I have seen a few posts recently talking about the "migration crisis", separating children from parents, detention centers and the like in the US. There has been some who support the government because they are illegals, some who take a more liberal view. I don't know much about it though, I don't watch the news. What I do find curious though is all of the apparent conflicts in thinking of people taking whichever side, especially when it comes to freedom of movement.
Essentially, everyone wants the right to move wherever they choose without restriction and I think it is safe to say that if anyone was in a position they believed was dangerous to themselves or their children, they would want to be able to pack up and have somewhere to go. This includes economic opportunity as well, not just war, famine or draconian governments. I think that when it comes to ourselves, we all believe we have the right to opportunity and since none of us on earth have had the choice where, when and to who we were born, we feel we shouldn't be tied to the limitations that uncontrollable factors bring, that there should be understanding.
I think I take a relatively liberal 'on individual merits' view of immigration but, I am an immigrant, a son of an immigrant who is in turn, the son of an immigrant. My daughter (who you see pictured) is the 4th iteration of immigrant across 4 separate countries, India, Malaysia, Australia and now Finland. As far as I am concerned, each generation has added more value locally than many locals in each place. This is not an uncommon story.
What I find interesting about people's beliefs on the right to move is that many who are looking to restrict are also the ones who want freedom from governments and the taxes they impose. The taxes that protect their borders. Many who are here are quite happy to move their cryptocurrency across those borders unseen but, when it comes to people, they draw their imaginary lines on the map and say, This is ours, you need to fill out paperwork. Those same people should be going out of their way to make sure their taxes are paid, shouldn't they?
It is only ours because the governments for generations and centuries have deemed it so and forced populations into adherence both physically and financially. The patriots fighting for their borders must also believe that the authority and rule of whatever government there is has their best interests at heart and can make better decisions about their lives than themselves. Are you sure that you are living in the land of the free if you need a government issued document to get permission to leave it?
To me there is an issue as so many want to see the dissolution of government or at the very least, a massive reduction in their overarching powers yet, they want that same government to protect them from the people looking for a better life. There are of course reasons to be wary as for example, crime statistics are not pretty among those groups but, if given the opportunity to be gainfully employed and live openly in the community, how fast do those numbers change in a generation or two?
A lot of poverty is institutionalized I think where entire communities are in such a bad condition that they have very little hope of ever getting out, debt, depression, illness leads to low education, lack of opportunity and crime. It is a merry-go-round with very few able to get off. People might claim otherwise but if they themselves were born an untouchable in India or in the slums of Soweto, do you think they will have the capabilities to not only survive, but get themselves out of those types of conditions? Is it good enough to blame the locals, the parents, the actions of their governments or history?
There are many complexities in this world but for the most part, the ones that separate people are the ones introduced by the authorities, Government and Religion. Mass scale tribalism which is now globalized and energized by media conglomerates looking to sell space for advertisers who are selling the very supply chain crushing products that are causing so much of the poverty, lack of awareness and lowering the compassion people feel for other people.
I don't know enough about the individual cases globally to comment but, when it comes to economic freedom, there can't be borders which means, freedom to move, freedom to find a place that has opportunity and the freedom to be ones best without being tied to an arbitrary location because, that is where birth took place. It isn't going to happen is it?
At least not yet as we are not ready for suck freedom, we are not compassionate enough to welcome people in and, we are far too greedy to act with the local community in mind as an extension of ourselves. We want to be free individuals but limit the groups that are made of those same individuals. It is a losing game, you can't have both.
I need to think some more on this but as far as I can see, what is happening now has all been done before and it is yet to lead to greater freedom for all concerned. Perhaps this is the thing, I don't care about your freedoms, as long as I can do what I want.
When the imaginary borders authority dictates disappear, what does an immigrant become?
Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
A lot of it is the “us vs them” mentality. People are generally fine with more people they consider to be like themselves being shown compassion and even generosity in all manner. But classify someone as other and people care more about “innocent “ animals. People who are different are automatically considered “guilty “ for wanting their children safe from war, gangs, persecution and such.
