Speaking of immigration, why isn’t this scourge getting more Reform teeth nashing?
3 Likes
Reform have just handed the Leicestershire Children’s Services portfolio to a 19 year old.
3 Likes
I’m sold.
They’re serious people and are so ready to govern the nation.
3 Likes
Can’t do anything that MAGA hasn’t shown them. They deserve the same fate.
But who is better to understand what children need than a child?
1 Like
Wtf. Israel. Iran. Russia. China.
I guess we have fought over land for a long time. Fought over beliefs. But….
No words
2 Likes
Interesting article, given that the ECHR has been a sticking point for the last government and their efforts to ignore it.
1 Like
Funny how fundamental human rights remain fundamental only until they become inconvenient.
7 Likes
Whenever anyone moans about the Human Rights Act, I ask which one they would be personally happy to give up.
Usually it turns out they they want all the rights for themselves, but they less keen other people having them.
4 Likes
That’s an open borders argument. It presumes that the British government must protect the rights of people who live outside the country as much as inside the country.
The problem with that argument is that it devalues British citizenship. It tells people that it doesn’t matter if you’re a citizen of the U.K. It says that noncitizens should have the same rights as citizens no matter where they live on earth, and that the British government must enforce these rights through laws and taxation via economic transfer policies. As long as they can pay for a plane ticket or a criminal human trafficking gang, if they arrive on our shores, they get to stay.
Of course in an ideal world, people would adhere to liberal, ie “Western” cultures and values. But it ignores differences in values and cultures, and equates that the values are the same, which is demonstrably untrue. (Also, isn’t that colonial thinking?)
The nation state was formed to organize a polity that regulates social organization, including laws, economics and defense. You can’t say on the one hand that it’s necessary to enforce these laws, economics, and defense to maintain the rule of law, economic growth and distribution, and the national military, while OTOH allowing anyone from anywhere to land here and stay regardless of the reason. It’s not the British government’s duty to enforce the rights of people anywhere else. They can if they want, but it’s not their duty. Nor is it their obligation to allow anyone to come here and stay. The whole concept of the nation state first and foremost is to look after the interests of the citizens of that nation state. But it appears that a group of people have forgotten this.
It’s not about giving up on human rights. It’s about the ability of the nation state to adhere to the interests of its people first and foremost. That’s the reason for the rise of the populist right in the West. Its driven mostly by the working class who are rebelling against the establishment whom they believe have put the interests of people from outside the nation state - as well as the establishment’s own ideological view of the world - against their own. And the establishment has used the power of the state to enforce this ideological worldview with the threat of violence and incarceration against those who challenge their worldview, sometimes justly but oftentimes not.
I’m a pro-immigrant immigrant who hires immigrants. I’ve lived in three countries. I’ve lectured at an HBCU and have hired more black people than anyone at my place of work, including the black people.
But what part of the ideological spectrum has failed to understand - and I’m not talking left and right since most of this happened under the Tories - is that social dislocation and upheaval have real consequences. And the responses may not be pretty.
A Canadian journalist, David Frum, once said that people don’t like chaos at the border. And if the good guys don’t deal with it, they’ll elect the bad guys who will.
1 Like
I don’t agree with everything you say here (naturally, as we have different politics), but it was a very thoughtful post that touches upon some very interesting points that should not be dismissed. Because you are very correct about the Social Contract and from where the state (or nation if you want) derives its legitimacy for its monopoly of violence and as well as it’s right to create and enforce laws.
And yes, it is a difficult debate for many on the Left, I admit this. And yes, perception of the state not abiding by the Social Contract and favouring immigrants too much compared to own national citizens (true or not, it doesn’t matter) from own culture, has helped created the rise of the Right Wing populism in Europe to a large degree. There is a reason why, today, a typical Social Democrat voter has high education. There is a sense of abandonment of the Working Class.
And that is all i am going to say. But I appreciated your perspective here. I believe in different solutions, but here you are pointing to empirical systemic political problems, absolutely.
