Is it racist to oppose illegal immigrants?
-
Their mode of entry into the UK was illegal but any asylum claims they make will be assessed as being potentially valid. I think you were saying the same thing but not sure.
The reason people are particularly pissed off is that Farage and co. have framed the debate as an issue of fairness. Essentially the charge levelled at the irregular migrants is queue jumping, which we don't look upon fondly in our culture.
On our side of the pond, it’s becoming more apparent how many ways immigrants can end up undocumented. Of course it’s always framed as drug cartel member sneaking over the border at night to rape the women, or whatever bs stereotypes they can use to frighten people, but
- sometimes it’s a college student who dropped out of school and didn’t leave
- sometimes it’s a tech worker who got laid off and hasn’t yet found another sponsor
- sometimes it’s someone struggling to do the right thing and missed something. Maybe a paperwork thing a decade ago
- sometimes it’s an ambush when they are doing the right thing
- sometimes they’re refugees from horrible circumstances.
- sometimes it’s someone just trying to work
- sometimes they’re just trying to live as a family when a cruel system would separate them
If your system, like ours, uses the worst stereotypes to scapegoat all undocumented aliens, deprives them of their rights, uses racial profiling to decide who to attack, “officers” hide their faces and identities and don’t even seem to know the laws they’re supposedly enforcing, use escalating violence for infractions that have always been civil issues, claim they’re deporting “the worst of the worst criminals” while setting ambushes at work sites and immigrant processing centers, then you too may be racist
We’re over here trying to set an example of what NOT to do, apparently.
-
While I don’t know your racial euphemisms, “small boats” raises red flags. Maybe it’s not racist, but ….
How is describing the size of a boat racist
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
Without a one world government that could police people cross border, wouldn't it be all to easy walk in to a country, do a bit crime, and then walk to the next one? Not to mention human trafficking problems if no one was tracked how they travel across countries.
So you think every person on the planet should be tracked every time they cross any border anywhere?
-
On our side of the pond, it’s becoming more apparent how many ways immigrants can end up undocumented. Of course it’s always framed as drug cartel member sneaking over the border at night to rape the women, or whatever bs stereotypes they can use to frighten people, but
- sometimes it’s a college student who dropped out of school and didn’t leave
- sometimes it’s a tech worker who got laid off and hasn’t yet found another sponsor
- sometimes it’s someone struggling to do the right thing and missed something. Maybe a paperwork thing a decade ago
- sometimes it’s an ambush when they are doing the right thing
- sometimes they’re refugees from horrible circumstances.
- sometimes it’s someone just trying to work
- sometimes they’re just trying to live as a family when a cruel system would separate them
If your system, like ours, uses the worst stereotypes to scapegoat all undocumented aliens, deprives them of their rights, uses racial profiling to decide who to attack, “officers” hide their faces and identities and don’t even seem to know the laws they’re supposedly enforcing, use escalating violence for infractions that have always been civil issues, claim they’re deporting “the worst of the worst criminals” while setting ambushes at work sites and immigrant processing centers, then you too may be racist
We’re over here trying to set an example of what NOT to do, apparently.
There are genuine integration issues in the UK so the anti-migrant bloc do have some valid concerns. However, there will be a non-insignificant amount of racists among them.
Weirdly, the "skipping the queue" rhetoric even works with fellow migrants. I have a friend from Iran who I used to work with that moved to the UK ~3 years ago; he's way angrier about irregular channel crossings than the average Scottish person I know. I'd imagine spending a lot of money and years on a waiting list before being given a work visa was a grating experience though.
-
Would bigger boats help?
Size doesn't matter. As long as they get their passports checked
-
No. And I am tired of people assuming I'm racist for not wanting idiots coming over in small boats from france
You'd have to be pretty desperate to do something like that.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
No,
because it doesn't even fit the definition of racism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
Illegal immigrants are of absolutely all sorts, so there is no single human trait that is uniquely only found in illegal migrants.
