The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Original post by KardasDragon
That is actually sort of my point. Polish people aren't harming British society. What everyone seems to be afraid of are Africans and Arabs.

Britain is free to set up restrictions on non-EU immigration however it wants. Plenty of East European countries have already done so.

Leaving the EU won't alleviate any of the problems in Britain. The whole "immigrants are taking our jobs" rhetoric is *******s. Some industries are just dead and will remain dead, while others are too "menial" in order for Brits to take up. Most people who pick fruit in England are Poles because Brits don't want to do it themselves.


Don't ask me I voted based on sovereignty, it's the 'conservative' government being idiots that allow in the mass immigration from outside the EU.
Original post by demaistre
Not at all unless you're a country like the US or Brazil country and nation are pretty much the same thing.
My people is a no more a meaningless term than 'my family' is, and with this comment you show you have no clue why my side of the argument think as they do.


My people and my family are completely different. My family has a strict definition of people I am related to by blood. The definition of my people varies from person to person and it is completely subjective.
Original post by Nottie
Not everyone can be scientists or engineers. This jobs require intelligence and compassion and the main purpose for it is to explore the world around us, not prevent engineers and their families from starving.
Now, almost anyone can work in lidl or be a cleaner. These jobs usually aren't paid well and, in my opinion, exist to support those who for various reasons can't get a high tech job like engineering. For most of these people its a matter of having a house and food.
My point being, there is a distinction between the jobs you listed and the jobs that are usually in question when someone says 'foreigners steal our jobs'



You shouldn't also be forced to move out of your country, change your friends, environment and culture.
Also, how do you know who is a 'law abiding person' and who is a scumbag who wants to live on benefits?


By law abiding person I mean a person with no criminal record.
Original post by demaistre
Don't ask me I voted based on sovereignty, it's the 'conservative' government being idiots that allow in the mass immigration from outside the EU.


So wouldnt you tehn agree that is is essential for us to remain a a part of the EEA and EFTA? A Norway or Switzerland style deal.

UK is not member of Schengen, so even with the whole EEA thing it is still as free as it wants to be in regard to border security.
Original post by KardasDragon
So wouldnt you tehn agree that is is essential for us to remain a a part of the EEA and EFTA? A Norway or Switzerland style deal.

UK is not member of Schengen, so even with the whole EEA thing it is still as free as it wants to be in regard to border security.


No as then the EU parliament still has some say over us, even if it's the tiniest amount.
We should realign from Europe to the Anglosphere anything that furthers that goal I support.
Original post by AperfectBalance
Because EVERY country has a duty to serve its people over other people, If I went to live in poland and I was told that I needed to bring skills into the country and was expected to have a job within X months and had to be able to support myself I would be perfectly fine with that


Decisions in democratic countries are made based on what the majority votes. And that's the way it should be. So in a way yes, the country should operate based on what the majority of its citizens want because that is democratic. But the decisions the majority makes, like strict border control, aren't automatically non-racists, neither should the people of a country be only the people that were born there.
Original post by KardasDragon
That is actually sort of my point. Polish people aren't harming British society. What everyone seems to be afraid of are Africans and Arabs.

Britain is free to set up restrictions on non-EU immigration however it wants. Plenty of East European countries have already done so.

Leaving the EU won't alleviate any of the problems in Britain. The whole "immigrants are taking our jobs" rhetoric is *******s. Some industries are just dead and will remain dead, while others are too "menial" in order for Brits to take up. Most people who pick fruit in England are Poles because Brits don't want to do it themselves.


You think that when britain was mostly Brits that we didnt have people doing all the menial jobs, we have plenty of people now that are willing to do them and no one wants 0 immigrants we just need to control it to keep the British people and the immigrants already living here legally safe and to keep Britain strong
Original post by ThatOldGuy
Let's take this down to a micro-level.

Do you open your own home up to anyone who might come in? If not, why do you have a greater right to your home than anyone else. Shouldn't everyone have a right to every home? I'm not saying there shouldn't be doors, but that doors should have a different purpose than they do now.


Once you have an answer to that which you feel isn't racist, you will have the exact same answer to why immigration should be controlled that isn't racist.


