Immigration

[Jeremy]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> I will have energy as long as people need fighting for.

Wow...

[Blah Blah]

Odd thing to seize on Jeremy! As an active member of a trade union, work and employment rights are very much at the fore of my thinking. Of course I'm going to fight for those things, til my last breath if necessary.

[DaveR]

"....til my last breath if necessary"

....or until I get home (with a nice artisan loaf) and sit in a comfy chair with a mug of tea, and smugly congratulate myself on being able to be utterly comfortable and morally pure, at the same time. Idiot.

[LondonMix]

Agree with Miga-- using Nazism as an analogy in this context was extreme hyperbole and actually debases the true horror of Nazism and the holocust.

Godwin's meme was designed to prevent people doing that because really Nazism and the holocaust aren't analogous to much-- really only genocide and totalitarianism. Dragging it out as a trope in other contexts is lazy and a bit disrespectful.

I mean, do you really think this country is on a slippery slope to the mass murder of immigrants (illegal or otherwise)? Is fining people who house illegal immigrant really equivalent to stripping Jewish citizens of your country of their property?

[miga]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> "....til my last breath if necessary"

>

> ....or until I get home (with a nice artisan loaf)

> and sit in a comfy chair with a mug of tea, and

> smugly congratulate myself on being able to be

> utterly comfortable and morally pure, at the same

> time. Idiot.

Not sure I agree with this though, even though I know where you're coming from (I think). It's possible to "do good" while not suffering yourself. e.g. the tradition of arts and social benefactors who live very well themselves. I guess the wider point is not to be a caricature. Now there's a fight we could all do with fighting.

[DaveR]

My comment is directed only towards the avowed intention to 'fight...'til my last breath'.

The essential point of Godwin's law is the ability of individuals to poison any argument, no matter how reasonable (or at least interesting) through their wider behaviour and thus do a disservice to the idea of reasoned debate. At a time when political discourse seems to be becoming more polarised and one dimensional in many places and across many topics this is a serious issue, particularly where pretty much all the easy arguments have been decided and only the hard ones are left. At the level of actual govt policy, immigration is a difficult and complex topic, and the differences between most mainstream UK politicians/parties are actually pretty thin. Being in or out of the EU is far less important than most assume.

[Blah Blah]

Sigh Dave R. Do you think anyone who stands up for people is a hypocrit then? I wonder what you do with your spare time? Do you just poor scorn over anyone who tries to challenge inequality or poverty or any other worthwhile issue?

I disagree LondonM. My point was not that the Tories are the new Nazis, but that state sanctioned prejudice has a process of stealth. That was very clear from my words. But as usual, a different context is applied at the mere mention of National Socialism. I could easily have made comparisons to other totalitarian states. The government's policies on migrants ARE an extreme knee jerk reaction to the imagined support of someone who would go much further if he ever got a sniff of power (Farage). And as such have impacts on public perception and then consequences. The same could be said about the government's attack on the poor and disabled too.

[miga]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> My comment is directed only towards the avowed

> intention to 'fight...'til my last breath'.

That's what I thought. It goes hand in hand with the earlier "as long as people need fighting for". While it's hyperbolic, I guess I don't have much of an issue with that kind of passion/noblesse oblige/pomp, because it usually comes from a good place.

[miga]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> government's policies on migrants ARE an extreme

> knee jerk reaction to the imagined support of

> someone who would go much further if he ever got a

> sniff of power (Farage).

Which policies? If they are an extreme reaction, they're certainly not having much of an effect on the numbers.

[LondonMix]

Blah Blah-- in what way is the UK a totalitarian state? That makes no sense at all.

If the point you want to make is that you think the law is changing systematically to make it harder for illegal immigrants to live here and also to discourage legal migrants from coming by the withdrawal of benefits just say that.

The parallels you drew to totalitarianism and Nazism are totally outrageous. Suggesting these changes in law are similar to the persecution of Jews in the holocaust totally minimises what actual persecution and genocide are.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Sigh Dave R. Do you think anyone who stands up for

> people is a hypocrit then? I wonder what you do

> with your spare time? Do you just poor scorn over

> anyone who tries to challenge inequality or

> poverty or any other worthwhile issue?

>

> I disagree LondonM. My point was not that the

> Tories are the new Nazis, but that state

> sanctioned prejudice has a process of stealth.

