| JuryFury.com
A New Issue Every Monday ! SUBSCRIBE NOW !! Online School of Politics |
||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
Immigration, Justice and
Terrorism
by Trevor Batten Apparently, a British parliamentary committee has claimed that the huge numbers of immigrants applying for asylum is liable to swamp the system -and cause great problems. Asylum issue 'could spark unrest': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3008043.stm It was my own belief that the publication of this simple fact was the main driving force behind the popularity of the murdered Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. Surely, if he was simply the "right wing extremist" that so many (media) claimed, then it would be difficult to understand why so many Dutch immigrants supported him (and also why he accepted their support). For many years, the Dutch immigration service had been showing signs of collapse (with illegal immigrants being dumped on the streets by the Dutch immigration police -a situation which was presumably in nobodyy's interest). Unfortunately, popular taboos made serious discussion of the problems impossible. Presumably, the 'destabilizing" size of the problem is partially the fault of a mixture of issues. The ranks of "real" refugees (fleeing from the many unjust regimes around the world) are inflated by people trying to escape the economic repression also endemic in many countries (which for some reason is not considered so important as political repression). The (complex) situation is further complicated by the fact that many "economic" refugees are forced to turn to illegal "human smugglers" in order to enter the richer countries -in a hopeless attempt to find ways of survviving for them and/or their children. Apparently, many "illegal refugees" are unaccompanied children -who are allowed to stay until they reach adulthood and are then deported (which also seems a rather inhumane system). The apparent (if not admitted) collapse of the immigration system (in various developed countries) causes problems for both the residents as the immigrants in these countries. Although their interests appear to be opposed -in fact, it is in the interests of both parties that an equitable system is developed. Presumably, this would include acceptance of "economic refugees" (so they did not need to masquerade as "political" refugees) as well as the reduction of political and economic injustice around the world. Presumably, the reduction of political and economic injustice, would also help to reduce the tensions which lead to terrorist actions around the world -so bringing justice and equality to the woorld is not inconsistent with an attempt to reduce levels of terrorism around the world. However, one assumes that justice and equality cannot be produced from the barrel of gun (neither by "terrorists" or their opponents). Justice and equality can only be developed through dialogue -through an honest discussion -in which the problems of all the parties involved are taken seriously. By playing "top-dog" -it seems that America is effectively blocking any real solution to serious global problems which are threatening the future of civilized relationships around the world. Unless there is a reversal of current policies -then the collapse of international law and order is immanent -and the world will either regress back into the Dark Ages -or be forced to find a way to circumvent American power politics. Apparently, according to reports on the BBC news, approximately one third of Afro-Americans are likely to end up in jail. There are now 2 million Americans in jail (many for violent crime -but also for drug offences). This is allegedly the greatest (percentage) prison population in the world. Surely, the fact that the "worlds number one economy" is forced to use such methods to enforce civil stability is a powerful indictment of American policies. Surely it is understandable that other countries do not wish to have "American values" imposed upon them. In Iraq we also see that the military superiority of the US is not matched by skills relevant to the construction of a civil society. Before imposing one's will on the rest of the world -it might be nice if America first asked itself if that which it wishes to impose is so desirable -and perhaps, if it is so desirable -then why do others resist it so firmly? by Sophia Barkat re: Trevor's post Trevor wrote: "Presumably, the 'destabilizing" size of the problem is partially the fault of a mixture of issues. The ranks of "real" refugees (fleeing from the many unjust regimes around the world) are inflated by people trying to escape the economic repression also endemic in many countries (which for some reason is not considered so important as political repression). The (complex) situation is further complicated by the fact that many "economic" refugees are forced to turn to illegal "human smugglers" in order to enter the richer countries -in a hopeless attempt to find ways of surviving for them and/or their children. Apparently, many "illegal refugees" are unaccompanied children -who are allowed to stay until they reach adulthood and are then deported (which also seems a rather inhumane system)." It's funny that entire nations were created with the hope of