A home and a country are not an exact analogy. A more appropriate analogy as I think someone mentioned before is a block of flats and a country. Yes, you can probably use your power to keep people of different nationalities out of your block of flats but that doesn't automatically mean that your motive for doing so is correct.
Original post by heri2rs
British citizens are not prioritised relative to migrants. The British people want a strong border so they can get jobs without being undercut by migrants who work for less. It has nothing to do with xenophobia. We don't have an irrational fear of foreigners. Brits just want jobs. British people wont be prioritised ahead of migrants who already live here, because that is up to employers.

What if everyone was law abiding? Should they all be able to come in?


and whose to blame for that? The migrant who goes to the UK looking to better themself or the employer who knowingly and willingly breaks the law by paying them under the minimum wage?
Original post by demaistre
The funniest reply I get to this attitude is people going 'but what about Spain Brits don't assimilate over there ha got you' and I agree all countries should have it.


You speak the truth keep it up.

Sure there are Brits that dont assimilate and I agree that is wrong, never have I said that all British people are the best. I dislike british people that scrounge benefits that dont deserve them as much as a black guy that does the same.
Original post by KardasDragon
So wouldnt you tehn agree that is is essential for us to remain a a part of the EEA and EFTA? A Norway or Switzerland style deal.

UK is not member of Schengen, so even with the whole EEA thing it is still as free as it wants to be in regard to border security.



No it isnt. It cant rpevent anyone from the EY coming in although it can do border checks. Its the free movement of people coming to live here that has been one of the major issues. Evidently the givernment dont think its essential to stay in the EEA, although they would like to continue trade.
Original post by thecsstudent
A home and a country are not an exact analogy. A more appropriate analogy as I think someone mentioned before is a block of flats and a country. Yes, you can probably use your power to keep people of different nationalities out of your block of flats but that doesn't automatically mean that your motive for doing so is correct.


But its the people who own the flats and run them that get to decide i.e the management company. they are perfectly entitled to prevent strangers coming in who have nothing to do with the flats. the motives of the givernment are to act in the best interests of its people. If it decides it doesnt want just anyone coming here, then it has a system of immigration just like the one run by the government of the country of the non Uk citizen. If we dont wnat people coming in that is the right of our elected government to enforce. Its outrageous you think otherwise.
Original post by 999tigger
But its the people who own the flats and run them that get to decide i.e the management company. they are perfectly entitled to prevent strangers coming in who have nothing to do with the flats. the motives of the givernment are to act in the best interests of its people. If it decides it doesnt want just anyone coming here, then it has a system of immigration just like the one run by the government of the country of the non Uk citizen. If we dont wnat people coming in that is the right of our elected government to enforce. Its outrageous you think otherwise.


This is not the part I disagree with. I completely agree that citizens of a country should have the right to keep people out if they want to, no doubt about that. What I'm saying is, is the fact that they want to keep people out a byproduct of or a cause for xenophobia?
Original post by thecsstudent
This is not the part I disagree with. I completely agree that citizens of a country should have the right to keep people out if they want to, no doubt about that. What I'm saying is, is the fact that they want to keep people out a byproduct of or a cause for xenophobia?


Wanting to put your people first does not mean you have an irrational fear of foreigners.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by thecsstudent
This is not the part I disagree with. I completely agree that citizens of a country should have the right to keep people out if they want to, no doubt about that. What I'm saying is, is the fact that they want to keep people out a byproduct of or a cause for xenophobia?


Its chicken or egg. There is some xenophobia, but there is always a variety of opinions. There is a lot of ill will towards muslims due to integration , terrorism and the fact a signifcant number of English people arent keen on taking refugees.

All these problems create more xenophobia. That makes them more sensitive when it comes to border control. their right. Not everyone is xenophobic though.
Original post by thecsstudent
This is not the part I disagree with. I completely agree that citizens of a country should have the right to keep people out if they want to, no doubt about that. What I'm saying is, is the fact that they want to keep people out a byproduct of or a cause for xenophobia?


