Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
[1]
I think the distinction of legal and illegal immigrants serves as a foot in the door for culture war distraction. First there is about needing to surveil some immigrant communities because of terrorist acts associated with foreigners, then it’s about not wanting to take in refugees because other nations in the EU are not putting in enough of an effort, then it becomes an issue of illegal immigration – which is synonymous with undocumented immigration. The step after that is introducing legislation to make working visas less of a certainty, usually that’s coupled to worse working conditions. Lastly deportations, nowadays called remigration, strip large sections of immigrants and those with an immigrant background of citizenship. This furthers an erosion of basic rights and puts those affected in a position where it’s do or die, which means proving your worth as an immigrant to state and industry.
Furthermore, many currently legal and working immigrants have histories of undocumented migration, receiving government aid, and some even have engaged in illegal activity.
Many voters of right wing parties don’t have a probblem with immigrants as long as they’re the right immigrants in their view. Immigrants are disadvantaged though and this makes some turn to crime. Crime that could be in large part prevented if these people had their needs better met. Trying to kick out criminal immigrants potentially makes the problem worse because it puts them in an even more precarious situation where they are even more incentivised to do crime. This creates pressure for the vast majority of immigrants who by the way are not criminals to conform even harder.
Criminals doing petty crime are not able to find regular employment when the state cracks down on them. They walk into the arms of human traffickers, which does not decrease the crime rate in any way. At best, crimes are made hidden or moved geographically.
Reformist-progressive parties are in power in urban areas where inequality is high. They are not able to change anything because the entire country’s economy is built in such a way that creates significant discrepancies in wealth, which is magnified in urban areas. The left leaning parties are not sending the “bad” immigrants elsewhere because A. it costs money and B. it does not address the cause. This does not seem like a local left wing party problem, they seem like a correlation at best.
I think “unchecked immigration” is a misnomer. I would not say that immigration was ever left unchecked, immigration has always been a gigantic cornerstone of policy.
I’ve answered this numerous times in great detail at this point and the answer is yes and besides, there is this assumption that just “bringing people to justice” is most important in order to prevent crime. There are crimes that have high clearance rates, meaning that on paper a very high number of reported crimes are figured out. People still commit these crimes and it’s sort of a ‘mystery’ of the justice system why that is still the case. Well, clearly there are factors, which I have previously pointed to, that go beyond catching the bad guys and punishing them for effect.
Thank you for clarifying.
This, with the exception of the very last part, is what I was saying. Sure, you can try to become a business owner, there are no limits to you choosing to. The important distinction here is trying and being. As someone who works, you likely have rather few resources to fund a business. You won’t be able to provide as much collateral on loans as people with capital, i.e. people whose property works for them. You are significantly disadvantaged.
Certainly. But you have duties and in the army example those duties entail grave acts such as taking another’s life and giving one’s own. Then again the army is a low hanging fruit since they’ll take all kinds of people. It’s good that you realise that there are certain prerequisites that the vast majority of people do not have when we turn our eyes away from the army example. This gate is education and education is highly determined by the financial situation of one’s parents.
Yes, when one person moves up the ladder society does not implode, but what I was saying is that society implodes when a fair chunk of people can simply choose to move up the ladder, by applying themselves better for example. If everyone became self-employed, you’d be back in feudalism and that simply isn’t efficient enough in order to sustain industrial production.
I don’t think so. The state, police and monopolies on violences are a recent phenomenon. History is littered with systems where social conduct was shaped without purely punitive or violent measures. Who is to say that the nation state is the end-all-be-all?
This does not really engage with the argument. States don’t have responsibilities like people. They don’t join private clubs as it were. The rules you are seeing are a result of negotiations based on leverage and generally this is in the interest of the most powerful nations. First the EEC (EU-predecessor) is created out of a strength in numbers calculation. The United States and the Soviet Union are blocks that could overpower any one member of the EU, but as a regional alliance the scales can be balanced. The rules of the EU are based on that. It’s not a rules-first thing, if it was Hungary would have long been kicked out for repeatedly flunking the rules of the EU flagrantly.