seeking a better life - economic and political - and yet political refugees are given more importance. It's as though leaving a poor country for a rich one means you will be making the new country worse off. Is this the excuse people give. "They stole our jobs"? Technically you can marry a US citizen and marriage seems to open doors in many countries, but some of us "foreigners" decided not to marry for citizenship. So, we get to go through a much longer process of trying to immigrate. Then to you have to be lucky to be selected by the Immigration Authorities for there is a quota for applicants from each nation. You can also immigrate by starting a business in the country you wish to immigrate to. In the US you have to spend a million dollars. Most of us don't have that much money and surely for the less educated and less well to do, the desperation to survive doesn't go away either. So, illegal means are quite popular worldwide. Trevor wrote: "The apparent (if not admitted) collapse of the immigration system (in various developed countries) causes problems for both the residents as the immigrants in these countries. Although their interests appear to be opposed -in fact, it is in the interests of both parties that an equitable system is developed. Presumably, this would include acceptance of "economic refugees" (so they did not need to masquerade as "political" refugees) as well as the reduction of political and economic injustice around the world." Finding a solution is always tricky. Clearly non-entrepreneur-type immigrants are job-seeking immigrants and will cause questions on issues of welfare and employment and other "public goods". Are they taking money away from citizens? The fact is since citizen and immigrant alike pay taxes they should be entitled to the same rights. And in that case, aside from voting rights, there's little difference. I think citizens also feel threatened that their native culture is under attack - demographic changes lead to changes in national identity. I suppose if white people flooded Bangladesh I'd be wondering if they be taking jobs away from Bangladeshis too. The fact that the availability of employment back home is intense makes the scenario bad. More so, the more different cultures diffuse into Bangladeshi Life - as if Television hasn't already done that - one might wonder if Bangladeshis are better off or not? A huge debate back home is that "we are westernizing too much and for the worse". Western Television shows - MTV, VH-1, etc - are singled out as examples of western societies degradation of values and the better TV programs - for e.g. OPRAH, Larry King on CNN, etc - tend to be downplayed in such debates. Bollywood - which gets exported to the world - has embarrassed this westernization trend in the poorest way. rarely do we see movies from Bollywood without the tasteless excesses of consumerism. Trevor wrote: "Presumably, the reduction of political and economic injustice, would also help to reduce the tensions which lead to terrorist actions around the world -so bringing justice and equality to the world is not inconsistent with an attempt to reduce levels of terrorism around the world." I doubt we humans are that altruistic. Looking at what Bush Jr. is doing in the name of freeing Iraqis, I have lost hope that political equality is what the powerful are willing to give to the not powerful. Sure Saddam is gone, but we will always see more Saddams, and Hitlers and Bushs and Rumsfelds. Inequality results from capitalism and people want to be the one at the top. How do we redistribute wealth and why is that fair? We can have justice across the world - for laws exist for small thieves and for protection of personal wealth. But can we ever have equality? Trevor wrote: "However, one assumes that justice and equality cannot be produced from the barrel of gun (neither by "terrorists" or their opponents)." Neither terrorist nor national governments want to make people equal. They want some people to be more equal than others, I suppose. Terrorists and National Governments are the same - one is a society that exists outside of national boundaries, the latter exists within. As far as they try to take away the power of individuals by laws that individuals submit to or by force, they are usurpers of freedom. Trevor wrote: "Justice and equality can only be developed through dialogue -through an honest discussion -in which the problems of all the parties involved are taken seriously. By playing "top-dog" -it seems that America is effectively blockking any real solution to serious global problems which are threatening the future of civilized relationships around the world." Right. Justice and equality can only be developed through dialogue but not in a world where national boundaries are not safe. Where people go to war to support the dollar vs. the Euro or to gain competitive advantage against one another by having more oil. Where National Governments are lawless, there is no need to feel safe. Clearly, the world is better without lawless Iraq, but is it worse off with a lawless USA? Trevor wrote: "Unless there is a reversal of current policies -then the collapse of international law and order is immanent -and the world will either regress back intto the Dark Ages -or be forced to find