Illegal immigration - what to do?

FlicketyB

I was asking for your opinion on what would be an acceptable approach to the problem that people face in those countries. I gave an example that used:

'research[ed] 323 social-change campaigns from 1900 to 2006. Their electrifying finding was that campaigns of nonviolent resistance are nearly twice as likely to succeed as violent uprisings.

Zunes approaches the study of nonviolent movements with the dedication of a scholar, and with the commitment of a longtime activist for social change.

For the past 18 years, he has taught courses on nonviolent resistance, conflict resolution, U.S. foreign policy, and the politics of the Middle East'

...... and he is wrong. Almost every case he mentions that I know about the regimes have fallen because they were already weak and failing anyway - and many of them I quoted in my previous posting

If he has carried out research on 323 incidents spanning over 1000 years, do you not think that he would have noticed that it was an unsuccessful approach? As he has studied and teaches the politics of the Middle East, doesn't that also give him the edge on what would be the most successful approach? It is because you dismissed his findings that I asked what you thought would be the correct approach to dealing with the problems.

Of course things change and they have done in all those countries, but not by popular uprisings against strong governments.

I do understand the point you are making but I was not advocating a violent approach. The sad fact is that people have to stand up for themselves, it can't be done for them and running away from it won't stop it either. From what I have read, strong government will not be able to stand against the masses - it would getting the masses to act together that could prove problematic.

The majority of immigrants here, are here legally, but when we talk about immigration everyone gets fixated by those who come here illegally.

A suggested way to limit migration, is to welcome migrants but give them a 5 year visa that in some cases can be extended to 10, then they return to their home country. We could give permanent settlement to a certain number each year, but priority should go to refugees, and family members of people already permanently settled here.

This would apply to everyone from any country, including Ireland and Scotland if it chooses independence. We must expect other countries to reciprocate so retirements in the sun will be less easy.

There's an idea for a start. I look forward to other people's responses. It would be nice to have a discussion about reducing legal migration, because that is a problem that most people never address.

Some very interesting comments have been expressed within this thread.

It was heart-breaking to see the camps being broken up by the police at Callais. Where is there for those young people to go?

Why are they waiting to cross to the UK when surely France (the country they are already in) should be offering support. I don't understand why they are desperate to reach the UK shores. Are we considered a soft touch?

We are a small island and our population is expanding far too quickly. Our infrastructure: housing, schools, NHS, etc are becoming stretched beyond compare.

It's an intolerable situation with few answers.

I'm very glad I started this thread, even though it has highlighted what a very difficult problem immigration is, with no easy answers. But easy or not, something HAS to be done for the sake of both the receiving country and the intending immigrant. Let's get back to grass roots. Most people have an automatic right to live in the country of their birth. If they don't like that they have the choice of either staying where they are and trying to change things, or packing up their kit and moving to somebody else's country. But moving HAS to be done with the consent of the receiving country after satisfying their entry requirements.

The UK is a small country. Just turning up, with hordes of others having no resources, will not do, and will result in the most dreadful social unpleasantness for all, which noboby wants to see. For better or worse, the UK, renowned for its relatively relaxed and tolerant lifestyle, is a natural target for the immigrant but the UK CANNOT take in all those who want to come. So perhaps we MUST now start thinking about the unthinkable and how to control immigration properly, in the general interests of both our country and the intending immigrant. How do we do it?

Good posts Flickety and Granjura.
I think the problem is that people want simple answers, but the problems are too complex and interwoven for simple solutions.

Terribull- the reasons are multiple. First most of them speak English and no French. 2nd France is still a very racist society on the whole, whereas the UK is seen as much more tolerant of differences, and also because they already have relatives, friends and a community to support them on arrival, and better education prospects, etc. You could say that the UK has become a victim of its much better treatment of immmigrants and asylum seekers (although I wouldn't).

