auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Jul 19, 2016 13:49:28 GMT
It means dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries. Keeping them out is explicitly xenophobic unless tainted with Australian logic. Yes. Exactly. And as border controls have nothing to do with fear, prejudice or dislike they aren't inherently xenophobic. Come on it's not hard. (And it's not just Australia that has border controls numb nuts, every country on the planet has them. Every single country.) You may as well argue that male toilets are explicitly sexist. Or Afro hairdressers are explicitly racist. Jesus but you're a retard. & you're a non sexist c*nt. Because everyone does it doesn't mean it's not explicitly xenophobic |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jul 19, 2016 13:49:56 GMT
Are you not also a critic of colonialism? We had as much input over EU laws as anyone. Input is not control is it. ? You understand that EU "laws" are almost all common trading standards, right, so that free trade makes sense? So it would be moronic to have single national control over them? Even the US, which is sometimes the most petty, insular, demanding, anti-internationalist country on the planet doesn't unilaterally make up its trade treaties. |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jul 19, 2016 13:55:17 GMT
Because it improves things for some people and does no damage. So why not do away with unnecessary bureaucracy? Also, current border controls do create quite a lot of trouble for a fair number of my friends. US friends, in particular, who have residency rights within the EU, often end up collared by UK Borders Wankers and held for hours. For no good reason. It's not unnecessary. It keeps people in jobs and checks people have the right to be here. There is no need for us to join, if there was we would have. Your friend's inconvenience really is irrelevant. My friends' inconvenience is merely to point out that you were wrong that "Current border controls don't create fuss". And people who have a right to be here get checked on entry to the Schengen zone, why repeat that check at every national border? It's silly and pointless. We should be in Schengen because it makes life a little easier and does no damage. And certainly - going back to the beginning of this conversation - If the EU demanded we accept Schengen as a condition for rejoining, of course we should accept it. |
|
|
|
Post by clarity on Jul 19, 2016 13:55:29 GMT
I've never been held up by border controls and I travel extensively.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jul 19, 2016 13:56:36 GMT
I've never been held up by border controls and I travel extensively. That's nice for you, dear. It's not everyone's experience. |
|
|
|
Post by clarity on Jul 19, 2016 13:58:20 GMT
I'm not your dear. Just pointing out that your example doesn't apply to everybody.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jul 19, 2016 14:04:55 GMT
Well sure. But that's a spectacular bit of point missing.
Van didn't say "some people aren't inconvenienced". Van said "Current border controls don't create much fuss". Yet for some people they do. Completely unnecessarily, right now, for someone travelling from, say, Lisbon to London.
I've rarely been inconvenienced much more than a 20 minute wait in the passport queue at Heathrow when I come in from Germany (although that's 20 minutes of my life I don't get back, and which is wasted for no good reason at all and which I could spend arguing with you lot on the internet), but I am not everyone. Even I'm not so egocentric as to assume that my experience is completely universal.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarity on Jul 19, 2016 14:25:52 GMT
Sure. But I took your use of the word 'dear' to be patronizing, something I don't expect from you. If I wrongly interpreted it then I apologize.
So moving on, I still don't get why border controls are xenophobic.
|
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Jul 19, 2016 14:37:27 GMT
Because they exist to keep foreigners out.
|
|
bertruss2
New Member
https://wallpapercave.com/w/wp3765741
Posts: 5,596
|
Post by bertruss2 on Jul 19, 2016 14:45:43 GMT
'Taking control of our borders' in Brexit-speak means preventing foreigners from taking up residence or working in the UK without the Ministry of Immigration applying miles of red tape to their applications. It doesn't mean 'checking passports'. That happens anyway. It is senseless to take away the right of European citizens to live, work and study in another EU country to placate the post-imperial fantasies of British pensioners and the hankering after industrial era conditions in parts of England where there were secure, well-paying jobs for the minimally educated.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jul 19, 2016 15:06:47 GMT
Sure. But I took your use of the word 'dear' to be patronizing, something I don't expect from you. If I wrongly interpreted it then I apologize. So moving on, I still don't get why border controls are xenophobic. It was deliberately patronising, because your comment was so utterly missing the point. |
|
|
|
Post by clarity on Jul 19, 2016 15:11:08 GMT
Because they exist to keep foreigners out. No they don't. Foreigners can enter a country with border controls with the right documentation. Posted by bertruss2 13 minutes ago 'Taking control of our borders' in Brexit-speak means preventing foreigners from taking up residence or working in the UK without the Ministry of Immigration applying miles of red tape to their applications. It doesn't mean 'checking passports'. That happens anyway. It is senseless to take away the right of European citizens to live, work and study in another EU country to placate the post-imperial fantasies of British pensioners and the hankering after industrial era conditions in parts of England where there were secure, well-paying jobs for the minimally educated. Right, I get that Bertie, as it applies to Brexit. But why is it that other countries who are not part of the EU have border controls? It's not xenophobic to want to control who comes into the country, well maybe if you live in the US it might be. Surely countries have a right to control who comes in and reaps the benefits? |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jul 19, 2016 15:13:46 GMT
There is a school of thought that says "controlling borders" inherently means "controlling the flow of foreigners into the country", and it therefore means that you assume that foreigners are innately different to "us", and therefore border controls are xenophobic.