> That was very clear from my words. But as usual, a

> different context is applied at the mere mention

> of National Socialism. I could easily have made

> comparisons to other totalitarian states. The

> government's policies on migrants ARE an extreme

> knee jerk reaction to the imagined support of

> someone who would go much further if he ever got a

> sniff of power (Farage). And as such have impacts

> on public perception and then consequences. The

> same could be said about the government's attack

> on the poor and disabled too.

[DaveR]

"While it's hyperbolic, I guess I don't have much of an issue with that kind of passion/noblesse oblige/pomp, because it usually comes from a good place."

You rarely hear that kind of hyperbole from people who actually expend time and effort trying to help real people with real problems, in their own time, and at their own expense. I don't claim to be one of those people (more than once a month), but claims of moral superiority accompanied by incoherent rubbish annoys the shit out of me.

"Sigh Dave R. Do you think anyone who stands up for people is a hypocrit then? I wonder what you do with your spare time? Do you just poor scorn over anyone who tries to challenge inequality or poverty or any other worthwhile issue?"

See my comment above.

[Blah Blah]

But you are making an assumption.

Whether a persons view is agreeable or not, it's quite clear when someone is very engaged in what they debate beyond just having a view.

People who are political activsts (for want of a better definition) are usually very driven. Unions are organised and maintained and run by people like that. The came is true of charities or any organisation that depends on a huge amount of voluntary effort. I can't ever see a time when I won't be motivated to do somthing if I can to defends peoples right to a certain quality of life for example. Altruism might be a rare thing, but it definitely exists on many levels and in many forms.

[Jeremy]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Odd thing to seize on Jeremy!

Oh I'm sure your intention is good (and I agree with miga's "it's possible to "do good" while not suffering yourself"). It's jsut that your wording sounded rather Citizen Smith...

[DaveR]

"Whether a persons view is agreeable or not, it's quite clear when someone is very engaged in what they debate beyond just having a view."

Unfortunately there's no consistent correlation between the level of engagement and the rigour of the analysis, or indeed the openness of the mind (arguably an inverse correlation for the latter). I'd always rather hear from a genuinely gifted dilettante than a truly committed moron.

"People who are political activsts (for want of a better definition) are usually very driven. Unions are organised and maintained and run by people like that. The came is true of charities or any organisation that depends on a huge amount of voluntary effort. I can't ever see a time when I won't be motivated to do somthing if I can to defends peoples right to a certain quality of life for example. Altruism might be a rare thing, but it definitely exists on many levels and in many forms."

Living up to your name, blah blah blah.

Back on point, the focus on immigration in the context of Brexit is a reflection of the fact that the rise of UKIP has little to do in reality with the EU, and a lot to do with finding a useful scapegoat for the perceived ills of contemporary Britain. The accession of new EU members led to large short term flows and consequent social disruption and pressure on infrastructure in particular towns and regions, but that is largely in the past. The movements of people caused by current crisis in Syria and continuing chronic instability in Iraq and Afghanistan obviously have nothing to do with the EU and the UK's position will not be materially different in or out. The sticky level of unemployment amongst domestic less skilled workers will not be cured by changing immigration policy. Comparatively speaking, nothing to see here.

[LondonMix]

Do you think the vote on Brexit will largely be driven by concerns about immigration-- specifically EU immigration?

The UK needs positive net migration to help ameliorate the demographic issues associated with the working age population shrinking relative to the retired population.

Something like the EU would never be accepted by the public in the US though. The loss of sovereignty would be seen as far too great regardless of the benefits. Not being British, I reserve opinion on this entirely.

[Loz]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Something like the EU would never be accepted by the public in the US though. The loss of

> sovereignty would be seen as far too great regardless of the benefits.

Didn't 13 states start something similar about 240 years ago?

[LondonMix]

Of course I mean the United States not the original colonies that comprise the US. Anyhow, states rights are still a very big deal and each state maintains a huge amount of autonomy and power regarding laws and taxes.

[????]

Loz Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Something like the EU would never be accepted by

> the public in the US though. The loss of

> > sovereignty would be seen as far too great

> regardless of the benefits.

>

> Didn't 13 states start something similar about 240

> years ago?

Plus a few tried to leave the Union resulting in a very bitter and horrific civil war, so it wasn't a painless unuin was it....