Is it racist to oppose illegal immigrants?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Maybe not racist as defined by Merriam-Webster:
of, relating to, or characterized by racism: such as
a
: having, reflecting, or fostering the belief that race (see race entry 1 sense 1a) is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
b
: of, relating to, or characterized by the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of anotherBut I can say it is definitely Xenophobic
one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin
-
If you have a society with robust social welfare systems - education, healthcare, social security, pensions, childcare, housing etc. etc., mass immigration becomes a massive problem.
Everything is taken care of via taxes, and those taxes come from a productive working population. Slow population growth (whether from births or immigration) allows social institutions to expand at a matching rate over the decades.
Rapid population increases from migration can overwhelm the systems in place and put society in a spot where it is no longer able to maintain them.
Furthermore, when it comes to illegal immigrants, it gets doubly bad. They can't hold down a legal job (at least in my country, and thus not pay taxes either), which inevitably pushes them towards crime or illegal jobs which brings a whole host of other issues.
The thing is, if they are there illegally, they won't be able to benefit from most of these welfare systems. And over straining welfare can also happen for a lot of different reasons (thank you neoliberalism)
-
No, race doesn't have anything to do with it.
If you oppose illegal immigration, though, you should ask yourself why.
If it's solely that you don't want people coming over to your nation illegally, then it's very likely that they aren't able to because of how complicated and exclusive your nation's immigration system is.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Maybe. Depends. It's complicated.
-
I'm skeptical of anyone who says some demographic takes jobs, because it's an intentional misplace of the blame.
Nobody can take a job, but a company can give away a job.And strangely you don't see these same people fighting to lower the birthrates of the majority demographics (since high birth rates will cause the same issues at immigration with a little delay).
So how do you phrase your complaint while keeping the blame on businesses?
yeah you're right. i said there are arguments, not that they're 100% waterproof or in all cases true.
the thing you said about lowering birthrates is 100% correct, and businesses share a large part of the responsibility (through neoliberalism).
still, the messages have to get out to the people and be discussed publicly, otherwise there is no progress in the discussion. one cannot just say that a certain thing has to happen or not happen without actually doing the work of discussing all arguments for and against something.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
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.
-
Why did the immigrants feel the need to do that?
If you're just going to say greed then I can't take you seriously, since greed would have moved them far sooner.Maybe there are problems with the immigration system
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?
-
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?
wrote last edited by [email protected]I didn't say greed can't be part of it, but anti immigration folks position it as the primary or significant motivator, but:
If they were primarily motivated by greed, the would have immigrated long ago.
And their objection seems to be primarily motivated by greed, the want more and they perceive that immigrants will prevent them from getting more. So why is their greed ok but immigrant greed isn't?What is my explanation? I don't need one, you're the one saying it's greed, it's up to you to prove that in the face of an entirely reasonable counterargument.
But I'll give you one anyways - they're looking for a place that they can belong, which isn't necessarily going to be the first place they arrive. They're looking for the ability to support their family, which isn't greed.
Why shouldn't refugees get to pick what country they move to, like any EU citizen can?Why would legitimate refugees discard their papers? You tell me, why would having papers be worse than not having papers? That practically screams that something is either very wrong with the system, or that this is simply a dishonest claim.
-
If you have a society with robust social welfare systems - education, healthcare, social security, pensions, childcare, housing etc. etc., mass immigration becomes a massive problem.
Everything is taken care of via taxes, and those taxes come from a productive working population. Slow population growth (whether from births or immigration) allows social institutions to expand at a matching rate over the decades.
Rapid population increases from migration can overwhelm the systems in place and put society in a spot where it is no longer able to maintain them.
Furthermore, when it comes to illegal immigrants, it gets doubly bad. They can't hold down a legal job (at least in my country, and thus not pay taxes either), which inevitably pushes them towards crime or illegal jobs which brings a whole host of other issues.
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.
-
I've heard a very compelling one actually. It's not about ilegal immigration but against immigration in general. I heard it in a youtube talk maybe like a decade ago.
It starts stating that the thing a migrant person wants the most is not having to emigrate. No one wants go have to leave their country because they cannot safely live a prosper life there. So the best outcome would be that the origin countries would change, so people wouldn't have leave everything behind to start a new life abroad. The problem is that the country have to change from inside. And the people leaving a country is usually the most qualified to make that change happen. So by leaving the country they make the change harder or even impossible.
I'm not arguing in favour or against this argument. But I do not think it has anything to do with race whatsoever. As it doesn't even talk about anything related to migrant presence in a receiving country.
Thanks for your response! You are making an assumption that most or all immigrants wish they didn't have to immigrate. I will answer assuming this is true, though I am not confident it is. But let's go with it.
Changes in material conditions of a country typically occur due to political action. That may be in terms of voting, political movements, or outside forces like war or sanctions. Addressing each of those:
- Immigrants typically can still vote, so no issue here
- immigrants are unlikely to affect political movements when they are immigrating for reasons like work, study, reuniting with other family, or enjoying lifestyle of another country.
- Immigrants have little to no effect on wars and sanctions.