My relatives who fled Switzerland due to the poverty of the 20s, to Canada and the USA, were all economic migrants, of course. All needed support at first, all did exceptionally well and now the 4th generation is very anit-immigrants- having forgotten where they come from and the hardship their elders went through.

Read again Arthur Miller's View from the Bridge. Many of the National Front supporters in the South of France are 3rd or 4th generation Italian and Spanish immigrants, who arrived with no education and in abject poverty. BTW France is a very ageing population and without immigration, there will soon be far too many older people with nobody to pay for their pensions, health care, etc. To a lesser extent this applies to the UK too.

I am sorry I do not get your point, I have not expressed any opinion on what I consider acceptable or not. I have only stated the fact that popular uprisings do not succeed when the government is strong. Popular uprisings that take advantage of governments that may have been strong but are falling apart do. Which is what I have said in both my previous postings.

Read the last sentence of my previous post.

So what do you propose? That they continue to live under oppression? If neither peaceful nor forceful rejection is acceptable, what is?

Professor Zones says in his opening paragraph 'Nonviolent movements have toppled dictators all over the globe, in Mali, Serbia, Poland, Bolivia, the Philippines, East Germany, Latin America, and Africa. During the Arab Spring, it became clear that the power of nonviolence to overthrow tyrannical governments is giving new hope — and new revolutionary strategies — to people around the world.'

...... and he is wrong. Almost every case he mentions that I know about the regimes have fallen because they were already weak and failing anyway - and many of them I quoted in my previous posting. There is not one in his list where a popular insurrection overthrew a strong and dominant government and as for mentioning Serbia... where a violent and vicious regime went to war, introduced the tactic known as 'ethnic cleansing' and only retreated to its own borders when it failed to colonise and dominate the fellow countries that with it, previously formed Yugoslavia, described as 'non-violent', well words fail me.

Then there is the 'Arab Spring' that was certainly not non-violent in Morocco, Libya, Egypt or as currently being fought out in Syria, where government forces are again in the ascendant - and much of the fissiparous rebel force is now dominated by foreign extremists, whose aims and intentions are far removed from the democratic demands of the original protesters.

Of course things change and they have done in all those countries, but not by popular uprisings against strong governments.

FlicketyB

Professor Stephen Zunes (Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco) may well disagree with you:

www.thestreetspirit.org/a-power-that-can-overthrow-dictatorships/

To take the approach of 'what's the point, nothing will change' means that nothing will ever change - is that what you want for people who live in those countries? Change doesn't just happen - it has to be created.

papaoscar, why do you talk of 'human'? What is wrong with human?

Simple answers to complicated questions are invariable wrong. I am half Irish; Irish ancestors on both sides fled to England and the Unites States to escape famine and religious persecution. Over several generations my family worked hard and did well so that I was born into comfort and opportunity.

Many of the immigrants may be economic immigrants but most of them are fleeing areas at war or in a state of insurrection. 4 years ago there were few if any Syrian economic migrants to Europe. Now, following the civil war and total collapse of the Syrian economy there are many Syrian economic migrants. Would you place these on the first plane back to Syria? Would you care what would probably happen to them once they arrived there?

HollyDaze 'Surely the answer is for ordinary people of those countries to do something about their own countries? En masse, they would outnumber, quite easily, the armed forces.' Do you really think large numbers of people faced with a large well armed army really stand a chance? Do you remember the various uprisings against Russia in Eastern blocks countries in the 1950s and 60s, Hungary and Poland? Eastern Europe only got its freedom when the USSR itself imploded.

It was internal insurrections against their governments that gave us the Taliban, Boko Haram and The Lord's Army in Uganda, And what about the Arab Spring? Egypt is back under a military dictator, Libya is becoming more violent and disunited and of course there is Syria.........

Good post TerriBull I agree.

I think asylum seekers should claim asylum at their first country of entrance and not cherry pick their destination based on what they perceive life will be like for them there, unless they have close family in that particularly country.Although possibly Spain and Italy may find themselves beleaguered as they both seem to be receiving a steady stream of migrants by boat. In particular Italy have stated, allegedly, that if they do not receive more help from the EU they will just release these people so they can make their way to where ever, in many case the UK. Clearly parts of Europe are over populated and there will be a finite number they will be able to absorb.

