Nationhood far exceeds the dimensions of its borders and its governments' immigration policy.
Yes, and people here are also confusing "nation" and "state".
By the way, Rider Nation will have a pavilion (including "food you can find around Mosaic Stadium") at Folkfest in Saskatoon this year. Should we in Rider Nation be allowed to expel Stampeders fans from our mighty shores?
Are you guys arguing about what Sven said "What would a progressive immigration policy look like" or what Bec. de Corbin said:
"So you're for totally open boarders where people can come and go as they please without restrictions on how long people stay or what they do to support themselves? Do I understand that correctly?
[talking to Cueball]"
Because man, I'd feel awkward and put on the spot if I were Sven, wondering what on earth I said to get people so riled up.
Anything to say on point? Or are we going to go off on another meta-meta-discussion about personal politics on Babble?
I said, Sven's question was a hostile question and outlined why I thought so, anything to say on the issue itself? I outlined in detail my answer to that question, and subsequent questions.
I said that I considered Sven's question a hostile question. And articulated an argument for why that was. That is not a personal attack.
You called me on nothing.
You then proceeded to enter into one of these macho "if you knew anything about 'real life'" tropes. No argument. Ad hominem one-ups-manship with no basis in any kind of real knowledge about me. Pure presumption. An absolutely baseless attack.
For that you get the "Saskatoon" quip. It was om your level.
Anything to say on point?.
I thought I just did, and I have made a few points WRT the original topic already. I might remind you too to pay more attention to the topic at hand and less to others' behaviour.
Are we done?
Anything to say on point? Or are we going to go off on another meta-meta-discussion about personal politics on Babble?
I said, Sven's question was a hostile question and outlined why I thought so, anything to say on the issue itself? I outlined in detail my answer to that question, and subsequent questions.
I'm merely confused as to why you are targeting Sven, when your [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/racistxenoph... response[/url] on how the tactic of demanding that abstractions be applicable in the real world is used to try to invalidate worthy ideals, was directed at Bec.de.Corbin.
I have no idea how asking "what would a progressive immigration policy look like" in any way is "a hostile question aimed at derailing this discussion into a debate about "absolute" ideas judged on the basis of whether they can be achieved or not, and in so doing remove any useful standard of judgment"
Nationhood far exceeds the dimensions of its borders and its governments' immigration policy.
Yes, and people here are also confusing "nation" and "state".
By the way, Rider Nation will have a pavilion (including "food you can find around Mosaic Stadium") at Folkfest in Saskatoon this year. Should we in Rider Nation be allowed to expel Stampeders fans from our mighty shores?
Well Manitobans at least for that "banjo" slur.... if we hadn't already turned it on its head and made them eat it.
But a Rider Nation pavilion? When I think of Folklorama in Winnipeg (which stretches over two weeks, and where there are actually different pavillions for different cultures within some countries) that is a bit embarrasing.
(edit)
it is particularly embarrasing for a city of this size which doesn't even have a proper mediterranean deli - even though we have enough Asian and eastern grocers. Frankly good access to food is the one thing I miss after moving here.
On babble, a question is never just a question, or so it seems. 
So you're for totally open boarders where people can come and go as they please without restrictions on how long people stay or what they do to support themselves? Do I understand that correctly?
[talking to Cueball]
So, obviously the ultimate and ideal immigration policy is no immigration policy at all. One that is entirely open in an ideal sense. This standard can now be applied to the reality and we can easily see that the more open an immigration policy is, the closer it is to the ideal, and all immigration policies can be judged by that standard.
Thanks for the answer... I wasn't sniping at you by the way, it was an honest question. I was a bit confused as to what you were implying. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.
Well Manitobans at least for that "banjo" slur.... if we hadn't already turned it on its head and made them eat it.
But a Rider Nation pavilion? When I think of Folklorama in Winnipeg (which stretches over two weeks, and where there are actually different pavillions for different cultures within some countries) that is a bit embarrasing.
it is particularly embarrasing for a city of this size which doesn't even have a proper mediterranean deli - even though we have enough Asian and eastern grocers. Frankly good access to food is the one thing I miss after moving here.
[/quote]
I thought a Rider invented the term "Banjo Bowl"
As for exotic food stores, we're way better than we were ten years ago, when all we had were a couple of Chinese groceries on 20th Street. Way back there was an international food store on Broadway, but I think Superstore's competitive edge drove them out of business.
