Viewing Thread:
"Just to turn the whole Immigration/Racism topic on it's head..."

Okay, so lets go back a while. Back in the days when Britain was probably the most powerful nation around. Hmm, well how exactly did we become the most powerful around? Well, we ruled over about a third of the world's land and had the strongest Navy around to keep our trading routes intact and kick anyone's buttocks who dared to oppose us.

So, what did a third of the worlds land just let us come and exploit them? No no. We got some of our soldiers to go over there. Now, you may think that, based on what we expect today in the UK that these soldiers would learn the local culture, learn the language, go through a proper process to gain lawful entry to the country. Did they? Hell no. They went, slaughtered some natives just to make the others get the point, and proceeded to start raping the lands of their natural resources. Hell, when we got to Australia we decided to ship all our thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. over there. I'm sure the natives really loved that.

So what's my point? Well, the reason we're one of the worlds richest nation now is that we spent a hefty portion of the past exploiting other nations. Yeah, it's all in the past now, but it does seem a little rich for us to come out saying immigrants are exploiting our country when we systematically did it to so many other countries for so long.

Point two. People always get up in arms saying this or that is / isn't racist. Surely all countries are inherently racist. Countries all seek to get the best benefits for their citizens. Look at the EU. Politicians are always ranting on about how they will get the best deal for Britain... Surely if we weren't being racist we'd be trying to get the best deal for everyone? Nah, don't be so naive... With the Tsunami, we pledged however much, but we don't pay it all upfront, oh no. Politicians will probably wait until it's all calmed down a bit, the public have moved onto something else, maybe gypsies, then they'll quietly pay out a fraction of what was pledged. Surely that is racist? If a disaster was on British soil we'd be fuming if countries pledged us money then didn't pay it all. So how come we (or those running our country) are less willing to help foreigners?

In short, countries are little more than gangs of people trying to get the best deal for themselves on the international scene. This is inherently racist. We care not for the poor countries whom are exploited to for cheap labour, if politicians did care so much they could impose taxes or trading barriers against corporation who use (for example) labour which they pay a rate below the poverty line. Incidentally, those making huge profits aren't all that racist. They're happy to exploit anyone, regardless of race religion, ethnicity...

Finally, immigration into our country. With immigration, when we look at who is or isn't suitable to come here, we look at what benefits they can bring us. If someone has a skill we need, we're more than happy to take them. On the other hand if they only have basic skills we don't want them, because hell, we don't want people coming here who can't fill a gap in the jobs market. Fact is we're just poaching skills from other countries. While we may have the NHS in a bit of a state, it's nothing compared with poorer countries, whose doctors come over here for the greater pay. Just another example of us exploiting poorer countries to get what we need, only this time it's human resources.

And while you may argue, well it's the individuals decision whether or not they want to move to the UK for greater pay, why does that sound hypocritical? Well, because when someone has a job we don't have a shortage of and they come over looking for better pay and better opportunities, we are more than happy to send them back from whence they came. Basically, if we want the most skilled from any country to come work for us, why should we expect the others in that country to sit back and watch while their nation falls further as they are lacking in skilled jobs? We shouldn't be able to pick and choose who we see fit for becoming part of our nation. All that amounts to is us choosing those who will give us greatest benefit. If we want to poach talent from other nations, perhaps we should be willing to pay the nation we took those skills away from as reparations for stealing their benefits.

End of rant, I await the replies of incredulous anti-immigration zealots with baited breath.

Okay, so lets go back a while. Back in the days when Britain was probably the most powerful nation around. Hmm, well how exactly did we become the most powerful around? Well, we ruled over about a third of the world's land and had the strongest Navy around to keep our trading routes intact and kick anyone's buttocks who dared to oppose us.