Friends of ours from New Zealand told us that they only take 300 asylum seekers a year, if that's the case they should take a whole lot more, they could easily afford to double, treble or even treble x treble their population. Canada is a huge country with only 36 million they could afford to take more people. I'm sure they do, but not enough.

However, I do sometimes wonder what is a trickle now could become an enormous flow as life in many of the countries the refugees come from is often appalling. Mass immigration is not really the long term solution.

They are in France at the moment. A safe country. Why the need to try to risk more danger to life and limb by trying to smuggle into the UK via a lorry?

How long before one of those "desperate folks at Calais" mugged an unsuspecting traveller? They are not all saints. And yes, desperation can bring desperate measures. However, ordinary people have to be protected.

We cannot take all humanity's ills on our shoulders. Only some of them.

People throughout history have challenged the ruling classes who, historically, have cared little about the ordinary citizen. It takes the ordinary citizen to bring about change. The Rochdale Pioneers spring to mind and they changed shopping for pure, unadulterated food forever and brought nutrition to people at a price they could afford. Sometimes, you have to have the initiative and the will to change things; without it, things will remain just as they are.

How desperate must you be to try to sail from Africa to Italy or Greece? The village I was in Greece recently just had 450 African's arrive on their tiny beach.
I agree with Hollydaze that the countries from which people are fleeing need to make changes, but the evidence seems to be that the opposition is going to be met with brutal force. Asylum seekers from Africa and Syria spring immediately to mind. I have a bit of experience of working with African asylum seekers, and will never forget the 7 year old girl who had seen her dad murdered because he supported the opposition in the country she, her mother, and brothers had managed to escape from. It's important to remember those desperate folks in Calais are all human beings and anxiety about pressure on services, loss of culture etc which are felt throughout Europe, shouldn't stop us hanging on to our humanity.

papaoscar are you talking about illegal immigrants or asylum seekers. There is a huge difference you know, it's not illegal to seek asylum.

Hi Mari, are you a Newbie?

I am over in your wonderful Country at the moment, Washington then moving down the Oregan coast to San Fran.

Nice to see folks from the States joining in !

& to you all

granjura aahhhh!

But there are no easy answers to all this and the suffering is very real to the poor people involved

Surely the answer is for ordinary people of those countries to do something about their own countries? En masse, they would outnumber, quite easily, the armed forces. That tends to be when change occurs, not when people meekly obey or leave for another country - sometimes, to make life bearable, people need to be more pro-active.

Some very interesting responses to what I knew would be a controversial subject with no effective solution. We have all been sickened by the reports from the dreadful refugee camps in Syria, the bodies floating in the sea around Italy and the harshness and cruelty of life in many third-world countries. If I were a young African I'm sure I would have been lured away by the prospect of Europe's golden life. And the sight of those huddled masses of illegals, or refugees, at Calais recently, within view of the very ferries perceived to be their salvation in the UK, was truly dreadful. By the way the list of possible actions in my original thread is not of my devising: I gleaned those ideas from listening to, reading and noting reactions to this problem from many sources in Europe and elsewhere, and I do not support many of them. But there are no easy answers to all this and the suffering is very real to the poor people involved - my own displaced Scottish ancestors would have known all about that.

Prescott is different ;)

granjura your experience reflects the various ways the US and its very independent states have dealt with the issue. In our young country, most of us are only 2-3 generations from our immigrant heritage. How interesting that your cousins moved to Arizona to escape immigrants as the issues there are even more severe, it seems. Arizona has legalized several no-tolerance programs, some of which are under appeal, of course. Perhaps they lived near one of the border areas that are very dangerous for legals and illegals alike. No simple answers, that is certain.

I think you are very confused about immigration papposcar