Three weeks until the election

[Trinidad]

But to be honest I will probably always support Brussels regardless of their policies. Because I just hate nation states.

I agree with you, but I realize that it is a very elitist point of view.

 

You and I can think and live across borders, but most people are not capable of doing that. To them, different people are scary people. We can easily step over those differences and see what people have in common. And then those borders are a nuisance to us.

 

I live in the Netherlands and work in Germany, but part of the time from home. That makes life complicated.

 

When my boss and I had to deal with Dutch and German authorities on how to arrange this with taxes, social security, liability, insurances, etc. my boss at some point exclaimed: "I didn't draw that line on the map!" Her feeling was: "If Rik and I both think that it is a good idea that Rik works for me, and we can overcome our differences, then why are governments making life so difficult by drawing this imaginary line somewhere between us?"

 

The people I talk to, whether in the Netherlands or in Germany, are all perfectly fine with the idea that I work/live across the border. But most of them wouldn't do it themselves: the "others" are scary (fill in the various prejudices against Germans/Dutchies).

 

So, if we want to remove those borders, we should remove the prejudices and emphasize what we have in common.

 

When Vampyr writes about how the British supposedly pay for the sangria that the Spanish olive farmer is enjoying, my hands are itching to point out that the Dutch used to pay for the firemen (stokers) on electric train engines in the UK and that at least the Spanish olive farmer is working and growing olives whereas these firemen were just sipping tea and not working. But that isn't helping.

 

Instead, I should point out that people, whether in the UK, the Netherlands, Germany or Spain are people.

They pursue a happy, safe and secure life, for themselves and for their kids, neighbors and friends and should allow others to do the same.

 

Whether we drink tea or sangria doesn't matter. It is only superficial. What matters is our common ideal of happiness.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

When Vampyr writes about how the British supposedly pay for the sangria that the Spanish olive farmer is enjoying, my hands are itching to point out that the Dutch used to pay for the firemen (stokers) on electric train engines in the UK and that at least the Spanish olive farmer is working and growing olives whereas these firemen were just sipping tea and not working. But that isn't helping.

 

I do not remember suggesting that the Spanish olive farmers were working and growing olives. Indeed If they were they could pay for their own sangria.

 

Instead, I should point out that people, whether in the UK, the Netherlands, Germany or Spain are people.

 

Sure. I myself have lived and worked in four countries. (Only one of them in the EU EDIT: another was not then but is now in the EU.) I really don't think that people are as "afraid" or whatever of foreigners as you suggest. This does not mean that the entire world should be one country.

[NickRW]

Back when I studied this in school, folks always described the EU as an attempt to stop all you idiots from killing each other in droves every 30-40 years.

Losing a small amount of local autonomy was considered a reasonable price to pay.

 

I might agree with you, if it were a "small" amount of autonomy. It isn't.

[helene_t]

I should have put a smiley after that nation state remark. Actually I am ok with small states with natural boarders even if they happen to be nation states like Iceland and malta.

 

But I think the world would be a bettet place if people stopped being tribal and thought of themselves as humans rather than as french, moslems, women, real Madrid supporters etc.

 

When I describe myself as European that is a tribal identy also but this is probably just because of limited exposure to other societies. Israel, india and usa felt like exotic places. That feeling might go away if I stayed there a bit longer. In any case I don't necessarily side with eu in international conflicts. Sometimes I have found the Americans to have better arguments.

 

Many people instinctively side with their own country whenever there is football match or a trade conflict. I find that scary. Non-nation states like Belgium may promote that attitude less. EU is a big Belgium which is an idea I like. But now someone will point out that so was the ussr....

[NickRW]

(Yes, restriction of immigration is a form of discrimination for locals against foreigners.)

 

One of the aspects of being a country (or indeed any other grouping of persons) is that you have certain duties and rights as a member - which others do not have. It is inherently discriminatory to be a member of any club, organisation, religion or country.

[Trinidad]

One of the aspects of being a country (or indeed any other grouping of persons) is that you have certain duties and rights as a member - which others do not have. It is inherently discriminatory to be a member of any club, organisation, religion or country.

There is nothing wrong with having membership duties and rights. That is true for any club. The problem addressed is about the right to become a member of the club.

 

How do you generally feel about clubs that limit membership to those whose parents are a member?

 

My children are Dutch citizens. I would think that the logical reason for that (if there would be a reason for it at all) would be the fact that they live in the Netherlands, are growing up in the Netherlands, are going through the Dutch school system, speak Dutch, have Dutch friends, eat Dutch food, support Dutch sports teams, have Dutch hobbies, get warm feelings when they see tulips and windmills or Arjen Robben, in short: because they are Dutch.

 

But none of these are the reason why they are Dutch citizens. The only reason why they are is because I am a Dutch citizen.

 

And to complete the picture: My children are as Dutch as they are because they now live in the Netherlands by coincidence. Before my (non-Dutch) wife found her dream job in the Netherlands, we were living in Sweden where the kids were born. And we intended to stay in Sweden.