Also, people don't oppose illegal migrants, they oppose illegal migration as a general thing. Illegal migrants are not the problem, they are simply the cause, and people hate the problems that arise in a society after to much illegal migration.People need to stop calling everyone they disagree with racists, its so watered down that it completely lost any meaning and weight behind it. Didn't get up to a granny on the bus? Racist. Driving a white car? Racist. Using an iPhone? Racist.
There is a version of illegal migration that I would support and truly leave an open door for everyone: You must adopt the culture, you must learn the language, you must find a job, you won't get any welfare or housing and you can't ask for anything in our society to be "like it was at your home". And voila! Everyone welcome.
-
So you think every person on the planet should be tracked every time they cross any border anywhere?
I don't. I would obviously like a world where border control wasn't necessary for travel. And it's obviously not an impossibility considering the schengen area exists. But I don't see tracking influx of immigrants to be a bad thing, if anything so you know how many resources to budget for their care (in the case of refugees) and making sure people don't go missing.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Not really, but the racist part is opposing measures making it achievable and even simple to do so legally. Then all the terrible treatment along the way.
-
You'd have to be pretty desperate to do something like that.
wrote last edited by [email protected]So desperate to get out of France? Or so desperate to have a holiday?
People ride the roofs of trains for fun, or climb construction sites/buildings. You don't have to be desperate to do something dangerous.
-
Why do you oppose them?
- The crime they don't bring?
- Economic losses they don't cause to citizen workers?
- Economic gains to domestic businesses?
- The contributions to social security & medicare they don't get back?
- Because they're not white?
- Because outsiders are convenient scapegoats for politicians to blame & flex power?
It's important to pin down clear, substantiated reasons.
From The Business of Migrant Detention covering the history of anti-immigration policies & its disparate treatment of white & brown immigrants
ARABLOUEI: OK. If federal government's spending all this money to detain and then deport people and a lot of times they're coming back in the country, and it's not actually achieving anything economically in terms of supporting American workers and it's actually hurting American companies, why? Like, why are they doing this if there's no material benefit to the economy or to protecting workers?
NOFIL: To me, it is a core question of sort of who is an American. Immigration detention's roots are in this moment that is so blatantly racist, that sort of - you know, the Chinese Exclusion Act pulls no punches about what it is doing. It is targeted to a specific group of people. But that is where we get the legal precedents that undergird this entire system today. It is a system that has only really ever, to my opinion, receded. Immigration detention is only really ever rolled back when it is seen as threatening whiteness. And it is a system that has, you know, continually expanded and gained public support by, you know, targeting racialized people, by targeting people who Americans are encouraged to imagine as maybe kind of criminal anyway, right? It is doing political work, and it is doing work that I think is, like, really revealing about how the nation sees itself.
look at canada
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's not racist to take issur with illegal immigration.
It's just not right to oppose the immigrants as people, or say that their situation is the result of some moral failing. These people make the best decisions for themselves and their families.
It becomes racist when you start attributing characteristics or behaviors to their race as fundamental attributes.
-
Where are you coming from with "the reason they have to be illegal is racist"? If you wouldn't mind clarifying.
Kind of like how a lot of anti-poor laws in the USA were targeting former slaves without actually saying it, and poor-white people were collateral damage.
Why would they be migrating illegally when migrating legally would clearly be better for them?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Short answer yes with an if. The long answer is no with a but.
I'd say it's racist if someone is complaining about illegal immigrants alongside a general contempt of 'foreigners' and not paying attention to the details of why it's illegal for them to migrate the way they did and what options are available for legal migration.
It's not racist to be opposed to those who are in violation of the law, as that is not a racial or ethnic classification. But it is important to be inquisitive as to why the law is the way that it is, and be willing to consider the possibility that just because something is against the law does not mean that it should be. Law has long been used as a tool of systemic oppression and racism, as well as many other horrific abuses inflicted on people.
-
How is describing the size of a boat racist
wrote last edited by [email protected]Like I said, I don’t know your euphemisms and usage, but …..
It’s racist when we mean those people. They’re all criminals and druggies and queue jumpers. And you know they’re mostly x. Not like the good ones from Scandinavia that fly in. Those are not the problem.
