Is it racist to oppose illegal immigrants?
-
I don't oppose refugees fleeing an unsafe country. I do oppose illegal immigrants coming from a safe country.
so you're ethically compromised but moralistically solid.
good place to be tbh. allows those who desperately need help to find salvation and those who have and can to follow the rules.
-
I agree that there are legitimate reasons to manage immigration, but criminalizing the act is a complete no-go for me. There are other ways to manage immigration by creating incentives and disincentives that would make the criminalization of migrants unnecessary. I also believe that freedom of movement is a fundamental human right and that borders are nothing more than an authoritarian system of control. "Security" is only made necessary by the problems that nation-states create themselves by existing.
How would you limit immigration without creating laws and stopping people when too many arrive?
Freedom of movement is good in a vacuum but not feasible in our current world. The best would be if developed countries could uplift those that arent and the need for people to move would be reduced.
-
How would you limit immigration without creating laws and stopping people when too many arrive?
Freedom of movement is good in a vacuum but not feasible in our current world. The best would be if developed countries could uplift those that arent and the need for people to move would be reduced.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You've answered your own question, ending imperialism and colonialism so that unequal exchange doesn't create massive wealth disparities between nations and war no longer displaces people en masse, thereby "uplifting" formerly exploited peoples, would remove most of the incentives for mass migration. In a world at peace with itself borders are not necessary. Ask yourself, why is there no need to criminalize immigration between states/provinces within a country such as the US? Because the US, for the time being, is a nation at peace with itself. It doesn't have to be a perfect utopia - the US most certainly is not - to eliminate the need for border security / immigration control. Even a tenuous peace and a dubious justice is enough to eliminate the need for border enforcement.
Edit: This is a good write-up about how the criminalization of migrants does not even serve as an adequate deterrent to migration anyway. It is not only unjust, it's futile.
-
Immigration and illegal immigration are two different subjects.
Wouldn't arguing against immigration be xenophobic by default?
I think there are arguments for certain cultural backgrounds where standards or view on morality might be different. Or worldview. So they aren't necessarily all racist
What is your argument? Please explain these moral differences based on culture. Could you provide an example?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Wrong question.
-
If you are just going to reject one of the biggest driving forces of human beings, then you don't want a serious discussion.
Greed is absolutely part of it, people want to maximize their gains, be it money, health, security or resources.
But since you don't accept that answer, what is your explanation for a refugee that keeps walking through safe country after safe country before finally finding the specific country they accept?
Why should refugees get to pick and choose a specific EU country to live in?
Why would legitimate refugees's discard their papers?
what is your explanation for a refugee that keeps walking through safe country after safe country before finally finding the specific country they accept?
Huh? Because it is safe obviously.
Everyone wants a better chance of better living.
And refugees are already moving.
Since they are already moving why not move to a country with better chance of better living?
If they hear "so-and-so country has better chance of better living" of course they are going to choose that, again, because they are already moving. -
I feel like "illegal" immigration as a concept is inherently racist and being upset and anyone for not coming over the "right" way is also racist.
Even if the law bars say only pedodiles from entry? Just hung up on the word anyone here. I'm guessing there are some number of people we can all agree should be kept outside of a given sect of people. Even back in the day there would be exile's.
Then if we say some number of people should be bared there would be a "right" way.
I'm not saying immigration policy is good now. Far from it.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I wouldn't say it's racist to oppose illegal immigration, but it makes me suspect you might be and also makes me think you have very little empathy.
-
That's not what this discussion is about, though. It's about illegal immigrants. Not immigrants in general.
It wasn't me that changed the subject
-
I think being anti-all-immigration is xenophobic. But it's completely different from being anti illegal immigration or wanting to, for example, stop the immigration of people in certain job markets to help the country's nationals to get jobs.
What I say is:
"It's better to bring in 100,000 immigrants who want to fill needed gaps in our society, contribute, build it up and create more jobs, than 10,000 immigrants who just want handouts"
I have some fantastic news for you. For some time now, if you enter the UK via an illegal route you already have No Recourse To Public Funds. This means you can't get council housing, you can't get universal credit, you can't get child credit and you're not entitled to free treatment in the NHS. You have to pay for everything yourself.
Why would anyone do that? Ignorance maybe, but usually because it's better than being killed and they already speak some English or have family here.
The last job you got-did you have to supply identity papers such as drivers licence, passport or similar? Employers legality have to establish your right to work in the UK.
So the his news for you is there's already no legal way for illegal immigrants to be paid anything at all in the UK. Automatically destitute. Woohoo. You must be so proud.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Considering the high proportion of the population with ancestors who were illegal immigrants, there's also a question of what you consider as acceptable.
If illegal immigrants in the US are all white Christian beautiful women filling jobs that locals don't want to do in healthcare, is it different than Pedro from Honduras who works in construction but looks like he could be a drug mule.