We now have three Halal stores, when three years ago we had none. The store on 22nd is getting better all the time. I was there yesterday and found a few Lebanese items that I used to be able to find only in Edmonton.
@ a-Q
Nope, it was in fact someone else (in this case a member of the Bombers) making a slur about people from Saskatchewan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjo_Bowl
(edit)
though it is too bad the place out in Sutherland doesn't have samosas any more. THey were very good.
I think I would have a hard time surviving here if it were not for Yip Hongs. I still have to go to Winnipeg for Caribbean, and Regina for German and Italian food, though.
So you're for totally open boarders where people can come and go as they please without restrictions on how long people stay or what they do to support themselves? Do I understand that correctly?
[talking to Cueball]
So, obviously the ultimate and ideal immigration policy is no immigration policy at all. One that is entirely open in an ideal sense. This standard can now be applied to the reality and we can easily see that the more open an immigration policy is, the closer it is to the ideal, and all immigration policies can be judged by that standard.
Thanks for the answer... I wasn't sniping at you by the way, it was an honest question. I was a bit confused as to what you were implying. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.
I didn't think you were, which is why I answered it fully and completely.
Anything to say on point?.
I thought I just did, and I have made a few points WRT the original topic already. I might remind you too to pay more attention to the topic at hand and less to others' behaviour.
Are we done?
Sure. But I still don't see how anything you said was on point. First you indicated your objection to the imaginary pile up on Sven. Then you entered into a meta discussion about the police, and asserted (I guess) that you are more "wordly" than I, or some such thing.
I don't see what any of that had to do with immigration.
Anything to say on point? Or are we going to go off on another meta-meta-discussion about personal politics on Babble?
I said, Sven's question was a hostile question and outlined why I thought so, anything to say on the issue itself? I outlined in detail my answer to that question, and subsequent questions.
I'm merely confused as to why you are targeting Sven, when your [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/racistxenoph... response[/url] on how the tactic of demanding that abstractions be applicable in the real world is used to try to invalidate worthy ideals, was directed at Bec.de.Corbin.
I have no idea how asking "what would a progressive immigration policy look like" in any way is "a hostile question aimed at derailing this discussion into a debate about "absolute" ideas judged on the basis of whether they can be achieved or not, and in so doing remove any useful standard of judgment"
You don't? I thought you said my response was well worded. Maybe not since you are confused. It is a very simple thing really.
First, get someone to assert and absolute ideal principle.
Second, show how that principle is impossible in the real world.
Third, since it has been shown that the principle is invalid in the "real world", it is challenged as "unworkable", "silly", "naive" and so on. Thus the principle has been rendered functionless and intert,
We can now suggest, for example, that because nothing conforms to the ideal, any criticism of any real world results not only come form a viewpoint that is "silly", "unworkable" or "naive" but that they are ultimately "hypocritical", since all forms fail to conform to the ideal to a greater or lesser extent. Therefore we have no right to judge one over another, since all fail. Not only that, because our principle has been rendered inert, we now no longer have any standard at all for comparison
The status quo assessment has prevailed with a shrug of the shoulders and a sigh: "oh well, it is not a perfect world."
Boring debating trick really.
The "absolute" question, attempts to remove the ideal from its place as a standard. and assert that the ideal in its absolute form is the real object of our endeavour, and therefore makes all results equally invalid, since they all fail short of the ideal. However, if we look at the ideal principle in its proper place, as a standard or guide for assessment, we can make meaningful comparative analysis of real world results, and measure to what extent any of the real world results compare to our ideal,
Why do you assume Sven was discussing an absolute and not a standard or guide?
Why do you assume Sven was discussing an absolute and not a standard or guide?
Because he's been here for awhile.
Excellent points Cueball and Catchfire, thanks for posting on this subject. I've learned alot.
Because we know Sven. He often drops little bombs like those into threads and then disappears wondering why a mess was created.
But despite that - I like Sven.
Because we know Sven. He often drops little bombs like those into threads and then disappears wondering why a mess was created.
But despite that - I like Sven.
Heh, crossposted. I too, much as he gets under my skin, appreciate Sven. He doesn't couch his words.
So, then we can agree that it was nothing that Sven actually wrote that caused people to jump to that conclusion?
What Cue said.