Of course it does not mean that everything is “allowed”. So long as there are states there is war and there is an incetive to come up with new ways of brutalising your enemy. My argument is this, mustard gas wasn’t banned prior to the end of WWI, then it got banned. Nuclear bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the Nuclear aspect was legal at the time. Now there are many states that have pledged to not use nuclear weapons.
Ok, assuming you are right, what would be a solution to try to solve the problem with illegal immigration and all its consequences ?
I think that here you are wrong. If you make working visas less viable the local worker gain something in my opinion. Companies still need workers and now they have a smaller pool to choose from.
What make working condition worse for everyone (local population, legal and illegal immigrants) is that when you have a lot of illegal immigrants an unscrupulous employer can simply hire one of them at a fraction of what he should pay a legal worker.
That’s true. And the difference is that these people enter the country illegally (perhaps) and then begin the process of regularizing their status.
Which basically means that people has no problems with people who work honestly and contribute to the society.
The question is: since a country can absorbe a certain number of new immigrant every year, why we should allow in people we know we cannot handle in a decent way ?
This way you are simply ruining the society (where people will start to look at extremist like a solution, think AfD) and the immigrant, both the already legal ones and the new legal ones, to not talk about the illegal ones.
The point is to have less crime avoiding to have people on the country that need to live by petty crimes. And to do this you need to keep immigration in check.
I don’t need too much. The fund you need depends heavily on what you want to do. Currently I could easily open a consulting business that can sustain my family in the end, and I don’t need too much resources. I simply choose not because I like better to work 9-18 and then be free.
No, I am not significantly disadvantaged. Or better, it depends on what business you are thinking about. In certain cases you are right, in other you are wrong.
If this is done to defend me or my familiy from someone who want to kill us, I honestly think is not wrong. It should not be necessary, I agree, but I would have not a problem to kill an enemy soldier who has as target to kill me and my family.
No, they will not take all kinds of people. To enter the army you need to meet a minimum level. In may case the problem is that I am too old now, but when I enlisted people were excluded because they were deemed unsuitable, for physical or psychological reasons.
No, it not a problem of education, I met all the requisite regarding the level of education, I simply studied a branched that are not that requested (mechanical and then IT). But the minimum level required is basically the compulsory education, for which parents are helped if needed.
If you define “recent” as the last three thousand years, then I agree.
In every society starting with the ancient Egypt there were some sort of justice system that was handled by the state, and sometime with way more violence than today.
For example ?
But States are made of people.
Maybe the correct phrase would be “the people from UK created the problem…” but my point stand.
Even joining a private club is a negotiation, albeit a much simpler one: you agree to follow a set of rules when you join or you decide the rules if you are a founding member of a new club.
But the point is: UK founded the club, taking some advantages for itself, agreed while being a member to a certain set of rules and then exited the club thinking that the rules would be still valid. That is the basic reason why Britons were deported from other States and people from other Stated left UK.
Nuclear is legal also now. What prevent the use of nuclear weapons is the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine, nothing else. Nobody is so stupid (not even Iran or Putin) to belive that they can launch a nuclear attack and then survive the retaliation.
[2]
Putting it this abstractly says very little about causality.
There is much more at stake in a union of states. A private club between individuals is not a good analogy. Almost every aspect is different.
No leader is this stupid or brazen, yes. But I have established that states can act in a quite stupid way. Aside from nuclear weapons being legal or not, there are states that have agreed to not use them in a codified fashion.
Well, that doesn’t translate in practice.
[1]
This will be my last response, as I believe I have explained my positions sufficiently. I don’t believe in debate for the sake of debate, even if it can be fun. This is not to accuse you of causing undue debate – I don’t believe you did. I can only dedicate so much time and energy to responding to people.
