prime minister miniature

Snerk.

I know it's petty but when people mock John Howard's size and/or his ENORMOUS EYEBROWS it makes me laugh.

I had to stop watching the news for a month after they won the last election. I was so fucking incensed that they not only pulled that rascist crap, but that it worked so effectively...it makes me inarticulate with rage even now. What gets me though, is the sense of self-satisfied entitlement which pervades the whole issue--we've got ours and too bad if you too would like the chance to live without being horrendously poor and/or shot at on a regular basis because we didn't go to all the trouble of being born in the right place just to let you waltz in here and demand a share. I just...there are no words.

is the sense of self-satisfied entitlement which pervades the whole issue--we've got ours and too bad if you too would like the chance to live without being horrendously poor and/or shot at on a regular basis because we didn't go to all the trouble of being born in the right place just to let you waltz in here and demand a share.

Are you SURE you're un-American?

bitterbitterbitterbitterbitter

The trouble is -- what is a reasonable way to deal with the huge flood of people who would come to the more fortunate countries, by any means possible, if you weren't tough about it? Governments fear chaos, voter backlash and big social problems. And to some extent, they're right.

Most Western countries now have a net population loss. Fewer children are being born. America's population is holding steady; the difference is immigration, both legal and illegal. As a result, not only is there an influx of new interesting people, but our tax base isn't as top-heavy (old-heavy?) as, say, Sweden's or France's.

I live in a state, California, that has enormous immigration from other countries. Walking down the street is an adventure -- Epcot without the Disney. My children's school lists have a salmagundi of non-Anglo-Saxon names, and they love it. Multi-ethnic societies have new challenges, most definitely including translation costs and school costs, but the one I live in is fizzy and exciting.

[Or, to be shorter-winded, chaos isn't an inevitable consequence of immigration, and there are social gains as well as social costs.]

I wouldn't dream of knocking immigration, per se. Everyone in the world practically is descended from someone shifting somewhere else to get a better life. What I'm talking about is uncontrolled immigration and the political difficulties of controlling it. How much immigration is good and productive, and how much is too much, and how do you control people smuggling and what do you do about illegal immigrants? America, Britain, Australia, all dice with these issues, as do any other countries seen as offering a ``better life''.

Well, there's a difference between controlling immigration and creating a non-issue by lying about the situation (They're terrorists! They throw their children overboard!) and encouraging fear and racism in the populace in order to win an election.

Mandatory detention does nothing but pile more trauma onto people who have arguably suffered enough trauma in their lives already if they're willing to take their children and climb onto a leaky boat and sail hundreds of kilometres across the open sea. It's not a neccessary policy, and it violates the terms of several international treaties on human rights (the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, just as an example) which we've signed.

I don't object to controlling immigration, I just strongly (and usually with a lot more profanity) object to how my government is currently choosing to 'handle' the issue.

Edit:

Are you SURE you're un-American?

Uh, just let me check...well, the Prime Minister says we're not so much 'UN-American' as 'concurrently-American' and his plan to have the entire country moved (perhaps atop of Canada, considering their current shameless lack of pandering to their illustrious neighbour) so that this is factually true is coming along swimmingly.

I really think there is an argument to be made for open borders. A lot of the negative consequences of immigration is due to the controls and illegality. That is people who enter a country illegally can't take advantage of laws that give them labor rights such as minimum wage. On the high end, special visa programs such as the U.S. uses for many foreign tech workers holds wages down by tying them to one employer. If they quit that employer they are deported, which lets the U.S. employer pay substantially less than U.S. market.

I don't know if an open border policy would really be practical; but when you look at all the cost associated with border controls (and I don't mean the salaries of border control people), I'm not sure it is actually less practical.than what we have now.

Well, there's a difference between controlling immigration and creating a non-issue by lying about the situation (They're terrorists! They throw their children overboard!) and encouraging fear and racism in the populace in order to win an election.

Yes, this. I hate it - they oversimplify and misrepresent in a way that puts their stance on the issue in the best possible light. And I know that's your typical politician m.o., but that doesn't make it any less frustrating. I particularly hate how they misrepresent the opinions and motives of those who oppose them so that they don't actually have refute valid arguments. The vibe I usually get is that anyone who disagrees with their policies is some kind of ignorant lefty who is trying to be politically correct and trendy, so everything they say is automatically worthless and misinformed. They used this strategy when it came to the war. The few times they actually bothered to address the widespread, strident discontent they lumped all the anti-war campaigners together, accused them of giving comfort to terrorists and failing to support the Aussie soldiers and blah blah blah your opinions are very trendy and pretty but let the big boys handle the complicated problems, m'kay?

I know there's been some towns in New England that have gotten into the news recently for asking nicely "No more refugees, please!" but that's because a town of 10K's social services gets strained beyond belief when 500 Somali refugees go there over a three year period. If there somehow was an assigned number of 5 Somalis per Maine town it would be less of a strain, but of course refugees being human like anyone else, they would prefer to be able to continue personal and social ties with their own people.

California really did try to ban giving state social services to illegal immigrants, including medical care -- can you imagine the public heath nightmare that would have caused? Not to mention the whole moral bankruptcy issue.