No. Sven has written lots. We have reams and reams of postings from Sven, which are largely about highly abstracted concepts being argued about in an entirely abstract way that result in challenges of "hypocrisy" of the left. Just because I have not read every single thing that Christopher Hitchens has written, does not mean that I can not come to a conclusion about what direction he is going with any of his particular meme's.
We aren't posting in a vacuum.
For example, I read what you have written, and can assume that your question is an honest one based on your posting history.
But lets get back to Yiwah's original post and her particular accussation of hypocrisy...
Except I think it's a good question, regardless of who asked it or what you think their motivations are.
What would a progressive immigration policy look like?
How could current policies be changed to be more progressive?
Except we've been through this many, many, MANY times before Yiwah. Cueball has explained quite well how it works and offered a response couched appropriately to avoid the trap.
No?
I think #42 is the best example.
Wasn't the question already answered by Catchfire in #40 and Cueball in #45?
and what RevolutionPlease said too.
So, then a progressive immigration policy (if we use the idea of no immigration policy as a standrad or guide) would be one that allows as much freedom of movement for people as possible.
But that idea has limitations. While I do not think the Mohawks are right in kicking out people based on race, I can not pretend that there is not a certain logic to their actions.
Would complete freedom of movement also apply to their possessions?
We would all agree that any poor refugee family should be allowed to bring their possessions, right?
But there are many reasons why certain goods are limited that has nothing to do with immigration, such as limiting produce to slow or stop the spread of crop diseases. How do these apply?
And what if it were the ex-Cubans who were fleeing from Castro with all the money they embezzled from the Cuban people? Should they keep their possessions? I think I could be comfortable with such a limitation on bringing in possessions.
Except I think it's a good question, regardless of who asked it or what you think their motivations are.
What would a progressive immigration policy look like?
How could current policies be changed to be more progressive?
Well, you have my answer above.
Well, you have my answer above.
Yes, and I agree with how you framed the goal. Nor do I want to get caught up in the tricky business of trying to come up with 'right now' changes that would necessarily be incremental, difficult to enact, and probably fairly ineffective. So I suppose my thoughts go somewhere in the middle...between the now and the ultimate goal. What specific things could we see as being part of a progressive migration policy?
I think family unification is a good start. It's become a fairly common goal in migration policies. It isn't, however, enacted all that well in a way that actually keeps families unified. Some of the problem with that, I think, is the way we think about the family versus how others think of the family. In Canada, family unificaiton generally only refers to close blood relatives. It often ignores the extended family. In order to change Canada's policies towards family unification, we'd have to be more open to different kinds of families.
I think changing that area, is one example of how we could bring about a more humane and progressive migration policy.
I also think others would have ideas that I may never have thought of...
So, then a progressive immigration policy (if we use the idea of no immigration policy as a standrad or guide) would be one that allows as much freedom of movement for people as possible.
But that idea has limitations. While I do not think the Mohawks are right in kicking out people based on race, I can not pretend that there is not a certain logic to their actions.
Would complete freedom of movement also apply to their possessions?
We would all agree that any poor refugee family should be allowed to bring their possessions, right?
But there are many reasons why certain goods are limited that has nothing to do with immigration, such as limiting produce to slow or stop the spread of crop diseases. How do these apply?
And what if it were the ex-Cubans who were fleeing from Castro with all the money they embezzled from the Cuban people? Should they keep their possessions? I think I could be comfortable with such a limitation on bringing in possessions.
Thank you, this is exactly the sort of thing I'm hoping for.
Freedom of movement....freedom of movement of property, that's an interesting one...especially when you bring up examples of 'wealth' being taken out of the country.
I think that the restriction of bringing certain goods into the country could still remain, without unduly interfering with the free movement of people. I'm trying to think of an example where that wouldn't be the case...where the restriction on personal property would disallow the entry of someone...I can't come up with anything.
A common 'issue' in anti-migration debates is 'omg taxation!'. Except it always seems to fail to take into the account that even irregular migrants are paying taxes constantly...any time they purchase something. Whether sales taxes, 'SIN' taxes, recylcing fees, so on and so forth...these little taxes are folded into almost everything you purchase. So would there be a need to immediately get people paying other taxes on income and such (which would then, you would think, entitle them to what those income taxes pay for?)...or with open borders would we adjust income taxation to almost nil and do more 'folding in'?
Except we've been through this many, many, MANY times before Yiwah. Cueball has explained quite well how it works and offered a response couched appropriately to avoid the trap.
No?