It would be interesting if this turned into a civil debate tbh.
1 Like
I would like to note though, that the UK is a very atypical nation state due to it’s imperial history and the legacy of empire. It is therefore much more a salad bowl compared to most European nation states, since high immigration from previous imperial provinces and realms, have been channeled into the UK post WW2. On the other hand, other European countries only recived large numbers of non-western immigrants around 1970ish (a black man was a spectacle in Norway in 1970 and there is a very good Country song from the 90s called “Ein neger stod på Ål Stasjon”, which is all about this strange time when peculiar foreigners first started to arive; which is by the way a song the band doesn’t play anymore because post-2000 you are not supposed to say “neger” anymore). A significant difference.
Notably, all governance parties in the UK have been in favour of this high immigration until extremely recently though, since it has fueled the UK economy post WW2.
Thanks. I appreciate the kind words. There were many descendants from Norway where I grew up! Damn, the women were hot!
I’m all for immigration but to a point. I’ve lived in some of the most diverse cities on earth, and I loved it. I love traveling and experiencing different cultures. One of the best things about immigration is that you can live in a city and experience all those cultures. I lived in Toronto. Within a half hour, I could experience a dozen immigrant communities. That’s awesome.
However, if 100 million from another country showed up in Norway one day, Norway would cease to be Norway. It would become that other country but with colder weather and more beautiful scenery!
Immigration needs to serve the people of the state first, not the other way around. A big reason I’m vocal about this is that I’m generally supportive of immigration. But mass uncontrolled immigration that hurts the poor and working class turns people against immigration, and risks taking us into a dark place.
1 Like
I actually agree with you wholeheartedly here.
In essence, it’s all about how rapid it is. How big the shifts are. Culture has never been static, but if you change it too fast with high immigration from abroad , then that will be identified as a threat for the majority culture and there will be a vast Nationalist backclash. And indeed, some European nation states are experiencing this problem right now.
But it is also a difficult problem to solve in a globalised world. The solutions are probably where you and I may differ.
1 Like
That’s not how it works in the UK. If they claim asylum in the UK they have their claim examined and, if they are genuinely fleeing from harm, not just poverty, they may be granted leave to remain.
The problem comes when people are not eligible to stay, but fall through the system. I think one example used is people who claim they have family ties in the UK and would be separated from children if they were extradited. It’s not actually as simple as that, because many people who have been married for years (myself included) do not have the unequivocal right to live in the UK with their spouse, but this is frequently sited as a reason for appeal.
The problem is not the human rights act, but the legal interpretation of it.
3 Likes
Wrong, very wrong. If they claim asylum and that claim is upheld, then and only then can they stay. Otherwise they can be deported. That is what the law says.
Your version is the right wing spin on it which suits their end game.
2 Likes
True, but they maintain crazy levels of legal immigration while demonising those seeking asylum. At the same time, stripping the reaources back and opening up opportunities for criminal gangs to take advantage.
There’s a clear process for dealing with this and if you get at it with a “straight bat” (cricket term) it works.
Does the law need a look at? Thats a fair and a good question. The world is different and there could be a case to make some tweaks to it.
But rather than go down that pragmatic route they decide to ignore it entirely.
1 Like
Completely fair and similar views to my own. Uncontrolled legal immigration is the elephant in the room that no one talks about.
1 Like
It’s interesting that Denmark, a traditionally social country, and until recently with a quite open border policy, experienced similar problems than elsewhere in Europe, with a right wing party gaining traction and menacing to get to power in the next years, and to start unravelling the social state.
So, the left party in power decided to crack down on the problem of immigration. Now, they are still a left wing party in terms of social services and policies of equality and progress (things that people want), and have become right-wing in terms of cracking down on immigration (a thing people obviously wanted too).
As a result, the right-wing party with their neoliberal program has imploded and is nowhere to be seen anymore at elections.
3 Likes