a way to circumvent American power politics." We are in the Dark Ages. When nations take pride in bombing already destroyed villages of Afghanistan into the Stone Age - we were in the Dark Ages and have always been, but somehow totally not been aware. Truly, comfort makes one immune to injustice the world over, and for the first time I must say, living in the US - watching commercials on TV, turning a blind eye to the fact that you are getting taxed and getting nothing for it - it makes you a dumb person. Trevor wrote: "Apparently, according to reports on the BBC news, approximately one third of Afro-Americans are likely to end up in jail. There are now 2 million Americans in jail (many for violent crime -but also for drug offences). This is allegedly the greatest (percentage) prison population in the world. Surely, the fact that the "worlds number one economy" is forced to use such methods to enforce civil stability is a powerful indictment of American policies. Surely it is understandable that other countries do not wish to have "American values" imposed upon them." If you read about Federal Prisons Industries Inc. - the US State Department run corporation that takes jobs away from US corporations - you know why putting people in jail for doing drugs is so popular. It's the best kept secret in the US. People like Clinton take credit for raising the minimum wage while someone caught buying drugs - it's an addiction not a murder weapon - will end up doing time in jail and working for 23cents to about a dollar per hour. That's highway robbery! Trevor wrote: "In Iraq we also see that the military superiority of the US is not matched by skills relevant to the construction of a civil society. Before imposing one's will on the rest of the world -it might be nice if America first asked itself if that which it wishes to impose is so desirable -and perhaps, if it is so desirable -then why do others resist it so firmly?" The US has no intention in Iraq for helping anyone but US companies - oil, construction and defense products - who are lined with in the Bush Jr. camp. by Trevor Batten re: Sophia's post Sophia wrote: "It's funny that entire nations were created with the hope of seeking a better life - economic and political - and yet political refugees are given moree importance." Well, I suppose people expect (per definition) that such people will support the politics of the country they are fleeing to -and are therefore a political asset. Presumably politicians are more interested in political assets -just as economists are presumably more interested in economic assets. Sophia wrote: "It's as though leaving a poor country for a rich one means you will be making the new country worse off. Is this the excuse people give. "They stole our jobs"?" Quite often it is. Unfortunately, they don't see that their favorite politician has probably exported their job to a cheap wage country long ago. People also don't seem to realize how much "economic immigrants" (and political immigrants) often contribute to a country. The "Golden age" of Holland was apparently created by Protestant traders fleeing to the northern Netherlands (Holland) in order to escape persecution in the south (Catholic Flanders). Apparently, the art of watch-making was brought to England by refugees in the Tudor period. Without refugees, America would probably be in an even worse mess than it is now. On the other hand, I sometimes wonder if the influx of Asians into Britain -who fled Idi Amin in the early 70's were nnot responsible (or at least a powerful influence) for the rise of bourgeois Thatcherism (and the development of Britain into a "shopping experience"). Paradoxically, many immigrants at that time were not a drain on the British state in any way -because most were integrated into the family business (shop) of family members already in Britain. It was the arrival of the (hard working) immigrants which (helped) spread the practice of keeping small local shops open almost all hours of the day and night. Presumably, the larger stores felt they had to follow in order to keep up.... Sophia wrote: "Technically you can marry a US citizen and marriage seems to open doors in many countries, but some of us "foreigners" decided not to marry for citizenship. So, we get to go through a much longer process of trying to immigrate. Then to you have to be lucky to be selected by the Immigration Authorities for there is a quota for applicants from each nation..... You can also immigrate by starting a business in the country you wish to immigrate to. In the US you have to spend a million dollars." Quite honestly, I cannot imagine why anybody would want to immigrate to the States (certainly now). I certainly would not want to become a US citizen (and I suspect that they would not want me as one either). In fact, I would not want to become a Dutch citizen either. I'm hoping that Blair is a temporary aberration. Sophia wrote: "Most of us don't have that much money and surely for the less educated and less well to do, the desperation to survive doesn't go away either. So, illegal means are quite popular worldwide." Yes, I guess that's logical. I suspect that if one takes an "ecological" approach to society -that one could conclude that "illegality" is like an illness -in that