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.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/10 20:59 (UTC)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.