PSA: Being against uncontrolled immigration does not mean you are anti-immigrant

[canbuywontbuy]

Yes, it should be obvious to most, but strangely it isn't (for the less-than-innocent reasons I mention at the end of this post). Just thought I'd put this post up because this issue comes up every single time :-

Problem #1: Confusing immigration as a concept with individual people (immigrants)

Person A: "There really needs to be something done about immigration as we can't control the numbers - how can we manage infrastructure if we don't know how many people are coming into the country each year?"

Person B: "It's not the fault of the immigrants.  They're just trying to better their lives."

I feel like person B is offering a non-sequitur to person A - an utterly irrelevant and unconnected response to person A's concern.  In fact, it's worse than that - it's an unfounded accusation that somehow person A is against immigrants themselves, not uncontrolled immigration. 

Problem #2: Interchanging the general concept of immigration with the specific concept of UNCONTROLLED immigration as if they are the same thing, thereby labelling someone as "anti-immigration"

Person A: "We need to have some kind of cap on the number of immigrants coming into the country"

Person B: "Being anti-immigration is really backward.  Immigrants do a lot for the country - you need to broaden your outlook and be more inclusive". 

This happens virtually everyday on HPC and all over the web, and I think in 95%+ cases, it's not innocent confusion, it's an attempt from Person B to shut down the debate by accusing Person A of being intolerant while avoiding the points made by Person A of the problems of uncontrolled immigration.

[Bossybabe]

Obviously. 

[canbuywontbuy]

Not obvious to many....unless, of course, they are hiding behind faux innocence to disguise their shenanigans. 

[Riedquat]

I do wonder really. Sure, I agree that it's all a clear and shut case of no sh1t Sherlock but don't underestimate how short-sighted large numbers of people actually are. And with a heavily urbanised population that are used to being crammed into large urban sprawls with atrocious traffic, where no-one ever talks to anyone else anyway, so that ultimately more people will just spread what's the norm for them, it must be hard for them to grasp what damage they're doing when they've been so ruined themselves.

[canbuywontbuy]

22 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I do wonder really. Sure, I agree that it's all a clear and shut case of no sh1t Sherlock but don't underestimate how short-sighted large numbers of people actually are.

When I point it out, it's no shit sherlock, but it's a tactic that's been played time and again by Remainers and all sorts of Common Purpose / Owen Jones / SJW types.  Daring to criticise the folly of uncontrolled immigration when weighed up against infrastructure needs is akin to being a shaven-headed neo-nazi to some. 

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, canbuywontbuy said:

When I point it out, it's no shit sherlock, but it's a tactic that's been played time and again by Remainers and all sorts of Common Purpose / Owen Jones / SJW types.  Daring to criticise the folly of uncontrolled immigration when weighed up against infrastructure needs is akin to being a shaven-headed neo-nazi to some. 

The ones that wind me up (actually all of them do, but so do most things) are those that go on about needing to import more people in order to deal with an aging population, and simply can't grasp the long-term pyramid-scheme-style issues that massively outweigh any short-term gains. I just get "do you want to work until you're 80?" style replies thrown at me, as if they've got a better alternative.

[HHGH]

9 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

 

Problem #1: Confusing immigration as a concept with individual people (immigrants)

Person A: "There really needs to be something done about immigration as we can't control the numbers - how can we manage infrastructure if we don't know how many people are coming into the country each year?"

Person B: "It's not the fault of the immigrants.  They're just trying to better their lives."

 

Someone stealing my TV is also just trying to better their lives. I'm not sure something that is mine and that I have paid for should be taken for absolutely nothing. Call me old fashioned.

[HHGH]

9 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

 

Person B: "Being anti-immigration is really backward.  Immigrants do a lot for the country - you need to broaden your outlook and be more inclusive". 

I'd like to take person B by the hand and broaden their outlook by leading them to the thriving utopia that is Govanhill in Glasgow. Or they could maybe broaden their outlook by reading the following.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35985704

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38840026

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22149525

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/13581530.Woman_raped_in_Govanhill_lane_attack/

[Reck B]

Logic vs emotion.

I think we've just lived through an imbalanced period, tipped heavily towards emotion. I've seen the phrase pathalogical altruism a few times and it's very apt.

My attempt at allegorizing it; A big wooden ship seats hundreds of passengers in neat rows dow the middle of the deck. One particularly vocal and persuasive passenger, sitting on the right of a row gets up and walks to the side "hey look at these  dolphins, I think they are hungry!" she shouts and chucks some scraps from her lunch over the side. On seeing this, some other passengers from the aisle-row join her, the ship leaning slightly as they do so. The next line of people, seeing many of their fellow passengers enjoying the view and feeling good about themselves shuffle over to the side to join them, this time taking some of the ships rations with them, the ship leans a little more causing the line of people in the middle  to slide down the seat towards the edge even though they were happy to stay in the middle. One of these central passengers comments  "Funny looking dolphins" drawing critical stares from those around him.

Meanwhile, a passenger on the left hand of the ship who recognises the importance of strict rationing and keeping the ships mast vertical shouts a warning to the feeders, urging them to "sit down you bloody idiots, or we'll all end up in the sea and get eaten by those sharks."

"But they're hungry dolphins!" comes the reply, swiftly followed by "Men overboard!" with the sea turning red as the group of sharks tear a few central passengers to pieces.

One by one the passengers walk back to their seats & sit down deciding they'd prefer to not be eaten.

They all die of starvation though.

~fin~

 

 

 

[canbuywontbuy]

I'd say 99% of the time it's an ad hominem attack - they can't present a counterargument to infrastructure planning v unknown numbers of immigrants coming in each year......so "you be racist you be!". 

