Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

On the European Migrant/Refugee Crisis

POST REPLY
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 26 Apr 2016, 18:50
I thought I'd start a thread on such an important topic by adding some of my older Cafe Mir posts on the subject:


Just to be clear, I don't believe in a general rule regarding immigration that would apply identically to all nations. As should all things, immigration should be approached individually country by country and according to the circumstances at hand.

For example, if the majority of the EU migrants really were backwards thinking or extremists, then opposing immigration would start to make sense, or at the very least would be worthy of serious consideration.

However, if you look at statistics from western organisations regarding terrorist acts within first world countries, you'll see that Islamic fundamentalism is responsible for less than 5% at the very most, with most data claiming it's as low as 2%.

Image


This can all be looked up in less than a minute by anyone online.

Furthermore, the vast majority of victims by Islamic terrorism are Muslims with some sources claiming it's higher than 90%.

Image


Statistics like these prove that Euro-nationalist fears over migrations are unfounded, and that it's simple ignorance of the facts and of how the majority of Muslims live their lives which leads to European xenophobia.

Quote:
The refugees because of their home, which exists outside the boundaries of the enlightenment, have cultural views favouring social conservative or even outright reactionary policies.
The refugees are precisely the people who are fleeing these reactionary backwards Islamic fundamentalists that the west has been supporting either directly or indirectly through their alliance with Saudi Arabia. There was no refugee crisis when secular governments ruled the Arab world, and these reactionaries owe their current success to Western invasions and interventions of the Arab world; otherwise they all still would have been being persecuted by heavy handed dictators like Saddam and Qaddafi.

It is within everybody's right to critique whatever faults we find in any culture. There are no perfect societies. Nobody here has ever denied the countless injustices that have taken place within the Islamic world; but one must be careful to always keep things in perspective and not blow these negative aspects of any one culture completely out of proportion lest he make the situation only worse.

As I've always understood it, the West takes pride in being the civilisation who more than any other are responsible for exporting the liberal democratic notion of "live and let live". Anti-immigration activists seem to espouse the idea of living as we do or else "get out of my country".

They are either guilty of ignorance by believing that all Muslims and Arabs are the kind of people incapable of living in liberal societies peacefully whereby everybody does their own thing; or are guilty of indifference towards their fellow man by opposing the immigration of refugees who are fleeing the most horrific circumstances in our world today with their arms stretched out asking for food.

In reality liberal and progressive thinking have less to do with culture and more to do with economic conditions. Where there is more scarcity and poverty, there will be more ignorance and reactionary thinking. Where there is abundance and prosperity, there will be more progressive and liberal thinking. This is of course a general trend and not an immutable truth.

When the Islamic Empire was at its peak, Muslims were by far the most progressive people in the world. They set up the first universities for higher learning and achieved overwhelming advances in the arts and sciences; all the while Europe was plunged into the dark ages whereby "white" people were forced to resort to the most inhumane barbarism amongst themselves in order to survive, acting in most cases no better than ISIL today if not worse.

Even every western scientific advancement within the realm of physics and mathematics was made possible only because westerners adopted Arabic numerals. This site and the internet exist because Arabs contributed to inventing and spreading the numeric system we all use today.

I've lived among Slavs, Westerners, Arabs, Indians, Persians, Black and White Africans long enough to know that in essence there really isn't that much difference between how people live their lives. In every society you'll find people with different beliefs and different lifestyles.

The world has already been predominantly globalised by western popular culture; and it is this culture that is most prevalent nowadays more than any other traditional or national ones.

It's just that when differences are found, they are blown out of proportion to the point of delusions and are obsessed over for the longest time, especially by naive western liberals.

The only true reactionary difference I've noticed out of all the places I've been to and that truly needs addressing is the state of women's rights within the Arab world, whereby a woman simply cannot decide to follow her heart or her mind for that matter unfettered by social customs and family traditions. In this case I fully agree that it's far better to be woman in the western world.

But as far as I've noticed every other problem is one shared among most societies, are not particular to any one single society and are mostly the result of the global capitalist system.

