International Week - a fairer deal for the developing world.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Ok dudes, sorry to post on the wrong topic last time - so here's myr take on the international situation for International Week.

A lot of Brits are up in arms about immigration. i was on the doorstep this morning, canvassing for the Greens when a man points out to me that 5 houses in his street  were sold recently - and only one went to an English family. he said it like this was some sort of problem, and confirmed it with a rant about foreigners.

Now, it caused a stir in the 50s when we suddenly have a boatload of Afro Carribean  people turn up in England on the boat The Windrush .
These men were invited over by the government  - basically to do the jobs the white people did not want. we also got lots of nurses coming over from abroad. this meant that the countries they came from were suddenly short of nurses, but what the hell - we were brits and we could pay them more than their own country.

But what really kicked things off was the expulsoin of many middle class Asians ( Indians and pakistanis ) from Uganda. As they were Commonwealth citizens, the Uk too them in. And then we had the Somalis...
So now, we have had wave after wave of refugees settling in the UK.  In some areas, the local white population is outnumbered, but immigration of this nature is mainly in the cities. go to the smaller towns and the rural areas of the Uk , and  the population is mainly white, but in some areas, racial tension is high because he white people resent being in a minority on the streets and in the schools.

But why do people come to the UK anyway? The fact that we run a Welfare state is only part of the answer. look at what goes on in Somalia, and you see a complete breakdown in law and order. make no mistake, civil war, poverrty and extreme conditions lead many to flee their country of origin and settle elsewhere.

If you open the kitchen door and find the sink overflowing, there is no point grabbing a mop, or trying to bail out with a bucket. it makes more sense to turn off the tap first of all.  Rather than invest in Border police and vote for tougher legislation on immigration, the Greens argue that  the causes of ecological and economic disasters abroad should be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Britain , like many countires, sells arms abroad. In fact it is a principle export. rather than making the world a safer place, it fills the world with refugees fleeing the conflicts that rage in their native lands. Our rampant consumerism is also pushing poorer nations deeper into poverty.
Sweat shop labour in the far east means that tee shirts are cheap on the UK high street,  but that poor people get little reward for their hard work in their own country. this also spurs many to smuggle themselves into the UK.

So, Greens say that international treaties that protect workers rights and limit the deadly arms trade are the only effective ways to limit the supply of illegal immigrants. The Berlin Wall did not keep people fleeing to the west, and the Border Police will not keep out the refugees who continue to flee the developing world and the problems they face there.

On the other hand, if we fix those problems,  in the long term , this will mean fewer illegal immigrants.  So, we advocate -
Support for democratic movements and Trade Union rights for workers in places where they have not got them.
A limiit on arms exports
A change in the way that muultinationals are allowed to operate in developing nations, and trade rules that alllow local economies to grow instead of being exploited.
Implementing the Tobin Tax - preventing  greedy speculators from exploiting weaker currencies.

The better we can make life for people in Somalia and places like it,  the less we will be concerned with migrants sneaking through our borders, the less we will hear of piracy off the coast of West Africa, and the less we will see of racial tension in our societies.

Comments

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'In fact it is a principle export. rather than making the world a safer place, it fills the world with refugees fleeing the conflicts that rage in their native lands'

Britain exports AK-47s?

The problem with violence in many foreign lands is the wrong people have the guns.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Who 'the wrong people' are is generally pretty subjective and actually the fundamental issue of many conflicts.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

The 'wrong people' are anyone but us. It's self evident.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Your statement is great because it's true from every angle.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Who 'the wrong people' are is generally pretty subjective and actually the fundamental issue of many conflicts.'

As long as we teeter on who is right and who is wrong, we'll keep having conflict.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Everything Is Black Or White!

You Are Either With Us Or Against Us U.S.!

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

As long as we constantly sustain an absolutist position of us(good) vs them(evil) we will keep having conflict.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Britain exports AK-47s?

No, stuff like landmines, cluster bombs, 'stun sticks' that are handy in quelling demonstrators and are useful torture devices in prisons. that kind of thing.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

British landmines seldom kill an individual AFAIK. It's mostly the cheap foreign made landmines which take out the civvies. Cluster bombs aren't that bad. Really insignificant in terms of civilian casualties.

If you want to stop innocents from dying due to the international arms trade. Go after the guys supplying the stuff that kills mainly civilians. Go after China and Russia.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Go after China and Russia.
Agreed, the AK 47 is ubiquitous, I know. But we as Brits are in no position to hold the high moral ground while we ourselves are also a major arms exporter.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Yes british landmines can smell evil people.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

And while it's hard to argue the point that well-fed people with housing and employment make for a better world, there seem to a lot of conflicting interests that make that difficult to achieve. Not to mention issues of local governance.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Lol you seem to believe that the presence of weapons is what causes the chaos in 3rd world countries? Tell that to all the victims in Darfur hacked up by machete's, can't ban the export of those because any low tech country can make them.