If we are to come up with solutions that actually work, we have to first start by recognizing the humanity of all people and the intrinsic value of each person.
Also, would be good for people to educate themselves and stop swallowing propaganda. For example, the current conflict over children being taken from their parents in the USA is not about “illegals.” These are asylum seekers following the letter of the law that has existed many years. What’s new is a nazi government that instituted a new policy that suddenly classifies those seeking asylum after entry (again, within our laws and procedures) as criminals. Normally entry without a visa is not a criminal offense, but the new Attorney General is treating it as a crime, requiring the adult be imprisoned instead of considered for asylum, and the children removed because they can’t be sent to the adult prison with their parents. Now in response to the public outcry by all those with a moral center and the capacity to see those different from them as still a part of “we” and their children as a part of “our children,” the same administration wants to change the actual law through Congress to make entry in search of asylum a crime and allow indefinite imprisonment of both parent and children together. Very nazi.
There is so much wrong with this statement
THE LAW CURRENTLY STATES to sneak into the country without proper papers is ILLEGAL. for whatever reason. 92% of your asylum seekers never show up to process their claim once allowed entry.
We allow more people into this country then any other country on this planet.
To say that I am immoral or a nazi because I believe the current laws need to be changed is an insult and one I really don't need from ignorant people who can't take the time to view the issues, have a conversation with, discovering the best solution and address it in the best manner to solve the problem, instead of acting as sheep for a political outcome with others talking points.
I am getting to the point where shutting down the boarded down completely in order to get this under control .
There in not a country on this planet you can walk into willy nilly, except the US
Personnel responsible is also at play here . Just because you allowed your country to go to shit does not mean that you can come here and get free healthcare, welfare from the taxpayers of this country and enjoy all the benefits of citizenship.
If I took my ass down to one of those countries that are so bad and people are fleeing from and cleaned up the corruption so people could live in peace , people will scream and holler and state that ,that is the wrong thing to do .
again thank you for pointing out that I have no moral center , a nazi and unfamiliar with US law because I might not agree with an opinion or only part of it.
I can’t say I read your entire comment, but I’ll respond to the first bit I did read. Jaywalking is illegal. Should you have your kids taken when you do it? There is a difference between illegal and criminal. What’s new is that an act that complied with our asylum process has now been criminalized, and yes, I do think it is a part of an actual Nazi plan being implemented by actual American Nazis. I view those empowering such plans the same as I’ve always thought about those Germans who agreed with the imprisonment of Jewish families when being Jewish in Germany was declared a crime.
Jaywalking is not a federal crime nor is the penalty imprisonment. Apples and oranges
The act of asylum seekers does not comply with the asylum process. (the current laws)
What you are saying is that you don't have to comply with the process and gain access by whatever process that the asylum seeker wishes to comply with. How is that a process?
If you don't like the law work to change it. State the law and what is wrong with it and why. Instead of made up talking points that are not based in facts and on emotions.
Where does the right to enter another country come from. Who granted this right.
You are quite simply wrong, as in factually incorrect. This is a common misunderstanding, but still wrong.
It is point of fact longstanding policy to give asylum seekers the option of either applying on their side of the border, or entering the country illegally and then applying. We have a tremendous amount of bureaucracy set up to fulfill our end of that process once in the US. Many people have left their home country with this longstanding expectation only to now arrive to face a new policy, not law, which criminalizes what was once merely illegal. Do you understand that there is an actual distinction between illegal and criminal? It is not criminal to enter the USA illegally, at least not until now.
I firmly believe the reason for this change are the politics of racism and demonization of the other overtaking our country right now just as it once did in Germany. Well this time some of us are prepared to learn from history and hopefully draw the line here. If so, we each get to decide which side of that line we stand on and then live with that. It’s no else’s business really, so you do you and I’ll do me.
An unlawful executive order by obama directed homeland security to ignore the law instead of changing it.