Furthermore, one has to come to terms with the fact that what NATO has done to the Middle East has been nothing less than a crime against humanity. If anyone is in denial about this, then there is nothing left to say.

The European economic crisis of course doesn't help things, and on a human level I can understand the sentiment whereby Europeans are busy trying to fix things at home without having to take on the task of caring for refugees.

Regardless, the western nations with their enormous wealth and living space are the ones most capable of helping the needy, and as such I believe the responsibility falls on the strongest and most fortunate to protect their less fortunate fellow Homo Sapiens.

Quote:
If these refugees were doing more to improve things in their own countries, we wouldn't be worrying so much about them pouring on to foreign shores; fleeing, rather than standing up to fight, which thus leaves the struggle in the hands of others probably even less well equipped to face up to the mullahs.
I am not one of those who blames all of the Middle Eastern woes on the west exclusively; I should know, I've lived 10+ years in the Middle East and have interests there even now and I can attest to the narrow-mindedness, shortsightedness and corruption on many levels.

However I must say it's a little hard trying to improve things when your enemies at home are being supported by the most powerful people in the west; even harder when the infrastructure imperative to improve things that the Arabs have built up for themselves over the centuries was obliterated out of existence by western bombs, leading to the deaths of millions including some of the best minds in the Middle Eastern and Islamic world; plunging the once proud Arab world into a dark age.

Westerners wouldn't be worrying so much about them pouring onto foreign shores had they just stayed at home like good god fearing christians.

Anyway let's look at the bright side, this will all be a beneficial humbling experience for the western world and a major reality check for all the pretentious douchebags in silk suits who run western governments and think they have all the answers.

Finally, fighting the mullahs at home means fighting the west. The west are best friends with the mullahs.

If the west really wanted to fix the situation then they would be working to promote peace between the warring sides instead of always cynically favouring and searching for the one side that could insure their interests.

Image


Another argument that anti-immigration proponents use is that migrants would overwhelm the economy or outnumber the population of the host country. This may sound logical in theory but I have yet to see an example of that happening outside of conflict situations whereby mass ethnic cleansing takes place.

In Lebanon for example, one of the smallest countries in the world with an area space smaller than that of Tokyo, and which is a third world country of 4 million Lebanese, there are more than 1.5 million refugees, 2/3 of whom are Syrians, the rest of whom are Palestinians.

That will soon make 1/3 of every living person in Lebanon a refugee and yet the government still allows the passage of refugees into the country, albeit with stricter restrictions that began this year. Regardless of the pressure, Lebanon's infrastructure is still able to cope without collapsing and without the locals complaining. Even my father's home town which was a centre of right-wing Christian fundamentalism now houses a sizeable Syrian population who's children go to school with the rest of the Christian majority.

People are more similar than they are different. Fear is quite often ignorance.


Western passports permit the unhindered passage of westerners into many third world countries without a visa. It also facilitates overseas investments as well as obtaining the highest ranking positions in companies with branches overseas. I work with people like these everyday. The highest paid foreign employees here in Nigeria are the Dutch and the Americans; and no one ever tells them they aren't welcome here.

One of the reasons the first world is where it is today is because western capitalism profits from third world countries; and that is no less true where there is conflict. Billions in revenue have been generated by western arms manufacturers through the conflicts in the Middle-East and North-Africa. Westerners get rich because Arabs and other third worlders die. Western bureaucrats get fat by feasting on the blood of third world children.

A French expat I know here in Africa sends millions of Euros back to France every month by selling French foodstuffs in Nigeria. That is illegal because Nigeria has enough fertile arable land to satisfy the dietary needs of most of the population. Yet western companies still import millions of tons of superior contraband products every year by bribing the local officials here, driving out so much potential competition through the lack of job creations for the local populace.

Now I'm fully aware that the locals are also to blame for being so weak in accepting these bribes and permitting the exploitation of their people by foreign companies; but as we've seen the penalty for daring to challenge western capitalist hegemony would be sanctions at the very best or invasions, bombings, and massacring of the local populations at the very worst. I can't blame third worlders for not all being Che Guevara.