So, what did a third of the worlds land just let us come and exploit them? No no. We got some of our soldiers to go over there. Now, you may think that, based on what we expect today in the UK that these soldiers would learn the local culture, learn the language, go through a proper process to gain lawful entry to the country. Did they? Hell no. They went, slaughtered some natives just to make the others get the point, and proceeded to start raping the lands of their natural resources. Hell, when we got to Australia we decided to ship all our thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. over there. I'm sure the natives really loved that.

So what's my point? Well, the reason we're one of the worlds richest nation now is that we spent a hefty portion of the past exploiting other nations. Yeah, it's all in the past now, but it does seem a little rich for us to come out saying immigrants are exploiting our country when we systematically did it to so many other countries for so long.

Point two. People always get up in arms saying this or that is / isn't racist. Surely all countries are inherently racist. Countries all seek to get the best benefits for their citizens. Look at the EU. Politicians are always ranting on about how they will get the best deal for Britain... Surely if we weren't being racist we'd be trying to get the best deal for everyone? Nah, don't be so naive... With the Tsunami, we pledged however much, but we don't pay it all upfront, oh no. Politicians will probably wait until it's all calmed down a bit, the public have moved onto something else, maybe gypsies, then they'll quietly pay out a fraction of what was pledged. Surely that is racist? If a disaster was on British soil we'd be fuming if countries pledged us money then didn't pay it all. So how come we (or those running our country) are less willing to help foreigners?

In short, countries are little more than gangs of people trying to get the best deal for themselves on the international scene. This is inherently racist. We care not for the poor countries whom are exploited to for cheap labour, if politicians did care so much they could impose taxes or trading barriers against corporation who use (for example) labour which they pay a rate below the poverty line. Incidentally, those making huge profits aren't all that racist. They're happy to exploit anyone, regardless of race religion, ethnicity...

Finally, immigration into our country. With immigration, when we look at who is or isn't suitable to come here, we look at what benefits they can bring us. If someone has a skill we need, we're more than happy to take them. On the other hand if they only have basic skills we don't want them, because hell, we don't want people coming here who can't fill a gap in the jobs market. Fact is we're just poaching skills from other countries. While we may have the NHS in a bit of a state, it's nothing compared with poorer countries, whose doctors come over here for the greater pay. Just another example of us exploiting poorer countries to get what we need, only this time it's human resources.

And while you may argue, well it's the individuals decision whether or not they want to move to the UK for greater pay, why does that sound hypocritical? Well, because when someone has a job we don't have a shortage of and they come over looking for better pay and better opportunities, we are more than happy to send them back from whence they came. Basically, if we want the most skilled from any country to come work for us, why should we expect the others in that country to sit back and watch while their nation falls further as they are lacking in skilled jobs? We shouldn't be able to pick and choose who we see fit for becoming part of our nation. All that amounts to is us choosing those who will give us greatest benefit. If we want to poach talent from other nations, perhaps we should be willing to pay the nation we took those skills away from as reparations for stealing their benefits.

End of rant, I await the replies of incredulous anti-immigration zealots with baited breath.

Sibs wrote:
>Countries
> all seek to get the best benefits for their citizens.

And how is that racist?

I was under the impression that being racist meant that you were prejudiced against someone because of their race.

I don't think that looking out for yourself is racist. Afterall, most people would look out for their families above some random stranger, regardless of what colour / religion that stranger was.

Your Honour wrote:

> I don't think that looking out for yourself is racist.

I agree. To me Racism is the belief that, regardless of whatever evidence to the contrary may exist, people are going to behave in a certain way

Interesting post though, and I enjoyed reading it.

Hmm, maybe racist isn't the correct word for it, but it does seem rather unfair that we, as a nation, systematically try to get the best deal for ourselves, while not giving two hoots about what this does to other nations... That does seem to an extent to be discriminating based on nationality...

I'd call that selfishness (as it's all about "us") rather than racism (which is all about "them").

Pedantic I know...

Hmm, yeah... Good point...