Here is part of the LAW
U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part VIII › § 1325
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 8, §275, 66 Stat. 229; Pub. L. 99-639, §2(d), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3542; Pub. L. 101-649, title I, §121(b)(3), title V, §543(b)(2), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4994, 5059; Pub. L. 102-232, title III, §306(c)(3), Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1752; Pub. L. 104-208, div. C, title I, §105(a), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-556
I can't speak of the laws other than there are laws. The topic at hand is whether it is a conflicted view to want decentralized economic freedoms (tax exempt for instance) yet still demand a centralized government that doesn't back that view to protect the borders. People don't want a government to dictate to them but they are happy for their government to do just that.
My point is that in my country at least, how consistent people are in that often comes down to what they consider to benefit not just themselves directly, but people “ like” them. People can get manipulated into incredible contradictions and even self defeating behavior by the threat of god forbid helping the “ other.”
I agree with you there. It happens everywhere I have ever been or heard about. Human nature tends to be fairly easy to manipulate.
People want it both ways. It can't happen. With Government whatever they do requires some sort of regulation and a means to pay for it. The people want something from the government without loss of any freedom or paying for it.
How can this be unless of course someone else pays and losses their freedom. As long as you don't see them it's ok.
I have no problem with economic freedom and helping the other but you also have to know who is coming into your country. Open borders is not going to happen as the security of the people living there has to come first. With certain countries being involved in the conflict in the Middle East they have to be very careful who they let in. If one major atrocity happens any hope of free movement would just disappear.
We are seeing it first hand in South Africa at the moment. We have open borders with our neighboring countries and they are committing most of the crime. The population here is now asking them to close the borders. The minority always wreck it for the majority.
A nation's sovereignty is important to its citizen welfare and security.
Open borders is a problem
Hopefully, it would be so easy to leave a country and get to another country without the need to be illegal and without being imprisoned this would be very good. I understand the people who emigrate, for something they do. I try to emigrate to the United States and ask for political asylum, that is why I am learning to speak English. regards
Good luck with that.
The more and stronger the borders, the less governments need to compete with each other to keep their tax cattle.
Crypto could be a catalyst as it has the potential to create very leaky economic borders and then, governments will likely overstep in their powers and cause that tipping point, where too much support is lost, to be reached. Gonna be painful.
One of the best things about Crypto, is that it's international. Even communist dictators, can no longer control the supply of money. They can no longer can control what people buy.
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 150+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 8
Ways you can help the @informationwar
A community in a house can decide who to let into their house. A community that is gated can choose who to let in. A country is a larger community which an choose who to let in. Government isn't required, but those in the area can choose who to admit and deny entry: it's their house/home. A community was built by people who are there, like a home. From small to large, the same principles apply.
And here is the problem because the community has differing opinions but having the government gives a scape goat. Instead of working it out, the government is hired as an uninvested decision maker and enforcer. The problem is, they are invested in maximising control over those who have hired them, like any middleman.
I agree with some of your points and the right to freedom and do the best for yourself and your family. The mass migration into Europe is in my opinion reckless. Angela Merkel opened the floodgates and can understand some of the reasoning behind it. Germany is one of the European countries that has a negative population rate. Germany has seen low birth rate and emigration which has impacted on their population. Only in 2012, 2013 and 2014 did the population grow and that was down to migration. If you take 1 million people out of your population every year how many houses are empty. The problem is in my mind is the imbalance of what you are replacing those people with. I think the rest of Europe wouldn't have been so anti if it wasn't all Muslims. The Muslim track record of terrorism isn't great and I think the problems will surface in the years to come.
I just had a quick look and there are a few other countries in Europe who have had low birth rates . Russia is declining by nearly I million per year.
Looking at the figures below if everyone shared the migrants there wouldn't be any issues. the problem is when the migrants choose one country over another. Here is a shot of Eastern Europe and other countries shrinking in population.