There is hardly a western corporation that doesn't have branches all over the world. 47.8% percent of profits for firms listed in the S&P 500 stock index now come from overseas markets according to data released just this very week from S&P Dow Jones Indices. That’s up from 46% in 2013.

Image


Image


As for individual companies:

S&P 500 COMPANIES THAT GET THE LARGEST SUMS OF REVENUE FROM REGIONS OUTSIDE THE U.S.

Company---------------Symbol----------Region----------revenue ($ bils)----------% of sales overseas
Exxon Mobil------------XOM-------------Canada----------$115.3--------------------67.3%
Exxon Mobil------------XOM-------------Europe-----------$39.8---------------------67.27%
Intel--------------------INTC-------------Asia--------------$31.7---------------------82.4%
Apple -------------------AAPL-------------Asia--------------$30.6---------------------62.3%
General Electric--------GE---------------Africa------------$28.7----------------------52.9%
General Electric--------GE---------------Europe-----------$25.3---------------------52.9%
General Electric--------GE---------------Asia--------------$25------------------------52.9%
Boeing------------------BA---------------Asia--------------$22.9----------------------58.3%
Qualcomm--------------QCOM-----------Asia--------------$22.2----------------------98.6%
Phillips 66---------------PSX--------------Britain------------$20.1---------------------34.5%
Dow Chemical----------DOW------------Africa-------------$19.7----------------------66.6%
Johnson & Johnson----JNJ--------------Europe------------$18.9----------------------53.2%
Ford--------------------MotorF----------Canada------------$18.7----------------------42.6%

IBM. $100 billion in revenue, 69 percent from overseas.
Amazon. $34 billion in revenue, 50 percent from overseas.
McDonald's. $24 billion in revenue, 67 percent from overseas.
Nike. $21 billion in revenue, 51 percent from overseas.

If westerners are getting rich and strengthening their economies by leaving their countries instead of staying at home, then refugees hardly need any justification for moving to the west, even if there were no wars.

Western civilisations partly (Notice I say partly, not completely because as I've stated previously on this site, I'm fully aware of the accomplishments owed to western countries that have been nothing less than vitally beneficial to the sustainability and progress of the human race to which I, a third worlder, have many a time reaped and enjoyed the benefits. This nevertheless doesn't mean that one right justifies another wrong.) owe their high standards of living to the looting and exploitation of other civilisations. This is no less a fact today than it was when the African slave trade still existed, and in more ways than white people are ever comfortable of admitting, their countries were built on the backs of slaves.

So yes indeed, the people who have benefitted the most from life's fortunate advantages do very much have a moral obligation to help the needy, lest they actually start taking their riches for granted, or actually start believing that they somehow deserve everything they have.

Refugees and oppressed of the world, unite! Exercise your birthright in search of greener pastures wherever it may be and in the face of all obstacles. You have absolutely nothing left to lose.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 143
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jun 2013, 09:08
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 29 Apr 2016, 18:27
'' Workers of the world Emigrate''

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files ... tion-1.pdf

https://www.amazon.co.uk/review/RCP8FYX ... tore=books

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-re ... 1908096314

http://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/eu-no-answer-unemployment

What’s behind the misnamed “migrant crisis” and what does it say about the European Union? This is not something new. We have to look at how it started to understand what’s going on and what British workers should do.
http://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/eu-migrati ... -drive-war
The world is riven by class — not race, gender, age or disability. There is only one human race, and any ideas that promote divisions between us do the work of capitalism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 29 Apr 2016, 19:03
My two cents:

1) the fact that Washington, London, Paris and Brussels started these conflicts does not mean the ordinary people of these (and other) European countries should be the ones to suffer the consequences of the crisis.

2) for some countries, and particularly Germany, this really is a migrant crisis, because it has become unsafe to walk the streets at night or even to enter certain ghettoized neighborhoods in the daytime.

3) this is strictly my own view, but I believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong, or racist, about wanting to live within your own country among your own cultural in-group, or to demand that those who visit or join your community abide by its basic socio-cultural norms, and not attempt to create or demand special rules for themselves based on cultural identity (I say all this as as someone who has been a long-term immigrant).

