Immigration policy

J

joesoapy

Guest
Is having an immigration policy a racist issue?

Most people tend to believe to restict your borders is implicity racist

If you come from a country like ours which has never had immigration (probably around 99.5% of people are white) then any restrictions on immigration could be contrued as implict racism

But does that mean if you believe we should restirct non-EU movement in our country you are a racist?

Personally, I believe that entry should be restricted and a policy set by the government
I do not believe I am racist

I do believe though that the growing racist attitudes inthis country are both worrying and deplorable
 
> If you come from a country like ours which has never had immigration (probably around 99.5% of people are white) then any restrictions on immigration could be contrued as implict racism

Why do you seem to implicitly equate immigration with the arrival of non whites? THIS, in my view, IS racist. Ireland has always had non-nationals coming here to live even when we had net emigration. The fact that these were generally mostly white is neither here nor there. In fact, even today, the vast majority of immigrants are from EU, EEA and other European states as well as the USA, Australia etc. is spite of some people thinking that it's only the non whites who are immigrants.

A cynic might assume that this topic is another subtle (ish) attempt to stoke up some sort of controversy on the issue of immigration as has happened several times in the past on AAM before the moderators were forced to step in... :\
 
If you come from a country like ours which has never had immigration
Click to expand...

We've had wave after wave of immigration from the celts / vikings/ Normans etc. We're currently experiencing another wave of immigration. In the UK levels of immigration are at the highest levels ever in recent history.
 
Why do you seem to implicitly equate immigration with the arrival of non whites? THIS, in my view, IS racist
Click to expand...

I never said non-whites, I said non-Eu countires
This is the point I am making
I am being charged with making racist comments from someone else assumotions

I will try to rephrase the question so as to emphasis the question I am asking before it is thrown back in my face again
I will use non-committal phrases to try and not alienate anyone and their sensitivies or their own presumpions of what I am asking

Can a state (which for the most part has a popoulation which is both of the same race and religon) be able to implement a policy on restriction of movement into that state from other states (which do not have existing express agreements for same) without it being implicitly racist?

Before anyone raises the following points

Catholic and Protestant do not constitue different religons but rather different denominations of Christianity
and
for this scenario xenophobia could be considered racism

Please no one raise any discussion on whether immigration in this state is too high/low or indifferent
That is not the question I am asking
 
> I never said non-whites,

Well the following seem to suggest that you only see non white immigration as significant regardless of the origin of the immigrants, which is puzzling to me unless you are racist or have some ulterior motive for raising this issue in the guise of a general debate about immigration policies (which are generally based on criteria such as nationality and not race or religion) and whether or not they are implicitly racist...

> If you come from a country like ours which has never had immigration (probably around 99.5% of people are white)
 
The reason I am mentioning religon and race is part of the point of our soceity

If any soceity has a mono-tone type soceity it is very easy to point fingers if it tries to restrict access to anyone for any reason

That is what I would like to discuss, not the race/religon issue

BTW, I know Hitler probably claimed he was not a racist
 
> If any soceity has a mono-tone type soceity it is very easy to point fingers if it tries to restrict access to anyone for any reason

What is a "mono-tone type society"?!?

> That is what I would like to discuss, not the race/religon issue

But why then immediately hone in on race and religion, rather than nationality and perhaps ethnicity, as you have done when addressing the issue of immigration?

> BTW, I know Hitler probably claimed he was not a racist

I don't understand this non sequitur.
 
I give up

mono-tone type soceity = where there is an overwheling majority of one race

BTW, what os the difference of race and ethnic background?

The Hitler comment, if I claim I am not racist then I am sure someone will come up with a nazi refrence where they stated they were not

Is this question racist

Can a state (which for the most part has a popoulation which has the same ethnic background) be able to implement a policy on restriction of movement into that state from other states (which do not have existing express agreements for same) without it being implicitly racist?
 
> BTW, what os the difference of race and ethnic background?

Consider the case of a Irish born negro and you might get the gist...

> The Hitler comment, if I claim I am not racist then I am sure someone will come up with a nazi refrence where they stated they were not

Preempting Godwin's law so?