Country 2017 (million) 2050 (million) Percentage change
Bulgaria 7.08 5.42 -23
Latvia 1.95 1.52 -22
Moldova 4.05 3.29 -19
Ukraine 44.22 36.42 -18
Croatia 4.19 3.46 -17
Lithuania 2.89 2.41 -17
Romania 19.68 16.40 -17
Serbia 8.79 7.45 -15
Poland 38.17 32.39 -15
Hungary 9.72 8.28 -15
If you look at it from the perspective that I intended this to have which is economic freedom for the individual. Let's say that because people were able to take out the middlemen bankers and live debt free, 3 generations from now they are not likely to need to run fro conflict zones. the crime associated now may not exist as the environments they come from are no longer petrie dishes that rear s poison.
The problem isn't the migration at all, it is all of the other violence and poverty that creates criminals to begin with. Most of that violence and poverty has been impressed upon citizens for many generations making it institutionalized in some way. Give people freedom of economy and things can change quite quickly. The fastest way to create conflict is to take away people's means to mobilize.
I am in the United States and let me tell you the real story about what is going on with illegals crossing into the United States. We have a process to come here legally. These criminals are not following the law and we have legislators in congress, governors & mayors breaking the laws with these criminals! The law is the law.
My grandfather came to America as a child from Sweden. They came here legally. There is a difference. The MSM will not report that the illegals showing up at the southern borders are not even the parents of these so-called children they are bringing! They are nieces/nephews, cousins, grandchildren etc, this whole mess is a serious national security threat!
The refugees programs that democrats cheered about 15 yrs ago has created a whole host of problems now in the cities they put these scum. Gangs of Somali's are terrorizing affluent areas in Minneapolis, MN and the police, mayor, governor & legislative leaders have swept it under the carpet. They don't assimilate like my grandfathers family did.
Proper vetting is what the majority of Americans want, yet the democrats in power need these illegals to vote for them. So they give them welfare, social security (what workers should only get), housing, cars & the right to vote yet they are not a legal citizen. Our whole country is under attack and the democrats are fully behind it, that is why they HATE President Donald Trump so much. He wants law and order for the people and our votes to count again.
Legals from countries who came here and followed the law are steaming mad at this crap about giving these criminals amnesty. They worked hard to become a USA citizen and they are throwing it in their faces. Our great country is under attack from the inside as well as the outside.
Please pray for our country!
you said it better than I did
Open boarders is the goal with automatic enrolment into the demoncrate party
I think one has not to welcome them in, but at least get out of their way that alone would be a big help.
Also I would turn a "right to move" into a "right to not be stopped with violence" unless you are on someones private property then you have to ask the human that lives there (they would have a right defend themselves)
The biggest problem with the whole immigration stuff I think is that people are forced by the state. People that don't want the state to use violence to make them pay for the welfare handouts for immigrants(through taxation) want that same state to use violence to stop immigrant. And the people who don't want the state to use violence against immigrants, want to use the violence of the state to make others pay for the welfare handouts for immigrants.
This is a cycle of violence were only one group of people profit from, namely the violent and the power happy, that promise to solve the problems for group A, by using threats and violence on group B and promise to solve the problems of group B, by using threats and violence on group A.
Whatever the problem you can ask us to solve it, we are happy to do the violence for you, we love to serve you with violence, and we love our job, says the violent gang.
Group A and B is oversimplified of course there are many groups. The constant however is the group with the monopoly on it.
Is a sovereign country not private property belonging to the people of said country ?
I'll try to explain.
If you have a country and see that as private property of the people that live there than non of the individuals in that country has private property or owns himself.
I'll see ownership as of 'having the final say over it" or " being the one making the final decision over oneself and what one has worked for or build."
Lets say you buy a bicycle from money you earned but I am the one you have to ask permission to ride on it, I can tell you when you may use it and what you have to do to use it. (I have the final say) could you say you own the bicycle? Yes you could say you own it of course? But in reality i own it.
now to the country.
