Surveydaddy
Check out Surveydaddy, the most easy-to-use survey software around. Start creating beautiful online surveys today.
Create an Online Survey
Posted 4 years ago.
See this poll on: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/issues/C137/P20/…
As much as free movement is concerned, the way I see it the propenents of open borders indeed think they are intellectually superior. And this from my own experiences during my time in Stockholm suburbs in late 80's and early 90'.
For someone from lower social class background it truly is a hopeless task to convince an university brat or do-gooders from more wealthier areas of the city. It truly is not worth trying to say that no, immigrants from mid-east origin are not discriminated, they plain and simple do not respect the laws and the culture in their new homeland, and that you should not take their claims with face value.
The very topic is, or will be, a textbook example how style beats substance, given that some day in the future these issues can be discussed in a calm manner. The findings, I'm convinced, will be that given two possible sources of information describing the reason of the problems as
A. A representative of the mid-east immigrant population
B. White lower class
the self-named multicultural intellectuals will choose A - the white trash is just making that up. For the white underclass, the burden of proof weighs a ton.
Immigration controls are supported by a number of myths about immigration that seem to inhibit open discussion about it. On my Independent Minds blog, I have questioned six of these myths. The most recent is the myth that "If Britain had open borders, we'd get 'swamped'". See http://barrycurtis.livejournal.com/#post-barrycurtis-8992
The previous five are "Britain is a soft touch", "British jobs for British workers", "Immigrants are a burden to the economy", "Britain is overpopulated", and "Immigrants depress the wages of native workers". You can access these discussions via the link above. Whilst none of the articles are as good as spiked stuff, I think they contribute to the debate.
A citizen of a Welfare State who wants open borders should get an appointment with a psychiatrist.......if he can, before the collective/cultural suicide occurs.
I support the campaign. I don't feel superior I just think I'm right, but I'm open for discussion.
To me restrictions on movement underpin the Nation State. Nation States serve to 'divide and rule' the population of this planet. In-groups and out-groups are socially constructed along the lines of 'National Identity' and 'Culture' and we are encouraged to be suspicious of the other. We are then more open to manipulation according to the 'needs' of those in power, for instance by those who defend our right to 'moral killing'. This is the foundation of my argument.
So closed boarders restricts our experience of the other and consequently our experiential learning; reinforces the illusion that we are significantly different from each other, we are not; and serves to set the scene for other restrictions on us for our own protection, such as saying what we think or our access to information (a very manipulative argument as it is perfectly circular - we can't know what we don't know because if we did it would harm us.... now that's superiority).
If we open the boarders to everyone what's the worst that could happen?
Three questions I ask myself on a regular basis to consider such questions.
1) What makes you think this? (Where did you learn aspects of your thinking, from Who?)
2) Do you trust your source? (Why?)
3) How could it work and What needs to happen, What would I need to do? (Do I really want change, or is that someone else's burden?)
To me opening the boarders is a matter of human freedom (like speech), it is not a 'given freedom', none are, but one like speech that needs to be fought for. Like freedom of speech it is dynamic, sometimes ebbing and flowing (requiring defending), but it ultimately holds great potential to improve the condition of all humans, even the very rich ones. It is a bigger issue than the short-term economic arguments that often surround discussions of the pros and cons of migration. It is about freedom of choice, and our right as humans to make choices ourselves.
Terry
As serfs we were forbidden to move from our lords land. Good business sense finally overthrew this stifling, archaic, custom. Today, our masters attempt to keep the lid on the free movement of people, probably for the same parochial reasons. The capitalist global ideal grinds on but will remain only an ideal so long as there is inequality - something business finds unimaginable and impossible to implement (at least legitimately).
This is a wonderful campaign that could liberate us all from the stifling, archaic, customs of today. Hopefully, in a few hundred years from now, the people will not be fearfully forbidden from moving planet in case they upset some future, entrenched economic arrangements.
I find it hilarious that the free-speech doyens of the internet, who rabbit on endlessly about free-speech, don't allow the great unwashed to leave comments on the spiked website! I forget, all that talk about free-speech is only for the likes of the spiked intellectuals. Tragic, eh.
What, the rump of the RCP cult running a campaign that smacks of superiority. Never.....
Kisses Brendo...
RCP = Right-wing Charlatan Party
Freedom of Movement? Are you out of your mind? In this age of Political Correctness, we don't even have Freedom of Speech!!!!
Further proof we live in an Inverted World, Trevor Phillips tells us today that we should get out from under the shadow of Enoch Powell. How absurd and dishonest. We're not under the shadow of Enoch Powell, we're under the shadow of Trevor Phillips. Enoch Powell can't do anything to anyone. But Phillips can send you to jail for saying something he doesn't like. And who doubts he would relish the opportunity?
It's so obvious what you're doing. It's exactly because it's so underhanded that you have to demonize all dissent. And when that doesn't work, throw us in jail. Or you could just surround us with hostile aliens who don't hesitate to kill us.
Immigration is good for us? Ha! In what sense? Britain, Europe, the States; three places circling the drain as we speak, and all run by an aggressively open borders Power Elite. But China and Japan are doing much better and they don't have an open borders policy at all! Oh, and neither does Israel. Like I said, it's so obvious what you're doing.
This is a badly needed and timely campaign. Those who believe immigration should be limmited on the basis migrants from the developing world would be incapable of coping and become a burden, not only suffer from a lack of imagination and miserly attitude but conveniantly forget that mch of the world has developed through migration. By limiting immigration we not only screw our peers but limit our capacity to solve problems, to demand and create more for all of humanity. No Borders and Freedome of Movement for all should be the bottom line for everyone who believes in global equality.
It makes more sense to campaign for a reformation of the european union to the democratic union.
An economic zone in which there is free movement of people and capital.
Any country that fufils the criteria for a liberal democracy and can maintain a non-porous border should be eligable for membership.
For all the negatives of the EU it must be the greatest validification of Smith's "when goods don't cross borders"
Think there might be a little moral smugness about this campaign, a touch of I-care-so-much-therefore-people-who-disagree-are-bastards. Plus a hint of intellectual superiority. So, ask yourselves this question: if it were possible to sponsor an immigrant family from, say, Africa. . .to take responsibility for their living expenses in case they couldn't find work for, say, a five year period after their arrival. . .would you do so? Less of the Pollyanna, please.