-
I have some fantastic news for you. For some time now, if you enter the UK via an illegal route you already have No Recourse To Public Funds. This means you can't get council housing, you can't get universal credit, you can't get child credit and you're not entitled to free treatment in the NHS. You have to pay for everything yourself.
Why would anyone do that? Ignorance maybe, but usually because it's better than being killed and they already speak some English or have family here.
The last job you got-did you have to supply identity papers such as drivers licence, passport or similar? Employers legality have to establish your right to work in the UK.
So the his news for you is there's already no legal way for illegal immigrants to be paid anything at all in the UK. Automatically destitute. Woohoo. You must be so proud.
-
What is your argument? Please explain these moral differences based on culture. Could you provide an example?
-
so you're ethically compromised but moralistically solid.
good place to be tbh. allows those who desperately need help to find salvation and those who have and can to follow the rules.
Basically. I'm also not against programmes to relieve other countries of their refugees (such as Greece) although I think such programmes should be evaluated for if we have the resources to support them and build them up into functioning members of society
-
Thanks for a thoughtful response. My thoughts:
- In most cases, illegal immigrants do not benefit from government welfare programs, but they do work and contribute to the economy positively.
- In cases where data has been collected, immigrant populations tend to put more into the economy than take through social programs, when compared with native populations. I can provide sources and data on this if you'd like.
- Illegal immigrants may often not pay income tax, but they do pay most other forms of taxes that still end up paying more into the system than they get back. I can also provide evidence on this if you'd like.
- If tax isn't being collected from someone, when they're willing to pay it, that is 100% the fault of anti-immigration policy, not an immigration issue.
Thanks for a well-written reply. Here's some quick responses:
1... as mentioned the primary costs here come from increased crime which is hard to document. In high trust societies (which social welfare countries usually are) this has a disproportionately negative impact on the economy. Also, in several Scandinavian countries everyone has a right to emergency healthcare, regardless of their immigration status.
2... I believe you're correct when it comes to countries with less social welfare such as the US, however, this isn't the case in countries with robust social welfare systems. As recently as 2023 Denmark assessed the net contribution of migrants and their descendants on the public finances and published the results. The sum total effect of migrants was negative (-19B DKK). Per capita the average Dane had an impact of (22k DKK) per year and the average migrant (-21k DKK). Some migrant/migrant descendant subgroups were better or worse than others (best 52k DKK, worst -109k).
3... Sure, I assume this accounts for other societal costs such as law enforcement and crime?
4... See the response to #2. The taxes don't cover the costs.
-
You've answered your own question, ending imperialism and colonialism so that unequal exchange doesn't create massive wealth disparities between nations and war no longer displaces people en masse, thereby "uplifting" formerly exploited peoples, would remove most of the incentives for mass migration. In a world at peace with itself borders are not necessary. Ask yourself, why is there no need to criminalize immigration between states/provinces within a country such as the US? Because the US, for the time being, is a nation at peace with itself. It doesn't have to be a perfect utopia - the US most certainly is not - to eliminate the need for border security / immigration control. Even a tenuous peace and a dubious justice is enough to eliminate the need for border enforcement.
Edit: This is a good write-up about how the criminalization of migrants does not even serve as an adequate deterrent to migration anyway. It is not only unjust, it's futile.
Ok, so just wishful thinking then. The problem is we live in the present, not some utopian future.
Ask yourself, why is there no need to criminalize immigration between states/provinces within a country such as the US?
Now you're just copying my comment and changing the timeframe lol.
Can you elaborate on how you think turning the world into a utopia would be achievable?
-
No. And I am tired of people assuming I'm racist for not wanting idiots coming over in small boats from france
Would bigger boats help?
-
Considering the high proportion of the population with ancestors who were illegal immigrants, there's also a question of what you consider as acceptable.
If illegal immigrants in the US are all white Christian beautiful women filling jobs that locals don't want to do in healthcare, is it different than Pedro from Honduras who works in construction but looks like he could be a drug mule.
OP did not mention the US.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
Lol, that's for legal migrants
You can apply online for a change to your conditions if your financial circumstances change and you:
- have permission to stay on the basis of your family or private life
- have applied for permission to stay on the basis of your family or private life
- have permission to stay with a close relative with protection status as a child
- hold a British National (Overseas) visa
- have permission granted on any other immigration route and you want to apply on a discretionary basis because your circumstances are particularly compelling
Note the permission thing.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The term is a little racist. It is like defining someone as an excon, or ex convict, rather than someone who has spent time in prison. Or as disabled rather than a person with a disability. You define people as a simple thing rather than as a whole person with a feature. It flattens people into less than they are and makes them less than human.
So opposing people who flaunt the rules is a separate question to opposing illegal immigrants. You don't dismiss their humanity, you don't discard them, you say "You breeched the rules and here are the consequences."
The second layer is whether you believe in the rules. Do you believe people from other countries are fundamentally different to you? Are they less because of where they come from? If so, yes, racist. If not, then probably not.