If you have "private property" in a country. But you can not decide who you invite on your private property (so called Illegal people), or you have to ask permission and pay a bureaucrat, for doing things on your private property then It is clear who owns "your" place. And worse if you can not decide what you put in your body....or be met with threats, or escalating violence. If you can not decide what portion of your work you keep and what portion you give, then the ones who can force you with threats of violence or violence, to pay them what they ask, are your owners. They, the group people with the violence, own everything and everyone (democracy is just the religion and rituals that they think gives them the right to rule)
So in end effect what you call your private property is not your property at all. if you don't pay them protection money (tax) or rent on your house that is morgage free( Property tax) , or pay them their salary for the "services" they "give" you you will see who owns what, and who owns you.
Everything is nicely wrapped in euphemisms but if you look what a "country" is in reality it's nothing more than a slave plantation where you can pick new slave masters every few years.
If someone/ or a group, can dictate you what you must and may not do, what you must pay or support then they are your rulers/ masters not your servants.
I hope I make a little sense, in my basic english, I use a lot of words, sometimes for something that can probably be said more succinct. ;)
I think you missed the point of the reply unless you are saying that a country has no right to exclude people from entering its borders.
A country is private or has its sovereignty. Who directly holds the ownership is another topic and dependent on the government / rulers. But as in private property rights the country holds that right on all lands within its borders.
From your reply you seem to have some hostility towards government and land ownership. As I stated above the country holds that right on all lands within its borders. Somewhere you have gotten the opinion that when you buy property, land that you have sovereignty over it as if you had a self-governing state on the property that was purchased. You do not own the space above your property or what is under it (mineral rights). Your deed should tell you the rights that you have on the property and what rights you did not purchase and if one does not agree to the terms you are not forced to purchase it.
The bottom line is that countries are privet and no one has the right to enter without following the rule for entry.
A very interesting take about inmigration.
This is very true, for example a lot of europeans moved here because of the Second World War and most of the businesses here belong to themRight to move, right to economic opportunity, right to be one's best, right to this and that . . . from whence do all these rights derive? Just because a man feels entitled to privileges, does not translate to justice equaling others being forced to provide these entitlements upon another.
Man has privileges and entitlements as granted by the crown via legal framework. The crown has no obligation to provide for those who flout clearly defined legal statutes, regardless of the circumstances of the criminal. Many of the objections to mass "immigration" derive from these people intentionally ignoring established legal procedures to entry into crown lands. Without clearly defined legal statutes and their enforcement, society crumbled into chaos. Those who advocate for "open borders" advocate for sociocultural suicide via chaos.
No one has rights, including the governments. Chaos will always have the final word over everything.
I am one of those who think that the world is our home and that we should be free to go where we feel good, however, people take over the place where they were born and do not allow anyone else to inhabit it. I am witness to some relatives who have left my country in search of improvements and the treatment they have received is not exactly that of a guest. However, here in Venezuela we receive people as if they were a family, we look for them in what they need. At my school I taught many children of immigrant parents and, for my part, they received the same treatment as other children or even more.
Lost
LOL but is that not the issue. Where is the or where does the safety net come from. Will we just do away with them. People need to look past their nose and look at the ramification of their desires.
Years ago people would work for a company and receive a retirement from them. The this 401k came out and people rallied behind them, demanding it. Now no one has a retirement. LOL Good choice
I don't know anything about retirement stuff in the US but considering it is the largest consumer and largest economy, distribution there sounds almost as bad as steemit :D
People ask and then demand things. Then when they get it they find out that it was a bad idea. The border issue is the same thing. There is so much rhetoric about it that the facts are obscured. But everyone is on a bandwagon at any cost to implement a solution based on the rhetoric. We have been down this road for decades and the problem still exists.
The train driving this issue is political. Its purpose is a specific political outcome.
People need to be careful what they wish for because they might not like what they get.
Generally they get more politicians
ROFL
The world could sure use more of them ;)
Just perfect.. wow :)