Further I haven't heard of too many cases where the warlord in one town attacked the neighboring village with Challenger Tanks and Tornado Fighter bombers. Hell they almost never even use western manufactured weapons preferring the rugged reliability of the 100 million or so AK-47's on the market (roughly 1/5th of all firearms in existence on the planet) than anything western made. No, all of Brittan's weapon exports go to 1st and 2nd world nations like other EU nations, India, Israel, Brazil, Australia, etc. They do not by and large end up in the hands of terrorists, or 3rd world warlords.

You also seem to think an international treaty is worth more than the paper it is printed on in the 3rd world.

No, the economic and political chaos in the 3rd world has nothing to do with rich western nations oppressing the workers or arms exports. They have everything to do with those peoples being unwilling to stand up to their political masters and demand better and with their being prevented from developing robust local economies by western charities.

This is where immigration comes in. Forget how the people in rich western nations feel about it. The problem with free and unchecked immigration from 3rd world countries is it makes it easier for the local populace to flee the country than to stand up to and fix the problems in their culture and political process.

Close the borders for a decade and you will leave Africa and Central America no choice but to fix the corruption endemic to their countries.

End western charity and they will have no choice but to find ways to fend for themselves.

No, the problem in the 3rd world is not that the 1st world oppresses them, the problem is it has found new ways besides empire to keep them stuck with an infantile slave mentality and preventing them from developing (as a culture) a robust entrepreneurial spirit.

It used to be done because those nations were once colonies of the western powers and the self confidence needed to develop a stable economy and political process was a threat to the colonial masters and so they co-opted the best and brightest of the colonies into working for the government and systematically denied the rest of the tools needed to develop further.

Now it is done through giving the best and the brightest an escape route to promised lands in the west and then flooding the local market with cheap (free) goods in the form of charity, and jobs whose only value is to support an export market and add nothing but small amounts of capital to the local economy leaving them still dependent in imports (much of which is in the form of charity) to survive.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

It isn't ~the~ cause, but one of the factors, I think.

The tyrannical dictatorship of Burma cannot stand without foriegn backing and investment, but Total Oil, among others gain so much from their relationship with the military junta that they won't let it fall, and it is therefore hard for locals to stand up to the ruling elite.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

And it could not stand even with foreign backing and investment if the people stopped tolerating it.

Worst case scenario there is always another geo power looking to get access to the Burmese Oil that a rebellion could be externally funded just as easily as the government is.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

My issue with this post is that it assumes that immigration is a problem, and that "fixing" the developing world will "fix" the problem of immigration. Two arguments against immigration as a problem, one against the idea of fixing the developing world.

First, a purely ethical/principled argument. Immigrants are not, inherently, problematic. Often they are herded or redlined into racial ghettos, and forced to live in poverty and the like. This causes many of the problems that people associate with immigration (slums, the Breakdown of Moral Order(tm), increasing dependence on the welfare state, etc.). In other words, the problem is with Britain's (and the US's, for that matter) handling of immigrants, not with the immigrants. Racial tensions aren't high because white people are outnumbered, but because they're racists.

Second, an economic argument. Britain's native-born citizens, like the US, are increasingly an aging population, an increasingly affluent and educated population. People like that don't generally want to wash dishes, deliver food, pick up trash, mop floors, work farms, or the like. Both Britain and the US have significant upcoming tax needs as its population ages and retires. Both countries need taxpayers who are willing to do jobs they, with their degrees and ever-increasing expectations, are not willing to do. Thus immigration is necessary in Britain, and the US.

Finally, please, please, PLEASE stop trying to fix the developing world. The West's efforts have been largely problematic. Charity hasn't worked. Import-substitution didn't work. Self-sufficiency didn't work. There's little evidence that "free trade" (as we have it now) works. There's no reason to think that meddling in their internal politics and the rules under which foreign corporations can invest will work. Honestly, can you imagine the backlash if the UK or US supported pro-democracy movements in Burma/Myanmar or Zimbabwe? Western meddling is an excuse for further repression, and rarely a means of assisting countries to reach freedom and democracy (unless of course we're imposing it at the business end of our own weapons). Heck, even when Obama remained publicly neutral on the Iranian Green Movement, the US was still accused of backing the protesters, and the government tarred them with a pro-Western brush.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Query: Do you differentiate between legal and illegal immigration, or are you lumping them together in your assessment?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Which one, the principled or the economic argument? In the economic, they're not differentiated (most illegals pay taxes and never claim their returns, at least by some studies I've seen). In principle, probably not. While illegal status fosters a lot of the problems I cited, illegal status is, after all, controlled by the host society.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

(I don't know how this will come out, so I'll just remind you I'm (nearly) always polite and non-confrontational :D)

I'm going to assume you live in an area that does not have a large illegal problem, by the typical arguments you have.