it tests the ability of the (social) organism to resist it (or not). If so -then "illegality" has an important social function (as indeed illness might have). It has been said that all that does not kill me makes me stronger. Perhaps in this context -American vigilantism could be seen as a form of social "cancer" (where the cell continues to keep growing and dividing without any concern for its social effect on its environment). Sophia wrote: "Finding a solution is always tricky." Not particularly. Apparently (for some obscure reason) asylum seekers are refused permission to get a job (because that would make them "economic" migrants?) before acceptance -so the rules of the state (in continental Europe and England) force them to be a burden on the state. Of course, there is a logical problem -namely, that they often need extra help to get started in a new society (education, housing, minimal income, etc.) and that this can cause friction with existing residents -if their conditions are poor and they feel that outsiders are "jumping the queue". Sophia wrote: "Clearly non-entrepreneur-type immigrants are job-seeking immigrants and will cause questions on issues of welfare and employment and other "public goods". Are they taking money away from citizens? The fact is since citizen and immigrant alike pay taxes they should be entitled to the same rights." Actually by paying taxes, immigrants are helping to support pensions. Many European countries that were previously opposing immigration are now welcoming it because their populations are getting older and they need more "young" people to pay pension contributions -so they can pay pensions to their existing populations. Sophia wrote: "And in that case, aside from voting rights," That's perhaps a tricky issue. I have no voting rights in Holland (and also not in England) -this seems pretty stupid (unjust) within a trans-national community which encourages free movement of labour. Imagine a Californian loosing voting rights if they move to Texas..... However, one assumes that this will be corrected -not that I particularly feel like voting for anybody. I'm not too sure that a representational democracy is good enough! Sophia wrote: "there's little difference. I think citizens also feel threatened that their native culture is under attack - demographic changes lead to changes in national identity." Yes -this is something that I feel rather strongly about. I refuse to give up my national identity just because I live in another country (which of course is the reverse of the problem that you mentioned). I agree that this can give problems for and with the indigenous population (but the American immigrants didn't seem to worry about that too much either -I don't understand how they could kill offf the local population -after they had been so friendly -but that's another story). Actually, I have a theory that it is "integration" that has caused so much conflict between immigrants and locals in Holland. There are apparently problems with the kids of immigrant being involved in anti-social behaviour. I strongly suspect that, in fact, these kids come from cultures that are more restrictive with the way their kids behave than the Dutch are. It would be difficult to be less restrictive -I once read in an (English) introduction to Holland "The Dutch give their kids total freedom and they grow up to be the most boring people in the world". There is certainly more than just a grain of truth in this. So the problem (as I see it) is that the bad behaviour of immigrant's kids comes because the conflict between parental and local norms are so great that parents are unable to exercise any control over their kids (and they would be accused of "un-Dutch" behaviour if they tried) -so the kids run wild (rather like the way British people go mad (on drinking/drugs binges) as soon as they leave the restrictions of England). If parental control was more conform with parental traditions -then anti-social behaviour would not be tolerated in their kids. Sophia wrote: "I suppose if white people flooded Bangladesh I'd be wondering if they be taking jobs away from Bangladeshis too. The fact that the availability of employment back home is intense makes the scenario bad. More so, the more different cultures diffuse into Bangladeshi Life - as if Television hasn't already done that - one might wonder if Bangladeshis are better off or not?" I believe I have already commented on "territorial issues". I can imagine that people do feel threatened if their own country seems to be being taken over by people with whom one has difficulty communicating -because one does not understand their language or their social habits. However, where immigrants partly integrate and offer goods and services (in the local language) which would not normally be available (the rise of foreign eating houses, for example -or new music/dance variations, interesting literature, etc.) then they (often) become a valuable addition. Sophia wrote: "A huge debate back home is that "we are westernizing too much and for the worse". I'm sure I could agree with that! Sophia wrote: "Western Television shows - MTV, VH-1, etc - are singled out as examples of western society's degradation of values." Yes, I could agree with that! Sophia wrote: "and