|
|
|
First Team
I've lived in Saudi Arabia. All those people are there for economic reasons. it's true (there are no other reasons for being there for most people). That's because foreigners do all the work. Saudi's don't do any of the work. I was not an immigrant, I was an expat. There's a big difference. There is an underclass of poor immigrants doing the work of poor people and being treated without basic human rights, those are the very same ones being highlighted in Qatar at the moment. Ask yourself whether Saudi is a multicultural country or basically a racist state with a servant class.Originally Posted by Steveo
The same cannot be said of China or even Japan for example, where immigrants are turned away and badly abused on arrival - North Koreans who arrive in China can expect to become slaves within days. Economic migration does not work over there.
I have no doubt that most of these poorer immigrants would go to Europe if they could. The economic pull is not the only motivating factor. People also want to protect themselves and their families from abuse.
And America has something like 3 million illegal immigrants a year at the moment. There is no tolerance elsewhere on Earth vaguely similar.
First Team
These sentences (and most of the others) are so weird I can barely discern the meaning of them. I look at them and wonder
which part I'm supposed to respond to, which part reflects what I think in any way, whether there is a question, a clear argument, or whether it's just a collage of thoughts some of which are speculations, thought experiments, suppositions.
strange
Rowdy Yates
The US shares a border with Latin America, a huge one. The richest most powerful country on earth, bordering a region it has kept in various states of civil war, and or draconian sanction for decades. Millions of those who migrate to the US for work and or a "better life" - do so predominantly from nations, handicapped or destroyed by the very nation they are seeking entry to. So much of this is IF you can't beat them join them.
This doesn't even account for the millions of others affected by their foreign policy is brief but alludes what I am saying. I think this needs highlighting before anyone tries using immigration to the US as a sign of it's virtue,
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/19/central-america-migrants-us-foreign-policy
Fleeing a hell the US helped create: why Central Americans journey north
The region’s inequality and violence, in which the US has long played a role, is driving people to leave their homes
First Team
It's an argument and its a very biased way of looking at things. All the human rights abuses south of the border are the fault of the USA. The human rights benefits north of the border are principally economic (therefore can be attributed to nefarious economic activity).
No accountability for Marxism. No accountability for the ethics of the Spanish Empire versus the British Empire. It's big bad America again.
I'm not interested in getting into this argument, which will be fruitless. I will stick with my original statement - people migrate to and seek asylum in (the clue is in the term) countries where they are treated better. It's a modest claim.
Rowdy Yates
Again an invented argument/claim to attack because you can't deal with the real one. Who claimed "All the human rights abuses south of the border are the fault of the USA"?
Familiar territory with you it seems...
No... the claim was that "Millions of those who migrate to the US for work and or a "better life" - do so predominantly from nations, handicapped or destroyed by the very nation they are seeking entry to."
Not the same is it Taksin.. Are you denying the below?
Guatemala
Jakelin Amei Rosmery Caal Maquín, who died of septic shock and cardiac arrest in US border patrol custody, came from Alta Verapaz, in the northern Guatemala highlands, where small-scale farmers are being driven off their land to make way for agro-industry producing sugar and biofuels.
It is an example of why it is often hard to distinguish between security and economic reasons for migration. The men behind the land grabs are often active or retired military officers, who are deeply involved in organised crime.
“When communities fight back against land-grabbing, their leaders can be killed. We’ve seen just in the past year almost two dozen community leaders assassinated,” Oglesby said. “There is a legacy of impunity.”
Guatemala’s long civil war can in turn be traced back to a 1954 coup against a democratically elected president, Jacobo Árbenz, which was backed by the US. Washington backed the Guatemalan military, which was responsible for genocide against the native population. An estimated 200,000 people were killed between 1960 and 1996.
“The point was to root out anything that looked like communist subversion, but it was really a scorched earth policy against the indigenous people,” Thornton said.
The issue of impunity for violence remains central to Guatemala’s chronic problems. Jimmy Morales, a former comedian and the country’s president since 2016, has announced he is going to close down the UN-backed International Committee against Impunity in Guatemala (Cicig). Cicig has investigated corruption cases against Morales, his family and his political patrons, and links between organised crime and politicians like himself.
In September Cicig headquarters were surrounded by US-donated military jeeps, but there was no complaint from the Trump White House. On Tuesday, the government announced it was withdrawing diplomatic immunity from 11 Cicig workers.
El Salvador
El Salvador is also trapped in a cycle of violence that can be traced back to a civil conflict in which the US was a protagonist, training and funding rightwing death squads in the name of fighting communism.
“The civil war really destroyed the economic base of the country and any sense of a functioning democracy,” said Thornton. “It left a massively militarised society.”