 

The kids started to grow up in Sweden, started in the Swedish school system, spoke Swedish, had Swedish friends, ate Swedish food, supported Swedish teams, had Swedish hobbies, got warm feelings when they saw lakes and Falu rödfärg, or Daniel Sedin, in short: they were Swedish. But they never had the Swedish citizenship. They were Dutch, though they had never lived in the Netherlands, didn't speak a single word of Dutch and had never seen a windmill.

 

The only reason for their Dutch citizenship is the fact that their father happens to have the Dutch citizenship. If you think about it, how silly is that? Suppose we would have stayed in Sweden, my kids got married to a Fin and a German, and I got grandkids. These kids would have Dutch citizenship, but not Swedish. And to use your terms: that means that they would have rights and duties (e.g. military service!) in the Netherlands, a country that they would only know as "Nederländerna" from their geography lessons. Oh yeah, and grandpa had something with that...

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

deleted

[NickRW]

The only reason for their Dutch citizenship is the fact that their father happens to have the Dutch citizenship. If you think about it, how silly is that?

 

I agree 100% that some things about one's identity are not based on entirely rational criteria. These criteria never the less exist.

 

One of the things about identifying as a member of a country, for example. is that you expect your national government to have and protect a territory, to reject "undesirable" persons coming into that territory and, if undesirables turn up at the border armed and hostile, to shoot them dead.

 

These things are not necessarily rational. They may, however, be more desirable than not.

[akwoo]

One of the aspects of being a country (or indeed any other grouping of persons) is that you have certain duties and rights as a member - which others do not have. It is inherently discriminatory to be a member of any club, organisation, religion or country.

 

Yes - I said restrictions on immigration, not restrictions on citizenship. (Though there should be a reasonable path to obtaining citizenship - and I would consider to process from legal residency to citizenship in the US reasonable, though I think the path to get legal residency is an abomination.)

 

I also don't have a problem with a government stopping potential criminals or people who would otherwise be actively harming the country from entering. However, when your definition of "undesirable" becomes "anyone who isn't white who might compete with locals for a job" that is plain wrong.

[Vampyr]

Actually I am ok with small states with natural boarders even if they happen to be nation states like Iceland and

 

 

Well, the UK is more medium-sized than small, but it does have natural borders.

 

 

EU is a big Belgium

 

 

Ummm... Which side are you on again?

[Trinidad]

Sure. I myself have lived and worked in four countries.

So, you are saying that you are allowed to live and work in another country (or even three of them), but other people don't?

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

…liberal immigration rules is the key element and that is exactly what the UK wants to free themselves of.

I think there's some difference between liberal immigration rules and an imposition on member states by the EU's governing body of immigration quotas — which is, it seems to me, what Brussels is trying to do.

[mike777]

confusing thread.

 

Brussels whoever that is....

 

 

is trying to make the UK richer, much richer through immigration and human capital.....

 

 

UK is trying to stop Brussels...whoever they are.....

 

 

fwiw I have been to uk and Brussels....and find this whole thing confusing....

-------------------------

 

 

 

I just want to object..strongly....give the USA its fair share!

[MrAce]

deleted

[mike777]

for some reason, unknown reason people forget that immigrants are good, very good in term of benefits.

 

We are thankful for them, very lucky

 

 

I ask again do you see zero benefits?

prove zero benefits..

 

I can proof more than zero.

[StevenG]

for some reason, unknown reason people forget that immigrants are good, very good in term of benefits.

Why?

 

We are a country that used to be industrialised, but have been persuaded by the neo-liberal economic consensus that we can exist by providing services. We have a huge trading deficit with the rest of the world. Basically, we consume more than we create. Adding even more people imto the mix, who expect a similar standard of living, while working predominantly in the service sector, in my view, make the country poorer than richer, although this won't be seen in the short term. Yes, they make the very rich richer, but that's because they drag down labour costs and make the poor poorer.

 

Add in the fact that our infrastructure isn't coping with the increases in population, and the necessity to be able to control our population levels seems obvious.

 

We are not the USA which is a modern country founded by immigration - we are an old country that is overpopulated and struggling to continue to provide a standard of life to our present population that they expect. Maybe if we could find ways of reinvigorating industy, it would help. Maybe if we could find ways of regenerating the poorer parts of the country, rather than have almost everything in London and the south-east, it would help. But I don't see it happening, especially while neo-liberalism remains dominant. (Just how does selling each other insurance provide the right to be able to buy in tangible essentials like food and energy from abroad?)

[kenberg]

 

We are not the USA which is a modern country founded by immigration - we are an old country that is overpopulated and struggling to continue to provide a standard of life to our present population that they expect. Maybe if we could find ways of reinvigorating industry, it would help. Maybe if we could find ways of regenerating the poorer parts of the country, rather than have almost everything in London and the south-east, it would help. But I don't see it happening, especially while neo-liberalism remains dominant. (Just how does selling each other insurance provide the right to be able to buy in tangible essentials like food and energy from abroad?)

 

Not just founded by immigrants but developed by immigrants. It continues today. Sergei Brin was born in the then USSR.