I think #42 is the best example.
Seeing the trap is only half of it. Not letting it interfere with what could be a good conversation is the better half.
Seeing the trap is only half of it. Not letting it interfere with what could be a good conversation is the better half.
From my experience, it's never a good conversation. Luckily, people like Cueball help direct it to a good conversation.
From my experience, it's never a good conversation. Luckily, people like Cueball help direct it to a good conversation.
So the posts that Pants-of-Dog and I have been making are....not good conversation? Fated to end badly?
Perhaps you could tell me what the conversation is then?
This is becoming not so good, as you say "not letting it interfere..." and so on... anyway...
From my experience, it's never a good conversation. Luckily, people like Cueball help direct it to a good conversation.
So the posts that Pants-of-Dog and I have been making are....not good conversation? Fated to end badly?
Perhaps you could tell me what the conversation is then?
Y'all keep on ignoring what has been pointed out wrt Sven's question. I'll leave it at that. And yes, I'll assume motive. You're ignoring the answer.
This is becoming not so good, as you say "not letting it interfere..." and so on... anyway...
I really wish I could say I understood your meaning. But as is fairly common, I am quite confused at this point...can I continue to discuss possible changes to migration policies, or would that be considered a thread-drift by some? And if so, what would it be drifting from?
If the message is 'ignore it and keep going', well I think I'm going to sleep on it...it's certainly something I spend a lot of time thinking about...every time I run up against another ridiculous, abusive migration policy royally messing with people's lives :(
Y'all keep on ignoring what has been pointed out wrt Sven's question. I'll leave it at that. And yes, I'll assume motive. You're ignoring the answer.
I'm sorry, but what response do you think I should be given to Cueball's interpretation of Sven's intentions? I do not share that interpretation...you are certainly welcome to it. Even if I believed it were accurate, that would not change my belief that it's a good question to based a thought experiment on. And what are goals if not thought experiments?
As for what Cueball said at...I think it was post #42? I could be mistaken, can't check as I'm typing this....anyway, the post about how focusing on the ideal and thinking 'well it can't happen in real life' misses the point...I have commented on it actually. A few times. So again, I don't see how you can claim I'm ignoring it.
Now if you are under the impression that Cueball's post somehow 'ends the discussion' because to continue it would be 'dangerous'...or something else, I have no idea what you're thinking...well I'm not even certain Cueball would agree with that. This is not a secret forum. We are not a secret group. We are not under attack right now, we are not being watched. We are fully capable of having a discussion about 'what would a progressive immigration policy look like'.
Now if you don't want to participate, that is fine. If you think we face some danger in doing so, that is fine. I heartily disagree with you.
I have no idea what you expect of me, and you aren't being particularly clear. All I'm getting is 'you shouldn't discuss this' without any suggestion as to what it is I 'should' be discussing.
Whatever, clearly communication is an issue not meta-meta stuff. I'm just saying Cueball laid it out plain and simple. If you don't think that's a progressive response, perhaps you'd like to clarify why it isn't? You couch things in this and that but don't ever really say what you BELIEVE.
The discussion isn't ended because you believe Cueball's position that the best progressive policy, no matter how unachieveable, is unrealistic. Noone is Illegal.
What's your policy?
This is becoming not so good, as you say "not letting it interfere..." and so on... anyway...
I really wish I could say I understood your meaning. But as is fairly common, I am quite confused at this point...can I continue to discuss possible changes to migration policies, or would that be considered a thread-drift by some? And if so, what would it be drifting from?
You were lecturing people about not getting involved in off-topic personalized thread drift, and "not letting it interfere" with having a good conversation, then RP made a post which you had a problem with and then you got into off-topic personalized thread drift, and let it "interfere" with having a "good conversation", as opposed to letting it slide.
It is strange behaviour, as if only you have the right to determine the boundaries of the "meta-meta" debate, and then call other people when they engage in it. For my part I called Sven on his well known debating strategems, you suggested that this was uncalled for and that I should let it slide, and choose the "better part of valour" and simply engage the topic directly (the half that was good) but you could not let it slide and avoid "the trap" and instead pressed your point with RP, rather than doing as you advised others to do.
That's what I've been confused about but not brave enough til now to say.
It feels weird, barely ever posting to respond to this thread.
But, it's got my goat.
This is much ado about nothing.
9/11 is banne! HA! What a fucking joke...
Too bad I don't have more money to give to rabble.