4) I firmly believe that most people from most parts of the world would generally would prefer to live in the countries they were born in, and would continue to do so were it not for circumstances outside their ability to control (tectonic political and economic shifts, wars, etc.).

5) in this sense, the best thing 'the West', and in this case European countries, could do for the suffering regions would be to help rebuild the countries which were destroyed by Western-backed or supported interventions in the first place. This is not possible everywhere. For example, it may be possible in Syria, because that country's government has not completely collapsed, but is not possible in Libya, where even the side that 'wins' the civil war may have interests other than the well-being of the state in mind, since they were the ones to collapse Qaddafi's government in the first place.

Of course, it's doubtful that European countries would agree to provide even a few billion euros to rebuild Syria, so that a Syrian man could rebuild his homestead and tend to his father's olive tree instead of washing dishes in a Paris dive. This is so not only because the leadership of many European countries (Germany in particular) basically unleashed the tide of immigrants out of economic considerations, but also because Washington, which continues to have a very strong influence on European elites, may prefer chaos and instability to peace. Nevertheless, one can hope.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 29 Apr 2016, 22:36
Personally, I have no issue with screening migrants. It'd be costly to implement background checks on all of them, but I think it would make sense. That leads to the question of what one does with people from very rural areas though, where the background check would turn up literally nothing. We'd have to choose between "refuse them because they might be an ISIS infiltrator" or "let them in hoping they aren't."

Ultimately I'd veer on the side of openness though. Firstly, helping people leave their war-torn homeland and giving them an economic leg up is the only humane option. You will see declining crime rates as their economic station improves.

Secondly, for security reasons. If ISIS can say "the West is implementing apartheid against Muslims," that helps them recruit among the Muslim community. ISIS have put out statements saying one of their goals was to rile up the European far-right, to prove Europeans are just as vicious as them, to prove that they're just looking for an excuse to unleash their hatred on all Muslims. Basically, ISIS are literally the Joker in The Dark Knight, so throw away the damn detonator.

I definitely wouldn't refuse people in need because their culture is different from mine. Unless you want to totally undo global trade and communications, there's no getting around the fact that cultures will intermingle to an unprecedented degree. Keeping people out to enforce cultural stagnation strikes me as inhumane and fundamentally stupid.

And we can poo-poo elites wanting immigration for economic reasons. The far-right's incoherent rambling aside, so what? As long as it's not driving down the base wage for workers (e.g. if the immigrants are working under the minimum by being illegal or under the union rate by scabbing), this is a good thing. It means more goods available, and at cheaper cost because of it. Even for those cases where it does harm domestic-born workers, there are solutions that don't require xenophobic enforced stagnation of culture and economy. Among these are making immigration easier, actually, to avoid the minimum wage being undercut by undocumented migrants; along with harsh prosecution of the employers of undocumented workers. Another is to restore the closed shop by fighting right-to-work laws, barring scabbing altogether.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 30 Apr 2016, 22:21, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 143
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jun 2013, 09:08
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 30 Apr 2016, 06:49
http://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/no-borders-no-control

Quote:
The free movement of labour encourages the modern slavery of workers moving at the orders of cheapskate global employers, gangmasters and people traffickers. It adds to the huge number of the reserve army of the unemployed. And it defies the laws of economic gravity to think that you can massively expand the supply of labour without lowering its price.


http://www.workers.org.uk/features/feat ... ement.html

Quote:
Immigration is asset-stripping – taking from poorer countries their younger, more educated and skilled people. Migration undermines the home countries’ development, and increases their dependency. The EU’s 2001 Code of Practice for the Active Recruitment of Healthcare Professionals is voluntary for the private sector, allowing poaching. Since this Code was issued, there has been a surge in medical migration. Many African and Caribbean countries have more of their home-trained doctors working in the OECD countries than at home. Some 90 per cent of Jamaica’s nurses and 90 per cent of Haiti’s nurses work in OECD countries. This brain drain widens world health inequality.


http://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/bank-gover ... ower-wages
The world is riven by class — not race, gender, age or disability. There is only one human race, and any ideas that promote divisions between us do the work of capitalism.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.