Senate Is the backlash against immigration valid, racist, both... or something else?

I don't think you can separate the two when examining the backlash, Penguinator. I really don't.

Even, also worth pointing out that the "speak English" crowd would generally be the ones who, if they travelled, learned nothing in the language of their destination country.

 

I thought I was just supposed to speak loudly and slowly.

 

Everyone is an Enemy...Just don't get paranoid they are!

 

NO. I JUST WANT TO GET AMERICAN FOOD. WHERE. CAN. I. GET. THIS?

 

Uh... I don't see how?

I, for one, make very clear distinction between those just seeking "life in America" and "line-jumping" and those who are seeking asylum.

 

Because 90% of people seeking asylum by hopping borders do not fit the legal criteria for asylum.

 

Then send them back if they don't qualify for the country's criteria?

Here in the US, we cover a variety of things including religious persecution I believe...

 

Aren't successful asylum seekers and accepted refugees pretty rare in the United States? I know people from only a few countries even have a chance.

 

So what do you do with refugees, then? Turn them away at the door?

 

Probably not, because of the distance. You may have some Latin and Central Americans claiming asylum but otherwise, your volume would be limited to the annual allocation (plus extras, if viable) as agreed with UNHCR.

Generally speaking, refugees wouldn't be at the door; they'd be illegal migrants claiming asylum.

Please bear in mind that refugees are generally, but not always, internally displaced peoples at genuine risk of persecution. A guy who thinks life would be safer in the EU/UK/USA/Canada/Australia than in Afghanistan and who doesn't legally migrate is not a refugee, despite what he claims.

 

I'll assume these two things are related, but bite anyway.

Are you dismissing the possibility that Australia's refugee laws or the enforcement thereof could potentially be racist or unfair? It seems to me you're conflating legal fact with some kind of higher moral truth here - that because these refugees don't meet the Australian legal definition of refugee - regardless of what they've been through before reaching the island, it's therefore not unfair or racist to turn them away or kick them out. I'd contend that a great many American laws are racist inherently or in the way they're enforced - and I imagine based on what I know about the Australian government and its history with, for example, indigenous populations, that Australia probably has that problem too. Even accepting that "categorically nobody arriving by boat is a legitimate refugee" (which is probably also arguable), that doesn't mean that it's objectively fair and non-racist to turn them away or kick them out.

 

Fair points, Dani, but they weren't related. I actually spent a significant amount of time working with those laws (as they stood from 2006-2008) and one of the, in retrospect, worth things the Howard Government did with immigration is keep quiet on the considerable success we had in detecting and disrupting networks significant buy-in from SE Asian counterparts. At the time, I suppose, it made a measure of sense; we didn't want to notify anyone unduly about it, and moreover we didn't want to risk putting Asian countries on the defensive from accusations about being the puppet of a largely-white country.

Anecdotes are fine, but what I'd really say is that it would make sense to label them racist or at least hostile to immigration if you hadn't seen growth in the volumes of refugees through UNHCR (or IOM via proxy) and significant growth in year on year legal migration. We did in both cases, so it seems we were hostile to illegal migration whilst expanded legal migration and even adding new visa subclasses to add an incentive to come here legally. So, no, I don't think they were racist.

 

I don't know anything about how other countries work in this regard, but automatically assuming someone's racist just because they're against illegal immigration is foolish. The same core ideology also causes people to assume that all Christians are stupid, that all homosexuals are born that way, or that women have an inherent human right to murder their own children. Simply put, that ideology is best summed up like this: "nothing matters more than what I want right now, and nothing's right or wrong unless I say so." That's what happens when equality's made arbitrary, and absolute truth is rejected through selfish pride.

 

Ah, yeah. That would mitigate it, assuming the racial and ethnic mix of legal migrants was roughly the same (or at least not significantly whiter than) the mix of people arriving without documentation.

 

Exactly!

 

I'm pretty sure it's your "absolute truth" that is arbitrary. Did you challenge yourself to see how many offensive and ignorant views you could cram into such a short post?

This country was founded on immigration... forceful and violent divide and conquer immigration. Immigration was made "illegal" by the people whose ancestors came in and stole the land from its native people.