And last, even if what you quoted is true, I bet whoever said it is likely not considering putting the effort of making their country better in the same way they want immigrants to. Maybe that's not one of the worse forms of racism, but it is one.
-
This post did not contain any content.
No. And I am tired of people assuming I'm racist for not wanting idiots coming over in small boats from france
-
I am yet to hear a justification for opposing illegal immigration that doesn't tie back into racism or racial prejudice, let alone a justification that actually makes sense if you take it apart.
Someone prove me wrong, and I'll change my mind.
It's not race based, but there are cultures that are less developed and may not blend well with other cultures.
This even happens with the likes of white American tourists in Japan... Or anywhere for that matter. Even in the UK and Ireland, where they are likely the same ethnicity (I know because they never bleedin shut up about it)
For example, in some places, if something is given out for free, it may be normal to take as much advantage of it as possible. Or honesty shops- it might be seen as justified to take advantage of the shop owner because they didn't properly put a guard up, in their eyes, so were "asking for it". The latter attitude can also at times happen towards women and how they dress.
-
Essentially this. There are no arguments against immigration that arent racist or xenophobic.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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
-
I've heard a very compelling one actually. It's not about ilegal immigration but against immigration in general. I heard it in a youtube talk maybe like a decade ago.
It starts stating that the thing a migrant person wants the most is not having to emigrate. No one wants go have to leave their country because they cannot safely live a prosper life there. So the best outcome would be that the origin countries would change, so people wouldn't have leave everything behind to start a new life abroad. The problem is that the country have to change from inside. And the people leaving a country is usually the most qualified to make that change happen. So by leaving the country they make the change harder or even impossible.
I'm not arguing in favour or against this argument. But I do not think it has anything to do with race whatsoever. As it doesn't even talk about anything related to migrant presence in a receiving country.
That's a strawman. And some people are just hustlers and want money and handouts and see it as something they are entitled to.
-
It's just a lot of clever words for hating foreigners. I'm not fooled by it. Apparently you are. The solution to the infrastructure problems is to build more infrastructure. Not elect a bunch of racists and let hate rule your country. Who gives a fuck where people are from? Racists. That's who. People are people.
The solution to the housing crisis is to build a vast amount of council housing, just like we did post war. It makes jobs. It boosts the economy. It removes the upwards pressure on rent and introduces downwards pressure. Who would pay through the nose for a badly maintained private rental property when there's a brand now council house at much lower rent? Landlords would have to fix the house and reduce the rent or sell - reducing upwards pressure on house prices.
So it's the government selling off council houses instead of building more and money-grabbing rich venture capital landlords that cause the housing problem, not some immigrant.
How do you solve the problems of the NHS? Recruit more doctors and nurses. How? Increase the limit on numbers in medical school in the UK (controlled by the government) and for goodness' sake, make sure all the foreign born NHS and healthcare workers feel happy, wanted and at home, because the one think the NHS can't afford is to lose the immigrant workers! Next, bring health and social care and NHS under the same funding roof, either by putting NHS into local authorities or social care under the NHS. Social care is far cheaper than the NHS and a bunch of old people can't get a place in social care because there's not enough funding for it. If it was the same pot of money, it'd be simple - build a bunch of care homes and ease pressure on the NHS. But how would you staff them? I think you're beginning to see where the answers are but you don't want to admit it.
Who gave you money problems? Rich people running corporations to extract as much money as possible from you. Not some poor immigrant.
Immigrants make our country better. Without them it would be worse. Silly racists can sound plausible without using the word "race" or "skin" or "foreigners" as much as they like but their solutions are just about racism and not about making anything better.
Trump is living out the "deport them or lock them up" policy. If you think that's all going well, move to America. Unless your skin isn't pearly white, because they'll lock you up before you can say "ironic" and certainly before you can say "habeas corpus".
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"
-
Yeah, but if a Nazi says we should send all the immigrants home, I see it for the racist shit it is.
That's not what this discussion is about, though. It's about illegal immigrants. Not immigrants in general.
-
Yes.
Just ask yourself why there is even a barrier to entry in the first place. Prejudices and paranoia.
... Which are justified in many cases. For a start, as a brit, I don't want a mass amount of Americans coming over here and electing their Trumps and bringing their culture war with them.
-
only if you stipulate your opposition based on individuals.
one can oppose all illegal immigrants based entirely on the legal definition of "illegal immigrant" and be ethically clear.
moralistically.... not so much.
I don't oppose refugees fleeing an unsafe country. I do oppose illegal immigrants coming from a safe country.
-
If you have a society with robust social welfare systems - education, healthcare, social security, pensions, childcare, housing etc. etc., mass immigration becomes a massive problem.
Everything is taken care of via taxes, and those taxes come from a productive working population. Slow population growth (whether from births or immigration) allows social institutions to expand at a matching rate over the decades.
Rapid population increases from migration can overwhelm the systems in place and put society in a spot where it is no longer able to maintain them.
Furthermore, when it comes to illegal immigrants, it gets doubly bad. They can't hold down a legal job (at least in my country, and thus not pay taxes either), which inevitably pushes them towards crime or illegal jobs which brings a whole host of other issues.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It really depends on why you oppose them. There is no real answer to that question.