I understand the logic, but I don't agree with it. It's not innately xenophobic to decide to limit flows of people should one region become heavily overpopulated and not have the infrastructure to deal with it. But you want to have as few limits as possible because movement is a fairly basic freedom. I don't really see any rationale for restricting movement of people between countries of similar levels of development.
|
|
nobody
New Member
Posts: 8,733 
|
Post by nobody on Jul 19, 2016 15:20:09 GMT
Is it xenophobic to prevent undesirable people entering the Country?
|
|
|
|
Post by clarity on Jul 19, 2016 15:33:18 GMT
Sure. But I took your use of the word 'dear' to be patronizing, something I don't expect from you. If I wrongly interpreted it then I apologize. So moving on, I still don't get why border controls are xenophobic. It was deliberately patronising, because your comment was so utterly missing the point. I didn't miss the point. You gave an example of your friends' experiences and I countered that with mine. Millions of people pass through border controls with no hassle what so ever. In essence, I guess I'm supporting van's position when she stated 'Current border controls really don't create too much of a fuss for people travelling and prevents harm so why do we need to join Schengen?' Although she was referring to the EU and I'm referring to other countries outside the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by clarity on Jul 19, 2016 15:35:58 GMT
Is it xenophobic to prevent undesirable people entering the Country? Apparently it is in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Jul 19, 2016 15:38:47 GMT
Anyway it's all going to hell in the proverbial. The oracle of the IMF are predicting Penury for us, so much so they have downgraded are prospects to near Germanic or Franco levels of stagnation.  I'm off to see waht I can get for the child bride. |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jul 19, 2016 15:40:28 GMT
It was deliberately patronising, because your comment was so utterly missing the point. I didn't miss the point. You gave an example of your friends' experiences and I countered that with mine. Millions of people pass through border controls with no hassle what so ever. Which is missing the point. "Border controls don't create much fuss" "They do for some people" "Not for me" is missing the point. Just because you aren't inconvenienced doesn't mean it's not an inconvenience. I'm not inconvenienced by the US police shooting black people. That doesn't mean it's not an inconvenience for some people. |
|
|
|
Post by clarity on Jul 19, 2016 15:42:45 GMT
There is a school of thought that says "controlling borders" inherently means "controlling the flow of foreigners into the country", and it therefore means that you assume that foreigners are innately different to "us", and therefore border controls are xenophobic. I understand the logic, but I don't agree with it. It's not innately xenophobic to decide to limit flows of people should one region become heavily overpopulated and not have the infrastructure to deal with it. But you want to have as few limits as possible because movement is a fairly basic freedom. I don't really see any rationale for restricting movement of people between countries of similar levels of development. Exactly. But border controls also ensure that those who come from countries who don't have similar levels of development aren't allowed in unless they have the skills the country needs and the right documentation to prove it. Countries don't have an obligation to take in unskilled workers from around the world who are looking for a better life and a free ride courtesy of benefit programs. Obviously that doesn't apply to genuine refugees. |
|
|
|
Post by clarity on Jul 19, 2016 15:45:51 GMT
I didn't miss the point. You gave an example of your friends' experiences and I countered that with mine. Millions of people pass through border controls with no hassle what so ever. Which is missing the point. "Border controls don't create much fuss" "They do for some people" "Not for me" is missing the point. Just because you aren't inconvenienced doesn't mean it's not an inconvenience. I'm not inconvenienced by the US police shooting black people. That doesn't mean it's not an inconvenience for some people. But the inconvenience isn't for millions of others who move through border control. We could sit here all day giving examples of people who are inconvenienced but it doesn't detract from the fact that millions do move through border control with no hassle. |
|