[broken link removed]

> Can a state (which for the most part has a popoulation which has the same ethnic background) be able to implement a policy on restriction of movement into that state from other states (which do not have existing express agreements for same) without it being implicitly racist?

Any such controls are discriminatory by their nature since they serve to discriminate between people who are welcome and those that are not. I still can't understand why you persist in drawing the issue of race into this. The immigration laws of most civilised countries are framed to assess people based on criteria such as nationality, country of origin, refugee/asylum status etc. and not on other criteria such as race or ethnicity. You seem to be obsessed with the latter for some reason... :\
 
Consider the case of a Irish born negro and you might get the gist...

I do not see the difference between

Put simply NO
This is my experience,

I am Irish and I am white I am Catholic
My wife is Barbadian and she is black she is anglican
Our children will be mixed race and and have dual nationality and if boys catholic / girls anglican

Good call on the link, I lose

I think you understand that my question relates to when there are overwhelming majorities in soceity that any rules that could in any way be considred oppressive to minorites is called oppresive
 
> Consider the case of a Irish born negro and you might get the gist...

If you can't see how such a person is racially negro and (most likely) ethnically Irish then I'm afraid I can't help you. Do you think that Paul McGrath is less Irish than you or I for example? Or Phil Lynnott. Or Curtis Fleming. Or Samantha Mumba? Or ... etc. you get the gist (I hope!)...

> I am Irish and I am white I am Catholic
> My wife is Barbadian and she is black she is anglican
> Our children will be mixed race and and have dual nationality and if boys catholic / girls anglican

Thanks for the family profile but I don't see what that's got to do with anything to be honest...
 
> I think you understand that my question relates to when there are overwhelming majorities in soceity that any rules that could in any way be considred oppressive to minorites is called oppresive

No - I still don't understand what you're getting at but at least you seem to have overcome your obsession with race and religion. As I've said immigration policies are inherently discriminatory in the literal sense of the word as explained above. In this context the majority is the established population of the relevant country and the moinority is the aspiring immigrants. Other than that what is there to be said on the matter?
 
As I've said immigration policies are inherently discriminatory
Click to expand...

Really, I lived in Barabdos, they have very strict immigration laws, I resided on a work permit

I never found them discriminatory
 
locked in: 5, 4, 3, 2, ....

Let me summarise this and every other immigration 'issue' as discussed by AAM posters:

A: "Immigration isn't always a good thing."

B: "Yes it is! Racist! Racist!"

C: "Yeah! Now who wants to mention Hitler?"
 
Joesoapy, of course me need an immigration policy. The colour of skin or religion should not matter. What should matter is the number of NON UE nationals who want to make a home and future life here, and whom we can accomodate ( in the fullest sense) in any given year. The present policy is This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language. We just let everyone in, let them apply for asylum etc, refuse them the right to work, put them up in lodgings, pay them social welare etc and then cry that everyone is abusing the system. Point is there is no system. Shambles more like. Long past time we had a fair and equitable policy so everyone knew where they stood. and for what its worth I do think we have an obligation to the lesser well off, both our 'own' and others. I also believe our non policy does imvite abuse. And its not racist to say so.
 
Cuchulain,

the qeustion was not as to whether Ireland does or does not need an immigration policy

It was if an immigration policy is implicity descriminatory
(eventually, that is)
 
> Really, I lived in Barabdos, they have very strict immigration laws, I resided on a work permit
> I never found them discriminatory

You're missing my point - immigration policies are inherently discriminatory if they discriminate between different people on different criteria. If I was unemployed/unskilled and tried to enter get a work permit to enter Barbados then I'd imagine I'd be rejected unlike you. I'm not saying that this is necessarily UNFAIR bit it IS inherently discriminatory in the literal sense of the word.

> The present policy is This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language. We just let everyone in, let them apply for asylum etc, refuse them the right to work, put them up in lodgings, pay them social welare etc and then cry that everyone is abusing the system.

What (non anecdotal) evidence do you have to back up the claim that we currently "let everyone in"?

> the qeustion was not as to whether Ireland does or does not need an immigration policy
> It was if an immigration policy is implicity descriminatory (eventually, that is)

Thats is not what your original query was at all. Your original query asked some woolly question about immigration policies necessarily being RACIST because you were mixing up race (and eventually religion) with the normal criteria (nationality, country of origin, asylum/refugee status, education, skills etc.) on which most immigration policies are built and on which they select those who are welcome from those who are not.
 