Fucking PIGS! All of them.
Keep on working folks, we shall overcome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkNsEH1GD7Q
Actually I don't accept the argument that framing our values in absolutes in any way derails efforts to come up with the best solutions we can.
We do have an International Declaration of Human Rights, after all, and even if most of our nations don't live up to the letter or the spirit of it, it is still something we can point to as an ideal to live up to. I don't think everyone is wringing their hands and giving up because we have not achieved all those goals - yet.
And in any case, Sven didn't ask for a utopian ideal, he just asked what a progressive immigration policy would look like.
Fair question, I think, since we seemed to be touching on not only policies that seem fair within the context of states as they are now, but also how immigration policy might be truly progressive in giving people the same recognition and freedom that states currently give capital, goods, and laws (though undemocratic international agreements). How to recognise that freedom of movement and still allow nations to maintain their sovereignty is the harder side of that question, because few states are in a position to simply throw their borders open.
No, I don't have any policies to lay out on that right now. It's late. I am just saying that I think Sven's question is a good way to start thinking about how to make these improvements, and break out of the fear and hoarding that seems to govern a lot of our thinking around immigration.
If some people here think it is not a fair question, I respect that it is your right, but I don't recognise yours as an absolute position any more than my own and I am not going to debate that..
Besides, it doesn't matter. The question has been asked, and is on the table.
So you're for totally open boarders...
Ideally, that would be our policy...
How many nanoseconds do you think it would take, for example, for the USA to figure out it could just move 10% - 15% of its population north to Canada...and then, via the ballot box, annex Canada?
I bet Canada would be much quicker to address economic inequality in the poorer nations of this world.
Great idea. India could ship a tiny fraction of its population to Canada and then, again through the ballot box, extract all resources in Canada for the benefit of India.
If Canada were to unilaterally open its borders to anyone who wanted to move there, without any restrictions whatsoever, Canada would cease to exist.
Well to take the question itself at face value, the first and obvious thing that occurs to me is that it is not strictly a matter of immigration.
So long as we sit on top of an economic empire that wreaks havoc and oppresses other parts of the world there will always be people who are driven from their own countries, desparately wanting to come here.
As well, there are several major powers (China, India) which are swiftly catching up to us in terms of competing for those resources. So the game is changing whether we like it or not.
Cueball, if I have a problem with Sven's arguments or position I'll call him on it, and perhaps you have a perspective on this that I do not, but the question is a fair one.
But it's late, and I am going to bed.
Cueball you make it look so easy.
Cueball, if I have a problem with Sven's arguments or position I'll call him on it, and perhaps you have a perspective on this that I do not, but the question is a fair one.
You are saying I am banned from discussion on Sven's points, notwithstanding that my prediction of the intent of his line of questioning was entirely accurate?
Here we go. Heh. What did I say?
Second, show how that principle is impossible in the real world.
Crap trolling arguments based in false absolute premises that neither take into account object or intent, designed only to distort and mock. Is this the "good discussion" we are supposed to be having?
As I said, Sven's question was "hostile", and not intended to engender any meaningful "progressive" discussion, it was only intended to set the stage of a defense of the status quo by opening up a space for prevarication on point by setting up the absolute ideal as the "object" that could be contrasted to the achievable reality and then ridiculed.
And actually the idea of the U.S. swamping us with people doesn't make sense to me because they already have all the control they need through economic means. Besides, we have an agreement with them that allows them to move their army in if they want to.
Sven, yes, I think a nation has to have some control over who gets in. But I also think our immigration policy is governed by a seige mentality because there are desparate pressures in other countries that we are in great part responsible for. To just react out of fear and say we can't open the doors is not the solution. There has to be a balance somewhere in between the positions of an open border and a closed gate. And as I said, I think a lot of the solution has not to do with immigration policy (the last bulwark, in effect) but in the way we deal with other countries in the first place.
Cueball, if I have a problem with Sven's arguments or position I'll call him on it, and perhaps you have a perspective on this that I do not, but the question is a fair one.
You are saying I am banned from discussion on Sven's points, notwithstanding that my prediction of the intent of his line of questioning was entirely accurate?
Not sure how you got that out of what I said. Besides, you know as well as I do that is not my call. I just acknowledged that you might know more about Sven than I do. In any case... feel free.
Have fun.
Yeah, thanks for the warning (honestly). I'm not too worried.
Have fun. 