I don’t believe undocumented immigration to be a problem. If anything immigration as a problem is a construction to conveniently justify not changing the present state of things on a fundamental level, which would require rethinking and undoing the domestic/foreign dichotomy and with that also many aspects of (private) property, since private ownership is based on exclusion on multiple levels: Personal, stockholder-wide, national, etc…
Aside from that I don’t believe that a critique becomes valid when an alternative is offered. Also, critique can often mean a behaviour or line of argument should be avoided full stop, for example when I have the option of threatening someone to get money back. A. A person might return money out of a more intrinsic motivation B. I might not get much from demanding my money back as that entails expending valuable time. I can go around justifying all kinds of facts of life, but that wouldn’t get me any closer to answering questions beyond the level of phenomena. So I better not focus on creating justifications of present phenomena at all.
Lastly, in order to advance I need to diagnose what is going wrong. I can not provide solutions to nothingness. Solutions by definition have causes and reasons. Critique is a necessary first step and can stand exist as is without going beyond scope.
The super low paying jobs where immigrant employment is high now have to be done by local workers. That is not a gain. Industries that rely on highly specialised and educated workers from abroad like healthcare are less able to address demand, that in turn drives up prices, which hits workers (and the unemployed) the hardest.
Yes of course, that is why it makes a lot of sense to give undocumented immigrants the chance to become documented immigrants. A “legal” immigrant can demand more pay without fear and thereby raise wages for the vast majority of people by a little. I’m not talking about creating massive social programs and giving away citizenship, just a little tweak that could go a long way. Unfortunately politics as of late makes decisions that favour the market.
I think I have shown it’s difficult to even determine what a “right” immigrant is. I think this view of there being right and wrong immigrants is on a basic level a false dichotomy.
I doubt that “we” can know these things and supposing “we” did, what is then stopping “us” from applying this logic to citizens who are not on their best behaviour? If your answer to this is “No, we can’t. We a have responsibility to other countries to not sully them with the worst of our own”, then what is keeping this exclusionary logic from putting citizens into forced labour camps or killing them?
I firmly reject this notion.
Crime is decreasing in spite of immigration. Immigration is not well correlated with crime and better understood through economics like the ghetto tax and so on. You are imagining a problem.
I don’t place much emphasis on anecdotes. I mean good for you, but the statistics look different.
You are significantly disadvantaged. A big consulting firm will outspend you, will already have a name for itself, and potentially swallow you if you become too big. I am 100% right here with the exception of the few startups that win the business lottery at best, and even that case I am not really incorrect since I take stochastic effects in that vein into account.
You have more in common with the “enemy” soldier than with the people that put you both into war. You don’t get to see the president in person just like that, the enemy soldier you do see.
Also it is your job to kill the enemy soldier along with their family potentially. Everyone says they’re defending themselves.
They won’t take all kinds of people outside of war or tensions. The situation changes when an army is involved in a war. Project 100,000
Throughout history armies have been famous for using, as it were, less capable troops as cannon fodder. War, war never changes.
Police forces have only existed for only four-hundred years, and that is a charitable estimate. Modern humans have existed for more than 100,000 years as hunter-gatherers that were internally relatively peaceful.
Ancient Greek and Roman societies are the first to have justice systems with legal professionals. Before that you had religious courts. Those had more in common with divine rituals than the careful application of law. Contradictory as it may sound to modern ears, laws did not start out as legalistic code.
Previous societies, that weren’t states as you know them, were structured quite differently. Feudalism required peasants to give a share of their crops to their lords. There were no banking systems, which only begin to start popping up in Italy by the 14th century and it took banks three centuries to become widespread in Europe.
States as centralised holders of capital have only been a thing since banking, taxation, free trade, and employment became central. The removal of barriers to finance is signalled by Cromwell and the French Revolution, among other things. See the development of economic freedom.
There are arguments to be made about cities being precocious, but my point about the state being recent still stands. At best states are 5,500 years old, the fully developed nation-state is maybe only 350 (probably closer to 250) years old.
That is highly subjective. In terms of destructive power I think modern weaponry is the most violent by a long shot.
Some Native American societies, aspects of Maori society and a few other Polynesian societies.
Yes, but group behaviour is different from individual behaviour.