Most illegals do not pay all the taxes they should. A very large percentage of illegals in So Cal work under the table and pay no taxes at all. Many who pay into the system they never claim is because they are using someone else's SS#. This causes some interesting problems if it's a valid #. I could tell you an interesting anecdote about one of my employees who was paying excess taxes for several years, and didn't find out until his wife died and the IRS came after him for back taxes on income from whoever was using her card. It took 3 years to straighten the whole thing out. I understand this happens frequently. This is where all that unclaimed money is from.
My understanding is that money from the U.S. is Mexico's 2nd or 3rd largest source of income (not all is from illegals. I have heard (not substantuated, because the figures some how vary depending on where they come from (something about lies and statistics ;D) that the actual cost (to the state) of the illegals is any where from 0 to 10 billion, I have never read or heard anyone claim dollar wise they are a net benefit. The supposed benefit is that they do jobs "white folks" won't do. Of course they also do a lot of jobs "white folks" would love to do. There are at least 3 construction trades that they are more than half (including mine so I admit to a bias).

"illegal status is, after all, controlled by the host society"

This is really too simplistic, especially in a "sanctuary city".
Personally I'm a firm believer in fines for employers, rather than oh, say just legalizing everyone.

There is a lot more I can say, but I'm actually ranting, and some of it should be addressed to your original comment in a more calm manner. However I have promised my grand-daughter she could use my computer. So I need to go, and may not be back for a while.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Ok, I will go with the idea that Free Trade is wrong - it forces people to open up their markets, and this benefits the multinational corporations, not the local pople.

I would argue for Fair Trade, not foriegn aid. I want the British govt to allow African nations to be able to make their own choclate bars instead of having the raw cocoa beans sent to Britain first, as happens at present.

But what sort of backlash do you envisage if we did go and back the pro democracy movement in Burma?

A tryannical despot losing power? A bunch of multinationals losing the chance to exploit yet another helpless people and do more environmental damage? Bring it on, do it now !

Agreed, the brit population is aging and unwilling to mop floors, etc.
but to bring in nurses and doctors from abroad is to rob developing nations of the skilled manpower they need.

The migrants themselves have the right to food, shelter and security. However, people traffickers are getting them through illegally and exploiting them.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

A tryannical despot losing power? A bunch of multinationals losing the chance to exploit yet another helpless people and do more environmental damage? Bring it on, do it now !
I thought my reference to the Iranian Green Movement was clear enough. To reiterate: the Iranian government used the slightest showings of pro-Western bias as a reason to incarcerate and torture protesters, and a way to foster popular opposition to the Green Movement. The same thing happens in Burma, Zimbabwe, and countless other regimes across the world. So with that said, I expect torture, imprisonment, and even murder to happen. Tyrants don't make a habit of peaceful surrenders of power.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

So, Amnesty International have got it wrong?

Reading one comment further down , the argument is that foriegners are fleeing because they won't stand and fight - we should shut the borders so they can't flee and have to stand up to the oppressors.

Well, how about we stop giving murderous regimes the finance and the weapons they need? Ok, it may be differnt in Iran than in Burma, but where appropriate, let's assist democratic movements, not ignore them .
unless you have a better idea.
Assuming you are saying that AI, and the economic boycott of the apartied regime in South Africa and boycotting Israeli goods today is wrong - what is your alternative?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Also, free trade can be a good thing, if it's done properly. It's not inherently bad, just like pretty much everything in politics. Y'know, with reciprocity. As of now, it's just a way of getting Western goods access to developing markets. You don't see tariff reductions or subsidy cuts in return. Look at American cotton dumping. That's accomplished because the US twists foreign governments' arms into opening their borders, then leaves huge cotton subsidies in place, making it cheap to produce, and allowing American farmers to dump it cheaply on foreign markets. This dilutes the prices the local producers can charge for their cotton. You can replace that with just about any agricultural product; cotton's just the most flagrant. If the US actually lowered their subsidies and tariffs, we'd stop using corn syrup and start buying Caribbean sugarcane, that sort of thing.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Well, i am glad you mentioned USA cotton.
I may be wrong , but you seem to be saying that the use of carribean stuff would automatically flow from the lifting of tarrifs and subsidies.
Frankly, I think it could happen , but is not automatic.

I support Traidcraft, BTW. do you see this as harmful? If so, why?

Democracy and capitalism for everyone!

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

I'm buying.