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, Reck B said:

Logic vs emotion.

Yes and no. Emotional reasons are ultimately far more persuasive than logical ones, and let me explain before you all tear me to pieces for that. Ultimately the only point in doing anything at all is if there's some emotional benefit from it. What's the point of any others beyond being means to that end? At the end of the day if it makes lives happier it's worth doing, if it doesn't then it isn't. The logical part is there to be used to determine how to get to the situation that has emotional payoff, is this desirable outcome actually possible etc. At the risk of getting accused of being arrogant (which in any case doesn't mean wrong) an awful lot of people are pretty lousy at working out what gives them long-term emotional benefit. Most "want this because it's quicker / faster / more convenient" illustrates that.

"More immigration" fails on all fronts IMO.

[happy_renting]

12 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

Yes, it should be obvious to most, but strangely it isn't (for the less-than-innocent reasons I mention at the end of this post). Just thought I'd put this post up because this issue comes up every single time :-

Problem #1: Confusing immigration as a concept with individual people (immigrants)

Person A: "There really needs to be something done about immigration as we can't control the numbers - how can we manage infrastructure if we don't know how many people are coming into the country each year?"

Person B: "It's not the fault of the immigrants.  They're just trying to better their lives."

I feel like person B is offering a non-sequitur to person A - an utterly irrelevant and unconnected response to person A's concern.  In fact, it's worse than that - it's an unfounded accusation that somehow person A is against immigrants themselves, not uncontrolled immigration. 

Problem #2: Interchanging the general concept of immigration with the specific concept of UNCONTROLLED immigration as if they are the same thing, thereby labelling someone as "anti-immigration"

Person A: "We need to have some kind of cap on the number of immigrants coming into the country"

Person B: "Being anti-immigration is really backward.  Immigrants do a lot for the country - you need to broaden your outlook and be more inclusive". 

This happens virtually everyday on HPC and all over the web, and I think in 95%+ cases, it's not innocent confusion, it's an attempt from Person B to shut down the debate by accusing Person A of being intolerant while avoiding the points made by Person A of the problems of uncontrolled immigration.

I have an 'issue' with the term 'uncontrolled immigration'. All immigration is controlled to some degree. What matters is what those controls are, and who determines what the controls are.

[gilf]

1 hour ago, happy_renting said:

I have an 'issue' with the term 'uncontrolled immigration'. All immigration is controlled to some degree. What matters is what those controls are, and who determines what the controls are.

The only control on immigration from the EU is literally the amount of people in EU countries. In the UK we literally cannot decide how many people enter the country from the EU, therefore uncontrolled. If another country all of a sudden decides they want to let in a billion chinese and given them all citizenship then they will be able to come to the UK. 

We have no control on EU immigration and literally no control over members of EU external immigration/citizenship policy. 

I think it's about as close to uncontrolled as you can ever get by any definition of the word IMO.

 

 

[richc]

 

4 hours ago, Reck B said:

Logic vs emotion.

I think we've just lived through an imbalanced period, tipped heavily towards emotion. I've seen the phrase pathalogical altruism a few times and it's very apt.

My attempt at allegorizing it; A big wooden ship seats hundreds of passengers in neat rows dow the middle of the deck. One particularly vocal and persuasive passenger, sitting on the right of a row gets up and walks to the side "hey look at these  dolphins, I think they are hungry!" she shouts and chucks some scraps from her lunch over the side. On seeing this, some other passengers from the aisle-row join her, the ship leaning slightly as they do so. The next line of people, seeing many of their fellow passengers enjoying the view and feeling good about themselves shuffle over to the side to join them, this time taking some of the ships rations with them, the ship leans a little more causing the line of people in the middle  to slide down the seat towards the edge even though they were happy to stay in the middle. One of these central passengers comments  "Funny looking dolphins" drawing critical stares from those around him.

Meanwhile, a passenger on the left hand of the ship who recognises the importance of strict rationing and keeping the ships mast vertical shouts a warning to the feeders, urging them to "sit down you bloody idiots, or we'll all end up in the sea and get eaten by those sharks."

"But they're hungry dolphins!" comes the reply, swiftly followed by "Men overboard!" with the sea turning red as the group of sharks tear a few central passengers to pieces.

One by one the passengers walk back to their seats & sit down deciding they'd prefer to not be eaten.

They all die of starvation though.

~fin~

 

 

 

I think you're misreading the situation.  It's not about altruism -- it's about power.

In your scenario, how much do you want to bet that the initial dolphin feeder wouldn't simply be satisfied by sharing their own lunch?  Instead, they would demand that everyone else also share their lunch.  First, they would set up a "charity" (paying themselves healthy salaries, of course) to feed the dolphins.  Then, because there are still hungry dolphins out there, they would set up the Dolphin Feeding Party to take control of the government because, clearly, anyone who doesn't feed the dolphins is scum and deserves to be taxed into poverty and only a Dolphin Feeder is truly noble enough to lead the nation (and be paid millions in speaking fees from the banks).  If anyone has the temerity to point out that dumping food overboard doesn't actually lead to the dolphins being significantly happier, you will be labelled as heartless scum, then imprisoned for having hurt the feelings of marine mammals.

[canbuywontbuy]

11 hours ago, happy_renting said:

I have an 'issue' with the term 'uncontrolled immigration'. All immigration is controlled to some degree. What matters is what those controls are, and who determines what the controls are.

Freedom of movement is not controlled, unless you want to say "yes it is, because only 550M people have this freedom, not 7.4B" - then I will accept that as a reasonable (but utterly meaningless) troll answer.