Gangs have filled much of the space occupied by civil society in healthier societies, but they too are largely a US import. The MS-13 gang, frequently referred to by Donald Trump in justification of his hardline immigration policies, was formed in Los Angeles, and introduced into El Salvador when its members were deported – often to a country they barely knew: another instance of unintended consequences which have rubbed salt in the Central America’s wounds.
Honduras
When Manuel Zelaya, Honduras’s reformist president, was seized by the country’s military in 2009, and flown out of the country to Costa Rica, still in his pyjamas, the Obama administration refused to call it a coup.
Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state at the time, argued that to do so would have meant cutting aid at the expense of the Honduran poor. In the first edition of her memoir, Hard Choices, she admitted working with other Latin American governments to ensure Zelaya would not return to power. The references to her role were removed in later editions.
Zelaya had been trying to resolve conflicts over land, that pitted local campesinos against agro-industry. After the coup, that conflict was militarised and more than a hundred campesinos were murdered. Organised crime spread through the country’s institutions and the murder rate soared. Within a year, Honduras was the most violent country in the world not actually at war.
The current president, Juan Orlando Hernández, has further militarised the police force. When he looked in danger of losing his re-election bid last year, he unleashed a wave of violence against the opposition and extinguished the challenge. The Trump administration congratulated him on his victory.
“These societies were poor and violent irrespective of when the United States became involved in a major way,” Cynthia Arnson, the director of the Latin American Programme at the Wilson Centre thinktank, said. But she added: “The US since the very early stages of the cold war has played a defining role in the evolution of state violence.”
Perhaps you have lived in these countries also Taksin? Perhaps you know each and every Latin American who sought entry to the United States?
Once again - keeping things factual...the US has 1/6th of its population as immigrants and Saudi Arabia has 1/3. These are the facts, however you choose to twist them - me old mucker.
First Team
I don't see the difference between what I said and what you said..
I'm not interested in even reading the passage below. If it were coming from someone else I might have a look.
Anyway, the relative human rights record of countries and the resultant migration was the one moral comparison I entered into. Even if all you said were true, and it isn't, it would not change the relative human rights records of those countries as they are measured today.
Given that I don't even agree with the fuss being made over Qatar, it's not something that gets me worked up. And arguing with a Marxist about historical injustice is a pointless exercise, I've learned. I quite admire the Islamic theocracies in some ways - they are able to put an end to Marxist nonsense bubbling up quite efficiently for one thing. In contrast we in the democratic regions have to suffer the revolutionary impulse ad infinitum it seems.
But that doesn't change the fact that Qatar has a poor human rights record and wishes to gloss over it using sports to do so - they actually have a long history of using that tactic. The fact that you and CCTV won't acknowledge that is very odd.
Rowdy Yates
"human rights records of those countries as they are measured today."
This is the very crux of the problem. The measuring is being done by some of the worst perpetrators of real human rights abuse. As in the right to life. The killing of millions of people over seas cannot be discounted in any way shape or form, just because it suits you or any western media voice wanting to call out the legality of homosexuality in another territory. The double standard is disgusting, and use of semantics doesn't cut it.
As for your diatribe on Marxism... the latest distraction tactic.. well the "nonsense"we can all see is in black and white and it is in such copious amounts under your name in almost every post you attempt,
Keep shifting them goal posts.
Keep deflecting.
Keep running away Taksin. just don't ever admit when you are wrong or when your warped ideology is exposed
First Team
It's not the crux of the problem. Its the problem you're hung up on.
Denmark and Germany are virtue signalling at this World Cup already. So is the UK and almost every other country operating on Western values. They can't all be lumped in with your assessment of American foreign policy.
The measuring is being done internationally. And the same measurement system sees human rights for citizens in the USA as superior to those in Qatar, which they objectively are. One set of rights are seen as acceptable - the there set of rights is seen as unacceptable. I don't make the rules.
We don't have to start all over again with me telling you that Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Corbyn's views are irrelevant. I'm describing the way things are, not the way they should be, for the millionth time. I'm not interested in arguing with you about the Americans as perpetrators of historical crimes because it isn't necessary to make the modest and obvious statements I've made.
First Team
Thank u. No one wants to leave their home. Nations have been destabilized for centuries and interference till this day cause some countries to be a living hell. So people don't actually want to be in UK or USA or Europe. If there were no sanctions, money/monetary systems (all the evils that go with it) etc. If nations and people were just left to be who they want to be and to emancipate into a civilization or nation that they wish for themselves there would be no need for leaving.
Africans would rather stay in a peaceful jungle than in some of the countries that they go to (they are not there because of "a better life, they are there because of survival, these 2 are not the same)
Koala tea
I don't expect you to attend to them, you flaked from the discussion sometime ago.
I see you are incapable of quoting the pieces regarding the monarchy setting the standards for the Rotherham girls compensation.
Perhaps you might look up the definition of the words universal and morality.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks