...
Migration policies topic, Part II
Fri, 2010-08-20 10:16
#1
Migration policies topic, Part II
Fri, 2010-08-20 10:16
#2
From [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/racistxenoph...
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/racistxenoph...@RevolutionPlease[/url]
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?
Cueball's position is an ideological one, which I share. But I'm interested in more than just the ideological outline of what a progressive migration policy would look like. That is what I am asking. As I state [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1172953/Cueball-wrote-%C2%A0-Well-you]here[...
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?
My position is that open borders is the goal. My interest is in HOW we get there. And again, I look somewhere in the middle distance...changes right now this second are not very likely or possible. But if things begin to change, what directions would they change in?
It seemed to me you were saying Cueball answered my question, full stop. I like filling in details.
Fri, 2010-08-20 10:25
#3
Snert
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.
That's true, and it's better than nothing, but when fiscal Libertarians insist that they shouldn't have to pay income tax, or even that their income tax should be a flat tax, don't we generally laugh at the unfeasability of such an arrangement?
In other words, don't we generally believe that people need to pay income tax? If not, let's all not! Think of all the extra cash we'd get to keep! But if it's important, then it should be important for everyone, shouldn't it?
Another thought: I don't think it's an exaggeration to suggest that Canada is "out front" with regard to equal marriage. And I don't think it's a gross generalization to note that many other countries are not "out front" with regard to equal marriage.
If we had open borders, how long do you suppose equal marriage would last? How long before a new influx of voting citizens would kill it off for good?
Fri, 2010-08-20 10:30
#4
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1173032/Yiwah-wrote-Cueball]@Cueball[/url]
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.
I think you have misinterpreted what I said.
Here are the posts where I discussed your and Smith's comments about Sven. [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1172792/Are-you-guys-arguing-about]1[/url], [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1172800/Cueball-wrote-Anything]2[/url]
I honestly was surprised that you did not name Sven by mistake, as I saw Bec.de.Corbin's question to be one more typically associated with trying to invalidate the ideal than Sven's one-sentence comment. At that point I honestly believed that you had named him in error because Smith had named him in error. The underlying point is that I was trying to understand where you were seeing hostility, because it came completely out of left field for me.
I then [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1172936/Except-I-think-its-good]said[/url] it was a good question (I said that before as well) and one that made me think about what actual changes I'd like to see on the road to open borders.
All of that to counter one simple assumption you have made:
You were lecturing people about not getting involved in off-topic personalized thread drift, and "not letting it interfere" with having a good conversation,
No. I did not lecture people about not getting involved in off-topic personalized thread drift and "not letting it interfere"... In fact, [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1172955/RevolutionPlease]here[/url] is the post that you took the words "not letting it interfere" from:
RevolutionPlease wrote:
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.
I felt that I was being encouraged to no longer pursue the question "What would a progressive immigration policy look like" because to do so would guarantee falling into some trap. I believe we can avoid that trap and actually have a conversation.
So again, I was not engaging in the behaviour you have ascribed to me, where I lecture others on thread drift and then engage in it myself. I commented on the substance of the thread drift, not the thread drift itself.
I do not think Revolution Please was trying to trap me. In fact, I wasn't at all sure what Revolution Please wanted me to understand, so I asked him/her directly.
Fri, 2010-08-20 10:40
#5
Not to channel alien, but the whole topic of migration is tied up with Terrans inability (unwillingness) to provide adequate nutrition and shelter for their population regardless of their physical location on the planet
Fri, 2010-08-20 10:41
#6
Snert
Hi. Do you mean me? Okey-dokey if so.
Fri, 2010-08-20 11:19
#7
Sven (edit, SNERT, not Sven! Sorry!), if I answer your questions, I'm going to get hung up on implementation issues. And while eventually those issues have to be addressed before any policy can be a reality, I am not intending to build up a migration policy from the ground up, with all bases covered.
Again, I'm coming at this from a sort of middle ground between the ultimate goal, and the here and now. Thematic approach. One of the most important themes is that I believe there have to be 'outside' controls that will ensure human rights, even when shifting populations might wish for democratic change that would stifle those human rights. A sort of constitutional check on the exercise of democratic power. I hope that at least answers the broad questions you've asked.
Fri, 2010-08-20 11:20
#8
Hi. Do you mean me? Okey-dokey if so.
*facepalm*
Sorry about that, "I got [Sven] on my mind..."
Jeez. What a dork I am.
Fri, 2010-08-20 11:21
#9
Not to channel alien, but the whole topic of migration is tied up with Terrans inability (unwillingness) to provide adequate nutrition and shelter for their population regardless of their physical location on the planet
At what point do you think that happens, the unwillingess? Within the family group I think there is more than a willingness, it's an imperative. Anyway, I've never thought of this, could you go into it a bit more?
Fri, 2010-08-20 11:44
#10
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?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.
I'm not so sure about that.
I do not think people like moving that much, nor would it be easy to organise such a mass exodus of people with similar motives.
Moreover, an immigration policy that was as open as possible would be limited by one very crucial factor: the relative strength of the host country as compared to the donor country. The large the gap, th emore the host country has to restrict immigration to protect itself. Cueball (I think Cueball said this though I may be wrong) was correct when (s)he claimed that it would force Canada to deal with economic inequality around the globe.
Let us be a bit more realistic and suggest that if Canada were to address global economic inequality abd bring the developing world to an economic level similar to Canada's (did I just say I was being more realistic?), it could feasibly then have an open border.
Fri, 2010-08-20 11:45
#11
In short, we have the capability to feed and to shelter all people that live on earth. Those who have do not want to give to those who don't have. Our economic system is designed in that way and the creation of states also helps to reinforce it.
Fri, 2010-08-20 12:06
#12
Snert
I do not think people like moving that much, nor would it be easy to organise such a mass exodus of people with similar motives.
Here's a motive that we wouldn't even need to lift a finger to create: free health care. And in many ways, better social services all 'round.
The irony being that the United States is hardly a nation in poverty. They could afford their own free health care, except they don't really want to have to pay for it. We could always volunteer to pay for it though, and that way they can keep their taxes low and their disposable income high.
Fri, 2010-08-20 12:11
#13
Excuse me, but what is a "migration policy"?
Is it a policy about birds or Monarch butterfllies? Does a govenrment expect to influence the routes or destinations of migratory species? Do groups or people migrate? Well, yes, a few: they are called nomads. Does Canada have policies on any nomadic peoples?
Or are we really talking about immigrants and/or refugees? Because if so, do not accept the FOE's inaccurate and misleading word. If this issue has already been addressed, i apoligize for butting in.
Fri, 2010-08-20 12:22
#14
I do not think people like moving that much, nor would it be easy to organise such a mass exodus of people with similar motives.Here's a motive that we wouldn't even need to lift a finger to create: free health care. And in many ways, better social services all 'round.
The irony being that the United States is hardly a nation in poverty. They could afford their own free health care, except they don't really want to have to pay for it. We could always volunteer to pay for it though, and that way they can keep their taxes low and their disposable income high.
That would be a motive for mass migration to canada if the other country did not offer something comparable, but it would not be a motive for a mass migration that would then change Canada. The reason for this is that the migrants would be wanting to preserve Canadian society so that they could get their free healthcare.
Fri, 2010-08-20 12:23
#15
Excuse me, but what is a "migration policy"?
Is it a policy about birds or Monarch butterfllies? Does a govenrment expect to influence the routes or destinations of migratory species? Do groups or people migrate? Well, yes, a few: they are called nomads. Does Canada have policies on any nomadic peoples?
Or are we really talking about immigrants and/or refugees? Because if so, do not accept the FOE's inaccurate and misleading word. If this issue has already been addressed, i apoligize for butting in.
What is the FOE?
I say 'migrant' because that's how I've become accustomed to discussing immigration/refugee issues, working in fields that deal a lot with immigrant/refugee issues. There are all sorts of liberal theories about the terminology, but it boils down to the movement of people, regardless of what 'class' they are in when they move around. It's one way to avoid really awful terms like 'illegal immigrants', and even 'immigrant' doesn't cover it all since the issue necessarily involves emigration as well.
A fair number of [url=http://www.iom.int/jahia/jsp/index.jsp]organisations[/url] working on these issues use this terminology as the general 'catch-all' phrase, and find that it's one of the least pejorative terms that provides that function. It's not the perfect term, because 'migrant' also is often used to refer to one specific class of people, namely temporary workers. However, I think the idea is to NOT use migrant in that case, and to shift to temporary workers.
In any case, the semantic aspects will likely continue to change. (btw, I took migration law, not immigration law...it changed in name the year I took it. And the term illegal immigrant is replaced with irregular migrant)
Fri, 2010-08-20 12:58
#16
Snert
Those who have do not want to give to those who don't have.
What's foreign aid then?
Fri, 2010-08-20 13:07
#17
Inadequate, Snert.
Fri, 2010-08-20 13:29
#18
What is the FOE?
I say 'migrant' because that's how I've become accustomed to discussing immigration/refugee issues, working in fields that deal a lot with immigrant/refugee issues. .....In any case, the semantic aspects will likely continue to change. (
The Forces of Evil. I used to say They but that became confusing. The FOE are in all kinds of powerful positions and one of the things they've done most effectively - and most to my personal disgust - is change the meanings of words, so that we're not talking about what we're talking about. It becomes impossible to discuss spades, if you see what i mean. About refugees, migrant makes it sound as if the se people had options, as if they were going someplace else next month....
But if you think it's better than the old terminology, in this case i'm happy to bow to experience.
Fri, 2010-08-20 13:43
#19
Asylum seekers, not refugees :D
I'm not married to the terminology. Just like I'm not married to 'Global South/Global North' or 'Minority World/Majority World' as replacements for the outdated 'First/Second/Third World'.
Fri, 2010-08-20 13:45
#20
remind
Oh....someone throws out anonymous "credentials" and we bow?
Not this gyrl....
Fri, 2010-08-20 14:26
#21
Asylum seekers, not refugees :D
I'm not married to the terminology. Just like I'm not married to 'Global South/Global North' or 'Minority World/Majority World' as replacements for the outdated 'First/Second/Third World'.
Well, okay then. Asylum seeker sounds worse than refugee, of which i was one, and nobody put me in an asylum. I never liked the numbering of worlds, but i'm not so crazy about minority and majority, either: both the fact and words are subject to change with so little notice. Why must every new term be even less accurately descriptive? Oh well, never mind. It was an incosequential quibble.
Fri, 2010-08-20 14:36
#22
Oh....someone throws out anonymous "credentials" and we bow?
Not this gyrl....
It would be really great, Remind if you could quote the person you are accusing, so that person could deal with your accusation.
Fri, 2010-08-20 14:38
#23
Well, okay then. Asylum seeker sounds worse than refugee, of which i was one, and nobody put me in an asylum. I never liked the numbering of worlds, but i'm not so crazy about minority and majority, either: both the fact and words are subject to change with so little notice. Why must every new term be even less accurately descriptive? Oh well, never mind. It was an incosequential quibble.
Ha, well, it seems to me that certain terms get picked up, and turn into dirty words after a while, so people seek out 'clean' words that will eventually get dirty too with use.
Anyway, I suppose as long as we're avoiding the obviously prejudicial words (illegal immigrants etc), the terminologies don't matter too much. Unless someone has a really awesome argument for a particular term, at which point I'd be okay with using it.