keep people out. But the question is should you be allowed to keep people out of a country (and I'm talking about people with no criminal record) just because you were born there?

Reply 29

frenchdanielle

1

I don't want to keep people out personally. It doesn't promote unity and diversity, plus also some people need to come here for very important reasons like health. We're all human, we should be able to protect ourselves as a globe, not a nation. Sadly life's not that simple.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 30

demaistre

4

Original post by thecsstudent

A house and a country are completely different. You own a house and you can let whoever you want in it. Right now it's also a country's right to keep people out. But the question is should you be allowed to keep people out of a country (and I'm talking about people with no criminal record) just because you were born there?

One could say the collective mass of humanity that forms a nation owns it, so apart from it being on a much grander scale my example was appropriate.
Yes you should be able to keep people out it's your nation not theirs.

Reply 31

demaistre

4

Original post by frenchdanielle

I don't want to keep people out personally. It doesn't promote unity and diversity, plus also some people need to come here for very important reasons like health. We're all human, we should be able to protect ourselves as a globe, not a nation. Sadly life's not that simple.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Until aliens attempt to invade Earth or a outside threat of similar scale threatens humanity you will never get the majority of people to see humanity as one big thing.

Reply 32

3121

21

If anything it'll do the opposite.

Reply 33

thecsstudent

OP

13

Original post by astutehirstute

Your first point was, when you first made it, and remains now you repeat it, completely asinine. A border which fails to keep "people out" is pointless.

Your second point is so bizarre, it beggars belief. We are an unbelievably rich country in global terms. America is even richer. Lands of milk and honey for the poor, the desperate the sick the deprived.

According to the World Bank 767 million people were living on less than $1.90 a day in 2013.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/poverty-and-shared-prosperity

10.1% of the world's population living on less per day than people in the UK spend on half a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Without borders millions would come here. Millions. There would be nothing to stop them.

Good God, millions are already waiting in camps in Turkey!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36808038

A border that doesn't keep people out is not pointless. There are geographical borders between cities within a country but they are not used to keep people out. They're used for organizational purposes.

And for the second point I obviously don't know how the logistics of allowing the free movement of people would work exactly. I'm just asking whether strict border control could be a form of xenophobia/racism or not.

Reply 34

demaistre

4

The majority of Brits want less immigration according to pretty much every survey I've seen, so more like land lords forcing people into a block of flats when the majority of tenants don't want them.

Reply 35

demaistre

4

The majority of Brits don't want more migration they want less,that doesn't mean there aren't people who want them here just because the majority don't.
The major parties ignore the peoples concerns for the most part as they know the average Brit only ever votes for one of two parties.

Reply 36

thecsstudent

OP

13

Original post by demaistre

One could say the collective mass of humanity that forms a nation owns it, so apart from it being on a much grander scale my example was appropriate.
Yes you should be able to keep people out it's your nation not theirs.

So you're saying that if you're born in an impoverished nation in Africa or simply a country with very high levels of unemployment and low income levels with no prospect of improving within your lifetime you should be doomed to stay there forever and live in poverty simply because the "luckier" ones who were born in a country which right now is in a better situation can keep you out?

Reply 37

Recont

16

Original post by jape

I don't want to spend an extended period of time in a country I can just walk right into. It's dangerous.

Plus, there's the strain immigration puts on the welfare state and the fact that the welfare state ensures the quality of immigrants who want to come in the first place are sub-par (for clarity, I do not mean "brown", I mean less likely to found businesses and create wealth).

Ones that are hunting for benefits put strain on welfare state. Rest are contributing in most cases.

Reply 38

demaistre

4

Original post by thecsstudent

So you're saying that if you're born in an impoverished nation in Africa or simply a country with very high levels of unemployment and low income levels with no prospect of improving within your lifetime you should be doomed to stay there forever and live in poverty simply because the "luckier" ones who were born in a country which right now is in a better situation can keep you out?

If inhabitant of x African country wants to move to y Western nation and y doesn't want them, that is y's choice. X can choose to go to another nation that wants x, y shouldn't be forced to accept x.