 

But even here, we should not romanticize. The country, any country, that accepts the immigrants must think through its policies carefully. Most importantly, the country accepting the immigrants must be in control of these decisions. My father came through Ellis Island when he was ten. He didn't invent Google (or anything like it) but he became a self-supporting American, doing useful work. A win-win, as the awful expression goes. At any rate, the immigration process was planned policy.

 

With the refugees, it's different. It is not that the UK, or the USA, or France, or anywhere else, is thinking oh my we have all of this land and all of this work that the immigrants could be doing. That is not the driving force here. Rather it is that there are huge numbers of people in very dire need. To whatever extent the UK, or the USA, or France, or anywhere, responds to this need it will come much more from an attempt to alleviate suffering rather than a need for immigrants to fill empty space or do needed work.

 

It is always best if, when we do something, we fully grasp just why we are doing it. "huddled masses yearning to be free"? Well, yes, that actually was part of it. But I doubt that we here ever thought that any and all huddled masses anywhere were welcome to come. Certainly we hold no such view today.

 

Helping people is a good idea, a really good idea. Becoming overwhelmed by their problems is not such a good idea. A full discussion of pros and cons, for the US, the UK and all of us, is badly needed, With clarity about what we will do, why we are doing it, and what the problems will be. The problems seem immense.

[Vampyr]

So, you are saying that you are allowed to live and work in another country (or even three of them), but other people don't?

 

 

This is what you are saying. I said nothing of the sort.

[Trinidad]

This is what you are saying. I said nothing of the sort.

I thought you were opposing those "tens of thousands of migrants from across the Mediterranean". I must have misunderstood. Sorry.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

I thought you were opposing those "tens of thousands of migrants from across the Mediterranean". I must have misunderstood. Sorry.

 

I may well have been. You seem to be confusing things I wrote and this I didn't write. Please stop it.

[helene_t]

imposition on member states by the EU's governing body of immigration quotas — which is, it seems to me, what Brussels is trying to do.

Are you refering to stories like this one from the guardian about the libyan boat refugees? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/10/european-commission-migrant-quota-plan-mediterranean-crisis

 

I find it a little difficult to think of an alternative. Maybe someone can come up with a better solution. How does the US deal with the recent refugee waves from central america? Does the federal government have a policy at all or do they just leave it to the states?

[Vampyr]

Are you refering to stories like this one from the guardian about the libyan boat refugees? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/10/european-commission-migrant-quota-plan-mediterranean-crisis

 

I find it a little difficult to think of an alternative. Maybe someone can come up with a better solution. How does the US deal with the recent refugee waves from central america? Does the federal government have a policy at all or do they just leave it to the states?

 

Maybe the Australian solution is the best. Don't allow them onshore (or out of secured accommodation) while their applications are being processed -- failed asylum seekers are a big part of the problem, because they stay illegally.

 

For the people whose asylum applications succeed, the affected countries could give money for the additional infrastructure needed to a country that is not already overcrowded; say, Greenland.

[hrothgar]

For the people whose asylum applications succeed, the affected countries could give money for the additional infrastructure needed to a country that is not already overcrowded; say, Greenland.

 

Is so nice when you detest a person and then find whole new reasons to despise them...

[kenberg]

Are you refering to stories like this one from the guardian about the libyan boat refugees? http://www.theguardi...erranean-crisis

 

I find it a little difficult to think of an alternative. Maybe someone can come up with a better solution. How does the US deal with the recent refugee waves from central america? Does the federal government have a policy at all or do they just leave it to the states?

 

I read the reference you cite. It is truly chilling. They are referring to 400,000 as being two-two thirds the number of refugees the EU had last year. Ok, 600,000 last year. So this is a rate, 600,000 per year. The numbers are not getting smaller, as far as I know.

 

You ask how we handle our refugees from Central America. Well, mostly I don't really know, but I think the answer is very ineffectively. And I think our problems are less severe. I don't mean that they aren't substantial but I think the situation you face over there is much more difficult to solve. And, for you and for us, I expect it to get worse rather than better.

 

I think we have to address the following: If a sizable fraction of the population of country X can no longer survive in their own country and so decide to move to country Y, what are the obligations of country Y? In practical terms I doubt that there is much point in saying that these obligations go much beyond what country Y is willing to take on. Once it is settled that it is pointless to try to browbeat country Y into doing someting it has no intention of doing then possibly this will make it easier for country Y to at least do something. People who are trying to do something can get really tired of hearing from others that they are not doing enough.

 

 

From the article, it seems the immediate need is to deal with the traffickers. Whether traffic is bootleg whiskey or desperate people, dealing with this is tough.

 

So I don't have an answer. Neither do the people who say to just take them all in. Well, it's an answer, but you know what I mean.

[Trinidad]

I may well have been. You seem to be confusing things I wrote and this I didn't write. Please stop it.

I can't stop being confused. You can stop me from being confused by clarifying what your opinion is.

 

Are you now for or against allowing people to work and live in other countries (obviously including the U.K.)?

 

A simple answer of "for" to that question should remove all the confusion.

And if the answer is "against", the question remains why you allow yourself to live and work in other countries, but not other people.

 

Rik