It reminds me of a term we have here: wetbacks. There are still some idiots who try to claim it’s just descriptive of people who swam across the rio grande river. But we all know it’s those people from south of the border with the darker skin. They’re all illegal, drug smugglers, will rob and rape and steal our jobs. And somehow use up our healthcare and social security that they can’t collect. Even if there was a chance it was descriptive in the beginning, it’s clearly racist and it’s clearly exploited by our Regressives to drive fear and outrage. If there’s anyone who still supports the abuses of our current immigration enforcement thugs it’s because of how successfully that term has been demonized
And this is why allowing people like Charlie Kirk is dangerous. We’re used to saying that people have a right to voice their opinions but the modern world has made it easy to influence millions with the most abhorrent opinions and to escape consequences of voicing them. The modern world rewards with success those who exploit divisiveness, outrage, haired, and we haven’t been able to get past that. He shouldn’t have been shot but in an ideal world would have been shunned and exiled, left alone in ignomy
-
Like I said, I don’t know your euphemisms and usage, but …..
It’s racist when we mean those people. They’re all criminals and druggies and queue jumpers. And you know they’re mostly x. Not like the good ones from Scandinavia that fly in. Those are not the problem.
It reminds me of a term we have here: wetbacks. There are still some idiots who try to claim it’s just descriptive of people who swam across the rio grande river. But we all know it’s those people from south of the border with the darker skin. They’re all illegal, drug smugglers, will rob and rape and steal our jobs. And somehow use up our healthcare and social security that they can’t collect. Even if there was a chance it was descriptive in the beginning, it’s clearly racist and it’s clearly exploited by our Regressives to drive fear and outrage. If there’s anyone who still supports the abuses of our current immigration enforcement thugs it’s because of how successfully that term has been demonized
And this is why allowing people like Charlie Kirk is dangerous. We’re used to saying that people have a right to voice their opinions but the modern world has made it easy to influence millions with the most abhorrent opinions and to escape consequences of voicing them. The modern world rewards with success those who exploit divisiveness, outrage, haired, and we haven’t been able to get past that. He shouldn’t have been shot but in an ideal world would have been shunned and exiled, left alone in ignomy
Difference is that mexico has cartels and stuff. France doesn't. Stop trying to apply your American logic over on us. The Chinese have a term for this. "A frog in a well". Except maybe you lot are more obnoxious than that anyway. Deal with your own problems and stop trying to poke your nose in others, imperialist yank. Your country has caused enough problems on the world stage. A number of weeks ago one of your racist billionaires was trying to meddle with our society by making speeches in London. We don't want anything to do with you lot.
-
Every time I meet someone who opposes illegal immigration but claims to support legal immigration I ask one question. If the law changed so that all immigration was legal, you'd be fine with it, right?
Nobody so far has been fine with it. I conclude that the question of legality is a dodge for people who are embarrassed about their actual motives.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Does unrestricted immigration work?
I'm not aware that any country (that anyone would want to go to, not like a war zone) has completely free immigration. I'd be opposed to having no more borders from one day to the next for the simple reason that it's a big change. One that's worth trialing and working towards, of course, but not something we can yet know will work afaik. Especially if we're the first country doing this and 2 billion people decide the Netherlands would be a fine place to live in (it is!). I'd not be surprised if it turns out we need a lottery kind of system, or maybe an announcement system, at least for those not in mortal danger, so that we can build living spaces ahead of time. Supply and demand is currently such that the only way to afford a house (even for top, idk, ~2% of world incomes) is to have a house so you can sell it at the inflated price, and while immigration is afaik a net positive to a country's wealth and welfare, this effect is offset in time. The housing crisis will pass again, as it always has, but in general the solution should be sustainable and I'm not aware that it's as simple as "be in favor of unrestricted immigration or else you're a racist"
-
So clearly you didn't fully read my comment, so why should I expend the effort typing out a response? It would be a waste if you're just going to read part of it and then ask questions I've already given the answer to.
ask questions I’ve already given the answer to
You have given a vague idealistic vision, not an answer.
ending imperialism and colonialism
And how exactly would that happen? Id like you to elaborate if you have any ideas
-
What. Are. Your. Arguments?
Put them into words. Dont send me a video.