the better TV programs - for e.g. OPRAH, Larry King on CNN, etc - tend to be downplayed in such debates." Well, I'd hardly call these the "better" programmes -but then I'm used to the BBC -and even find that somewhat lacking sometimes..... Sophia wrote: "Bollywood - which gets exported to the world - has embarrassed this westernization trend in the poorest way. Rarely do we see movies from Bollywood without the tasteless excesses of consumerism." Surely, the merger of "the tasteless excesses of consumerism" with traditional culture is the definition of "Bollywood". I don't believe Ray would count as Bollywood. Sophia wrote: "I doubt we humans are that altruistic. Looking at what Bush Jr. is doing in the name of freeing Iraqis," That's because Bush is a Texas long horn with grass in his brains. I believe the point of my remarks was that "altruism" was not an option but a necessity for survival. Sophia wrote: "I have lost hope that political equality is what the powerful are willing to give to the not powerful." I'm afraid I do not believe that if somebody points a gun at your head there is much point in saying "don't kill me -I have a wife and kids". I do believe in saying -"OK kiddo -the choice is yours -but my big brother is standing behind you pointing a big gun at your head -and even if he misses then my little brother will follow you to the ends of the earth!". Sophia wrote: "Sure Saddam is gone, but we will always see more Saddams, and Hitlers and Bushs and Rumsfelds." Well, I already realize these things are apparently difficult for you to believe -but perhaps some people support the rule of law because it makes it easier to remove people like Saddam without replacing them with people like Bush. However, you seem somewhat "Americanized" in these matters. Sophia wrote: "Inequality results from capitalism and people want to be the one at the top." Perhaps you do not understand "capitalism" correctly (it might be useful to agree on terminology) -and perhaps only some people wish to be at the top. Sophia wrote: "How do we redistribute wealth and why is that fair? We can have justice across the world - for laws exist for small thieves and for protection of personal wealth. But can we ever have equality?" Well, I suppose that depends on how you define "equality". And perhaps it also depends on whether or not you will accept "partial" solutions. Presumably, some people are driven by genuine feelings of injustice -which if corrected will remove their need to fight against injustice. Presumably other people exploit "injustice" in order to gain political or economic power -these people will never be satisfied with "justice" because it will undermine their power base. One of the advantages of "multi-dimensional conceptual space" is that it allows one to develop much more subtle conceptual models (with different "parameters" which behave in different ways within the system). Sophia wrote: "Neither terrorist nor national governments want to make people equal." Well, I'm not sure if one can speak sensibly in such sweeping terms. Different countries have different histories -and this makes them sensitive to different issues. I understand that when the first humans arrived on the American continent (and in New Zealand) -they quickly exterminated most of the animals present. When faced with starvation -as a result of their stupidity -they changed their attitudes and became more careful towards their environment. One of the things that I tried to suggest with my "big picture" argument -was that people like you should stop thinkking in terms of unsubstantiated abstractions -but should try and understand the small details that underlie the situation. Sophia wrote: "They want some people to be more equal than others, I suppose. Terrorists and National Governments are the same - one is a society that exists outside of national boundaries, the latter exists within. As far as they try to take away the power of individuals by laws that individuals submit to or by force, they are usurpers of freedom." I believe the country that you seem so determined to join has a theory of "checks and balances" -the old country from which much of its political theory was derived from -also had a theory of "enlightened self interest". I would have thought that these two concepts were a pretty good basis for developing a social structure that had an "ecological" basis. However, you seem determined to ignore such possibilities. Sophia wrote: "Right. Justice and equality can only be developed through dialogue but not in a world where national boundaries are not safe." Presumably, making national boundaries safe (or even the question of "nations") is part of the dialogue. Now you seem to be talking like an Israeli: "Only when we are safe will we talk to the people who are making our life unsafe". Presumably this ignores that the "enemy" is reacting to the way they are being treated -and it also makes a solution to the problem impossible. |
Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Archives Writers Needed Be a Columnist Be an Editor Become an Owner Writing Training Program Internship Program for Students Advertise with Us Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com Our Affiliations (pending member) MediaChannel.org IndyMedia.org |