I realize this thread is not Murica-centric. I honestly don't know a whole lot about immigration laws or protocol in other countries, so I'm refraining from commenting (I am, however, interested in following this thread and learning a lot more).

 

By its very nature, absolute truth is the opposite of arbitrary. It invokes a principle - legal, moral, or otherwise - that applies to everyone in all times and places, regardless of belief. The fact that some ignore or rebel against it doesn't change its nature or existence.As for the "offensive" possibility, its exactly that...possible, not inherent. There's nothing inwardly connected between rejecting illegal immigration, and hating people because of their skin color or national heritage.

First, I don't condone murder or theft; both will always be absolutely wrong. What some of the original settlers did to natives is beyond despicable...but its time to stop using those horrors as an excuse to avoid doing the right thing now.

 

I think in cases like Switzerland it has a lot ot do with people being upset over the arrogance of politicians (and sometimes the media). If politicians act as if all complaints are just caused by prejudice and people being too dumb to see the light, you end up with people taking things a bit further. It's not only that these politicians seem to think that they know much better what is good for everyone, regardless of what the opinion about matters actually are, they also ridicule or attack anyone who sees some problems in the approach they are taking. If those who mention valid concerns (without questioning the overall intent, constructive criticism so to speak) will get painted into the right-wing corner right away, without even so much as a hint of actually answering to the arguments given (because then those who attack them would have to agree that these are actually valid), things are bound to get ugly one way or the other. One comment that might be slightly questionable is enough for certain people to go in all out attack-mode to make sure no one notices that pretty much everything else that is mentioned is actually right.

All it would take, is for the people in charge to listen to their own people once in a while. That way, minor issues can get solved before they turn into a large problem. That would help everyone. People would see that their concerns are acknowledged, prejudices would be lessened, both of which helps the immigrants. Instead things get ignored, the people see that their concerns not only seem to be irrelevant to those in power, they also get ridiculed. That creates resentment and growing prejudices, while the immigrants feel like the local population is hostile towards them, which makes them less inclined to fit in, staying with people of their kind instead.
If politicians actually remembered that they serve the country, not the other way round, it wouldn't even get to the point were things like the vote in Switzerland get off the ground, because there wouldn't be the necessary support for it. There will always be problems, but there are ways to make sure that things don't get out of hand.

 

lebanese americans hollaback (hollaback AaylaSecurOWNED)

 

Holla. I went to La Crosse, Wisconsin once for a Girl Scout thing and discovered while I was there that there was a huge Lebanese population in the town. Mideast reppin in the Midwest.

 

Flyover Staters...

 

the lebanese side of my family originally migrated to canada 5ish generations ago before my branch came to the the states. a bunch are still in that michigan/canada border area and my great uncle was the mayor of some podunk majority arab town around there and has the local medical center named after him lol

<<the lebanese american Experience>>

 

Lol. I'm first generation (...second generation? These are used so inconsistently.), but I also have ancestors I can look up at Ellis Island because they came over and then were like "nah thx" and went back.

 

I took a look; the top category is from New Zealand, which makes sense as its economy is the size of whatever is in your wallet and there's a pretty open visa exchange. Next are China, India, UK, Philippines, South Africa, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka.

Arrivals by boat - don't have stats handy but generally Afghans, with a large volume of Iraqis* and Syrians in the mix.

The boat arrivals will claim refugee status but have typically paid people smugglers a sum (either up front or in debt) to get here by boat. There's a fair comprehensive network to facilitate illegal arrivals; we were very good at disrupting that network (which essentially trades a promise of a better life for indentured labour or exorbitant costs) but then the Labor government disrupting that in an act of ill-advised populism. Iraqis in particular had this whole thing going on via Greece, where they'd get fake Greek passports from contacts there and fly into Melbourne, a city with a significant Greek population - hoping to pass as Greek tourists and then overstaying.

Airports make it a lot easier to detect intended overstayers; usually if a Thai guy arrives alone for a vacation and has a chef's uniform in his luggage it's a sign.

OK, this is interesting to me; what exactly is the cause of the discontent in Switzerland you're referring to? On paper they score highly on HDI and happiness indicies, and have much higher per capita income than other Europeans. What aren't politicians hearing?