I think its a distorted question. It would only be xenophobic if that was the driving intention, when in fact there are very real and practical reasons why YJ citizens wish to protect the UK and control the amount of people who come here. If there were no controls it would be a disaster and people from poorer countries would overwhelm us. Self protection and looking after your own interests is not xenophobic.
Under an 'open border' policy, things would become worse for everyone, including immigrants. The UK's job market, infrastructure, housing market and social services can only support so many people. A massive influx of unskilled, financially unsupported immigrants (because that is what would happen) would make poverty and unemployment worse. Enormous slums would appear all over the country.

No. A country needs to control who it lets in and how many. It needs to be able to prioritise human capital that would benefit the economy. Things like visas, work permits and study permits actually make sense.
Original post by thecsstudent
A home and a country are not an exact analogy. A more appropriate analogy as I think someone mentioned before is a block of flats and a country. Yes, you can probably use your power to keep people of different nationalities out of your block of flats but that doesn't automatically mean that your motive for doing so is correct.


The home is a much better analogy than a block of flats. A block of flats is not a composite of interdependent resources like a home is. For instance: You wouldn't have to feed someone in a particular block of flats, nor are you competing for resources within said block of flats. Blocks of flats also do not have real heads who implement true rules in most cases, like a home(Head of household) or country have(Government). Also, someone within a country is far more capable of inflicting harm to said country and its citizens than someone outside the country(Similar to how someone in your home is far more capable of inflicting harm than one outside the home but in a similar block).

A 'Block' is a set of independent homes linked only by proximity. A country and home are linked by access to resources, access to rules-within-boundary and capability of harm.

So now that you can see why home is a far better analogy than block of flats, please follow the thought pattern and explain the answer to my original questions. That will no doubt explain why it's not racist to implement controls, because the exact same reasons you lock your door is the exact same reason border control occurs.
Original post by ThatOldGuy
The home is a much better analogy than a block of flats. A block of flats is not a composite of interdependent resources like a home is. For instance: You wouldn't have to feed someone in a particular block of flats, nor are you competing for resources within said block of flats. Blocks of flats also do not have real heads who implement true rules in most cases, like a home(Head of household) or country have(Government). Also, someone within a country is far more capable of inflicting harm to said country and its citizens than someone outside the country(Similar to how someone in your home is far more capable of inflicting harm than one outside the home but in a similar block).

A 'Block' is a set of independent homes linked only by proximity. A country and home are linked by access to resources, access to rules-within-boundary and capability of harm.

So now that you can see why home is a far better analogy than block of flats, please follow the thought pattern and explain the answer to my original questions. That will no doubt explain why it's not racist to implement controls, because the exact same reasons you lock your door is the exact same reason border control occurs.


A home is owned by a single entity and the people that live in it have strong interpersonal relationships and all of them come in direct contact with each other everyday. You don't let someone who has no connection to anyone in the house move in with you not because they were born in a different house so they should stay there forever but because you don't personally know them and do not have with them the personal relationship socially required for them to move into your house. A country is a completely different story. You don't know everyone in your country nor do you have a personal relationship with everyone of them. The purpose for which people live in the same home is completely different to the purpose for which people live in the same country. You can't put the one next to the other like this.
Original post by thecsstudent
A home is owned by a single entity and the people that live in it have strong interpersonal relationships and all of them come in direct contact with each other everyday. You don't let someone who has no connection to anyone in the house move in with you not because they were born in a different house so they should stay there forever but because you don't personally know them and do not have with them the personal relationship socially required for them to move into your house. A country is a completely different story. You don't know everyone in your country nor do you have a personal relationship with everyone of them. The purpose for which people live in the same home is completely different to the purpose for which people live in the same country. You can't put the one next to the other like this.


What difference does it make if you know them or not? And why do you need a personal social relationship with them? I happen to know lots of people who just started university and ended up in the same flat as people of vastly different backgrounds and no social relationship. When they moved in to Halls, they did join with numerous other people - And yet, they still lock their doors.

So now that I have given examples of blocks of flats where what you said is simply not the case, can you answer my question? Why do you not let anyone at any time come in to your home? Do you lock your home? Why can't anyone just go in to your home at any time? Do you think they don't deserve a home? Are you heartless?

Quick Reply