I too think this has nothing to do with racism at all, you fail to mention the way the system itself is not under control and the way it's open to abuse. No one is denying immigration is good if controlled and why should they, but the fact is, it's not. You do mention one good point in there though, the fact that were taking doctors and nurses from 3rd world country's, while there left there without medication to deal with things like aids. You say we don't pay upfront. What do you think all those donations was about? Gat over it will you. You try and say because the actions of the goverment, that speaks for the rest of us? Come on.

Anti Immigration Zealot has duly replied.

kevstar wrote:
> I too think this has nothing to do with racism at all, you fail to
> mention the way the system itself is not under control and the way
> it's open to abuse. No one is denying immigration is good if
> controlled and why should they, but the fact is, it's not.

The post had nothing to do with whether or not the current system is open to abuse. It was about whether or not we as a nation are abusing other nations with our immigration laws (whether they are properly enforced or not). You just seem to see a topic on immigration and immediately wish to point out that there are abuses in it... That's not what this one was about.


You do
> mention one good point in there though, the fact that were taking
> doctors and nurses from 3rd world country's, while there left there
> without medication to deal with things like aids.

Thanks. Any input as to what could/should be done to prevent this?


You say we don't
> pay upfront. What do you think all those donations was about? Gat
> over it will you. You try and say because the actions of the
> goverment, that speaks for the rest of us? Come on.

If you're referring to the Tsunami pledges, then no, we don't pay upfront. I don't know exact figures, but countries pledge to pay certain amounts. Very often the actual amount eventually paid by countries is much less than they pledged. That's why after the Tsunami the UN was looking at setting a percentage of a pledge that should legally have to be paid by the country making the pledge.

Individuals who make donations are another matter, but I was talking about governments. There was huge outcry about the sums initially pledged as many people though they were far too little. This put pressure on politicians to pledge more, which they duly did. How much of that will actually get to the countries that need it is another matter.

Sibs wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> I too think this has nothing to do with racism at all, you fail to
> mention the way the system itself is not under control and the way
> it's open to abuse. No one is denying immigration is good if
> controlled and why should they, but the fact is, it's not.
>
> The post had nothing to do with whether or not the current system is
> open to abuse. It was about whether or not we as a nation are abusing
> other nations with our immigration laws (whether they are properly
> enforced or not). You just seem to see a topic on immigration and
> immediately wish to point out that there are abuses in it... That's
> not what this one was about.

What about the abuses in our system though, you say were abusing them which I do actually agree with, but you can't say this without mentioning that there also abusing our laws too, otherwise that makes it sound so one sided.
>
> You do
> mention one good point in there though, the fact that were taking
> doctors and nurses from 3rd world country's, while there left there
> without medication to deal with things like aids.
>
> Thanks. Any input as to what could/should be done to prevent this?


Indeed, train our own doctors instead of looking for the cheap way out, and let theese poor Country's keep there own doctors.
>
>
> You say we don't
> pay upfront. What do you think all those donations was about? Gat
> over it will you. You try and say because the actions of the
> goverment, that speaks for the rest of us? Come on.
>
> If you're referring to the Tsunami pledges, then no, we don't pay
> upfront. I don't know exact figures, but countries pledge to
> pay certain amounts. Very often the actual amount eventually paid by
> countries is much less than they pledged. That's why after the
> Tsunami the UN was looking at setting a percentage of a pledge that
> should legally have to be paid by the country making the pledge.
>
> Individuals who make donations are another matter, but I was talking
> about governments. There was huge outcry about the sums initially
> pledged as many people though they were far too little. This put
> pressure on politicians to pledge more, which they duly did. How much
> of that will actually get to the countries that need it is another
> matter.

How do theese Goverments know how much to pay out? You talk as if theese goverments know what the costs will be straight away. Things like this take time you see. You have goverments wanting to know where the money is being spent, what money is going to where and how. It's not as easy as saying "right this event has happened so here's £2 billion", "do whatever you need to but give me some change if theres any left". It just doesn't work like that.


Another thing I do agree with you, your point about the goverments saying one thing and doing another, but isn't that what politicians do?