<<the qeustion was not as to whether Ireland does or does not need an immigration policy

It was if an immigration policy is implicity descriminatory
(eventually, that is)>>

Given the complexity of present-day society and administration of state systems, laws and benefits an "immigration policy" is surely an essential part of state structure? Ernst Gellner is one author who tries to address ideas of state, nation group and nationalism in the context of culture and economics and suggests the world is moving towards a global, homogenous single state.........but we are not there yet!

Meanwhile states and union-states have (ideally!) consensual laws threshed out and administered by the legislature in the best perceived interests of "the people".......whoever that particular "people" may be and however they define themselves, inclusively or exclusively, temporarily or for all time.

To answer a question which addresses structure and process with "we're all from mixed stock ANYWAY back to the Vikings/Picts/Romans/Goths" perhaps spins the issue along lines of ethnicity and what is nowadays being carelessly termed "race".

An immigration policy IS INDEED intrinsically discriminatory but that does not mean it is racist or unfair. The problem lies with the word "discriminatory". To "discriminate" means to distinguish between, to choose. Legislation on who can come in the group reflects (a) the skills-needs of the group and (b) available resources. If there are plentiful resources historically anyone who chooses can join, contribute and benefit from membership of the "in"-group. HOWEVER when resources are scarce(er) as in the case of shortage of food, or housing, or benefits, or school-places, or medicine........then the group (for its survival!) can "choose" and "discriminate" to NOT be open to ALL newcomers as this puts undue pressure on those resources and can actually endanger the survival and consensuality of the group, and the wellbeing of its individual members........destroy "the group".

The furore that generally sets up when terms such as "immigration policy" are mentioned arises, I think, from the unfounded assumption that the "discrimination" around membership and resources must of necessity mean racial (or tribal!) prejudice against outsiders. Prejudice IS invidious and unacceptable......but prejudice is not the same as "discrimination". Discrimination on the basis of religion or skin colour is prejudice.

Policies limiting membership to various groups is endemic in contemporary social groups and is an historic reality. Group boundaries are created by difference between those "in" and those "out" and this "discrimination" (distinction between - NOT prejudice!) is not destructive or invidious, but prudent planning and administration. I happen to be white, female, English-speaking. Australian immigration policy would "discriminate" against me because (a) I do not hold qualifications in disciplines where they need incomers and (b) I am over 35. Similarly I would have difficulty getting a residence visa and a job in India. To describe the latter (but not the former, curiously!) event as "racial prejudice against whites enshrined in Indian immigration policy" would be to seriously misunderstood a (useful, consensual) discriminatory mechanism.
 
Excellent post Marie. You hit the nail on the head in terms of the point I was trying to make about terminology such as "discriminatory", "prejudiced", "racist" etc. that is bandied about far too loosely and inaccurately at the best of times - similar to the way in which "immigrant" is often equated to "refugee/asylum seeker" or, more specifically and dangerously, "non white" as implied by the original post.
 
Immigration/Racism

Hi all.
I am a (white) Irishman who has travelled and worked worldwide.

Every country has immigration control, so thats a given.

Some countries had immigration policies which were unashamedly RACIST in nature.

For example:

In Malaysia (a predominately muslim/asian culture) I was required to have a visa/work permit...fair enough. Later I met and married a Malaysian girl. I do not have the right to apply for Malaysian citizenship. Indeed, she actually loses her Malaysian nationality through marriage to a foreigner!
However, if I was a non Malaysian of Asian origin (e.g. Indian, Thai, Chinese, Indonesian etc) I would then be acceptable as a Malaysian citizenship applicant, and be 'fast tracked' through that system.

I love Malaysia, the people and the country, but it is an inherently RACIST country in its immigration policies.
If the UK or Ireland, or any other EU country suggested such a policy of discrimination by RACE alone...there would be bloody murder!

We in the west are somewhat naiive in our generosity. We should negotiate bilateral agreements with (non refugee) nations to sort out a reciprocal agreement that respects both parties rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top