Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

"Politicians who support anti-immigration policies are racist"

I'm doing some Spanish homework and I don't have much time to do it so I'm just looking for answers for and against this viewpoint. I already have a few ideas but I'd like some more basically.

Reply 1

JVoorhees

Ridiculous notion. A country without borders is just a land grab.

Reply 2

anarchism101

Depends for what reasons. If for economic reasons, not really. If for some sort of ethno-demographic reason then yes, conclusively.

Reply 3

Bart12345

Neither of the above.

In my view anti-immigration policies can only be considered 'racist' if a form of a belief in one's own supremacy is involved, or a discrimination in law against minorities (apart from discrimination in immigration law).

So a country which does not give minorities equal rights in law, such as a right to a fair trial, or considers itself supreme (which more likely than not will also involve the above-mentioned discrimination in law) would indeed be 'racist'.

A country which wants to
a) Limit immigration in numbers due to concerns on the treasury
b) Limit immigration in numbers due to concerns on the national economy (inc. job market, housing market)
c) Limit immigration in quality due to concerns on wages on a particular sector, industry, region or income decile
d) Limit immigration in quality due to concerns on society or culture (inc. integration)
e) Limit immigration in general due to desire to 'stay the same', be it culturally or demographically
f) Discriminate in immigration by <x factor> due to concerns of the group

cannot possibly be rationally considered as racist. I especially do not understand people who think countries and voters expressing a preference for point e) are racist. It is basically an eagerness to maintain status quo. People who oppose this on grounds of it being racist are delusional and have an ulterior motive.

Reply 4

anarchism101

Original post by Bart12345

I especially do not understand people who think countries and voters expressing a preference for point e) are racist.

Assuming the demographics you want to "stay the same" are those of race/ethnicity (as opposed to say, age structure, population density, education rate, etc), then that is pretty much a textbook definition of racism - discrimination on racial grounds.

Reply 5

Bart12345

Original post by anarchism101

Why?

How is it discriminatory to no longer allow the privilege of immigration because you want to remain as you are?

Since when is a change in race/ethnicity the natural order, and any lack of issuance of immigration papers is a racist artificial policy?

To the contrary, the natural order is a stable society with zero net migration and any attempt to change this is artificial, ergo, someone is not being racist by not issuing visas, you are having an agenda by forcing/encouraging it to happen.

Reply 6

anarchism101

Original post by Bart12345

Why?

How is it discriminatory to no longer allow the privilege of immigration because you want to remain as you are?

As I said previously, if the reasoning for the blocking of immigrants is to ensure a particular ethnic/racial makeup, then that is discrimination on racial grounds. Just as a restaurant turning people away because of a desire to maintain a particular ethnic/racial makeup of current customers would be discrimination on racial grounds.

Since when is a change in race/ethnicity the natural order

Change as such isn't. Freedom of movement (including, of course, the freedom to stay put), however, is by definition the default in the absence of state intervention.

and any lack of issuance of immigration papers is a racist artificial policy?

To the contrary, the natural order is a stable society with zero net migration and any attempt to change this is artificial, ergo, someone is not being racist by not issuing visas, you are having an agenda by forcing/encouraging it to happen.

You are only forcing it to happen if you are forcing those moving to move. If they are moving of their own free will, then you can only either allow it to happen, or forcibly prevent it from happening.

Visas and immigration papers only need to be issued on the assumption that the state would forcibly prevent the movement otherwise. This is a relatively recent (just over a century old) international development - for most of history the assumption was that migration was allowed unless explicitly forbidden, rather than vice versa.

Reply 7

Bart12345

Original post by anarchism101

As I said previously, if the reasoning for the blocking of immigrants is to ensure a particular ethnic/racial makeup, then that is discrimination on racial grounds.

But how?

the 'blocking' of immigrants is to ensure a particular age pyramid, is that discrimination on age grounds/ageist?
Is the blocking of immigrants to ensure a certain level of crime safety a discrimination based on criminal background?

Or is one discrimination less important than the other?

Original post by anarchism101

Just as a restaurant turning people away because of a desire to maintain a particular ethnic/racial makeup of current customers would be discrimination on racial grounds.

Custom is a right not a privilege. Immigration is a privilege and not a right.

A more decent analogy would be to say who has the privilege to live in your house, and it's pretty reasonable to decide who has the privilege to take up a room in your house based on whatever makeup necessary, since it's your house and if you want it to stay the same then it should.

Original post by anarchism101

Change as such isn't. Freedom of movement (including, of course, the freedom to stay put), however, is by definition the default in the absence of state intervention.

Perhaps in an anarchist world.

Not even medieval villages had a multicultural makeup.

Original post by anarchism101

You are encouraging it to happen.

And no, you are not allowing it to happen or forcibly preventing it from happening. You are in control, so you are either allowing it to happen or doing nothing - ergo the person cannot enter.

Original post by anarchism101

Visas and immigration papers only need to be issued on the assumption that the state would forcibly prevent the movement otherwise. This is a relatively recent (just over a century old) international development - for most of history the assumption was that migration was allowed unless explicitly forbidden, rather than vice versa.

?????

...in which country was this...?

Reply 8

anarchism101

Original post by Bart12345

Yes.

Or is one discrimination less important than the other?

Matter of opinion and not really relevant. OP asked about racism, not ageism.

Custom is a right not a privilege. Immigration is a privilege and not a right.

Why?

Also, restaurants/bars/retailers/etc turn potential customers away for plenty of reasons (e.g. there's a dress code/it's a residents-only service/you haven't got ID/etc). Indeed, protected characteristics (i.e. race/ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc) are pretty much the only reasons you can't be turned away for. And even sometimes those are ignored (e.g. gyms and swimming pools sometimes have men-only and women-only sessions).

A more decent analogy would be to say who has the privilege to live in your house, and it's pretty reasonable to decide who has the privilege to take up a room in your house based on whatever makeup necessary, since it's your house and if you want it to stay the same then it should.

This is a much worse analogy. If anything, the house is more analogous to the restaurant, since both are private property with clearly defined owners with the right to dispose of them as they see fit (personally, as an anarchist, I don't really value the propertarian argument that much, but it is at least consistent).

Also, I've bolded "reasonable" here because you seem to be falling into the trap of conflating normative values into what is actually essentially a qualitative question. Whether an point of view or course of action is racist is a qualitative judgement. The "reasonableness" or justifiability of an action is a normative judgement which is not necessarily relevant to whether it is racist. If you want to argue that a view/act which is racist can also be reasonable or justified, go ahead. But that's a different question to whether it is racist.

Perhaps in an anarchist world.

Well, anything that is the default in the absence of state intervention would by definition also be true of an anarchist world, that's obvious.

Not even medieval villages had a multicultural makeup.

What does that have to do with whether the villagers had freedom of movement?

No, if you do nothing, the person can enter. What will stop them? The deployment of any border guards/police/army or the erection of any barriers would clearly be doing something.

?????

...in which country was this...?