open Democracy News Analysis - Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World, - Comments

vielorenz on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

vielorenz — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 10:04:55 +0100

Have a look at Denmark : 10% of the population are muslims ( immigrants and 2.3.4. generations) Most of the immigrants - 90% - are on wellfare. Many of those donŽt speak a proper Danish - if they speak Danish at all. They live in their owen city in the cities, because they want it so. They are looking at the Danes with disgust- we are the abes, the dogs, the Dhimmies to them. And they tells us that by words - and by their behaviour . We have to live with that- and with our thoughts about what a future our own kids have in their own country. When an Old- Dane family have 2 children - the New-Danes have 6-8 children. We have no problems with other New-Danes. The problems are only with the muslims. Why ?

leandrog.uk on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

leandrog.uk — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:28:15 +0100

In my opinion, it’s quite difficult to talk about immigration when you do NOT live in a country affected by that. The governments must be highly responsible over this question cause it generates problems such violence, unemployment, country identity loosing. I, as a Brazilian who already lived in UK for studying, was able to identify that 98% of Brazilians immigrants were unskilled people who were just looking for money. They were not capable enough to occupy a skilled position, which very often take them to join criminal gangs. I saw that sadly cause (believe me!!) Brazil is much more than these people. Immigrants in a country must be exceptions and not the biggest part of population.

agingqueen on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

agingqueen — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:05:34 +0100

I think you are mostly right. However, it seems that when we talk about immigration and thereafter racism, that most counties, even in progresive Europe, are scaled by how 'bad' they are.

Pupri on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

*Pupri* — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:24:09 +0100

well i think that your view is right, but not everywhere in Europe. London is a cosmopolitan city, and its "normal" to be black, brown, yellow or white. It doesnt matter there. But here in Germany its differnt! Turks etc are all discriminated here. They got indians into the country only to improve technology here and what did the politicians say: "Kinder statt Inder" something like: Children instead of Indians, which is so racist. First they use the indians and thats the thank!

aldoogy on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

aldoogy — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 06:07:13 +0100

'Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World' - I really find it hard to believe a Somalian would say that - you obviously have never had to pick your teeth up with broken fingers and blurred vision due to blood in your eyes having been beaten up by a bunch of bored/confused/scared thugs. Nick Griffin (of British National Party) needs testimonies like zesssto's to 'intelectualy' justify his new caring brand of fascism. The thing about the net is I can say I'm Somalian , Algerian , Irish whatever... you really have no way of knowing. Given that I will trust you are telling the truth, do what all Pakistanis and Indians did in the 50s 60s and send money home to help your families build businesses and stop blaming the 'west'. zesssto ,seriously, send money home - or go home yourself and start the good work (BNP will even give you a grant). As for the rest of this thinly vieled discussion . . . Where I live in London, just about every white girl is pushing a brown baby. That is what has sealed the future of the UK. For every 'concerned' person there are 50 more who just don't give a damn about this race business. The genie is out of the bottle and it really is just a matter of taste as to whether you see this as a positive or negative thing. The 'world citizen'(dual culture) identity that these brown babies grow into might just save all our asses , or at least redefine the whole concept of national identity. Dual nationality is not a new invention. A French / American is hardly a baffling concept, why should it become anymore complicated when it becomes, say, Scottish / Nigerian. gaelflyn, I've reread your input a few times now and I really do feel for you and your kind. I also sense the great fear you seem to have. The world is changing fast and if I could lend you a time machine I surely would. I find your reluctance to identify the race/nationality of the people who stole your family's bikes curious. Are you worried that if you do identify their race you may be accused of being racist ? You shouldn't be. You clearly feel different to these people so why not clearly state they are Jamaican or whatever, it's not racist to tell the truth. Anyway, everyone is racist. I personally hate all races (white, black, brown and yellow) , it makes life less complicated for me. If you really feel the need to get physical with imigrants then maybe you will at some point but just be careful you don't get arrested or badly hurt yourself or hurt another person in a way you later seriously regret. In my experience far better to build bridges where possible (try and imagine the family you are having trouble with are a bunch of (white) scouse scallys and think how you would deal with them). This simplistic idea 'England for the English', does this mean Irish and Americans go home. Or am I right in thinking you mean something slightly different.

mbe on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

mbe — Sat, 08 May 2004 20:16:38 +0100

Hello again Perseus, I guess I had better respond to your comments! Well, I don't know that much about Japan -- but the few serious pieces of academic research I have read on it [all by German scholars] suggest that it has rather a lot in common with Greece. This is because the Japanese state decided to give legal status to almost no immigrants, and the result was mass illegal immigration with illegal immigrants propping up the economy. Possibly this has changed in the last few years, and the illegal immigrants left when the economy deteriorated: I am open to correction on all these factual issues... The family reunification issue. Yes, you are right. However, this is a global pattern: family reunion does not dry up after a short period. It is a little unfair to single out the UK politicians for a mistake everyone made. Two lesson can be drawn from it: we cannot predict much at all; migration has its own dynamic, which countries are powerless to control. These I referred to in a previous posting. Who is British? I don't subscribe to legalistic definitions at all: this is one of my major complaints about many of the academics writing on the topic of immigration. However, in the case of the UK colonies etc., I am inclined [as a UK national rather than as an academic] to view this whole thing as a moral duty of a declining empire. The UK built its world presence upon the exploitation of resources in India and elsewhere: the least we could do, in the aftermath is give something back to the descendants of those exploited peoples. The provisions of the 1948 Act are therefore reinforcing, to my mind, rather than determinative... As far as definitional issues are concerned, I am not happy with the status of indefinite leave to remain as the criterion. This status is given to residents, who can satisfy fairly demanding conditions. Are you telling us that your problem is with people who wish to stay, as serious and law-abiding residents, rather than with illegal immigrants and "false" asylum-seekers? If so, the whole issue is not about immigration at all, but about exclusion. This, in fact, has been the mentality of the Greeks, who try to exclude all non-Greeks from their society: the resulting complex mess of illegal migration and corruption has to be seen to be believed! So, the central point of the Brimelow question? I do not agree that immigration is bad, but to a great extent this is a matter of personal judgment. Ecposure to new cultures can open up new avenues of thinking, promote innovation, remove the deadwood of failed old men in patriarchal societies.... However, the principal argument I make is simply: there is nothing you can do to stop it! For better or worse, this is our reality. and we have to deal with it. Martin Baldwin-Edwards Athens, Greece

perseus_1 on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

perseus_1 — Tue, 04 May 2004 03:31:24 +0100

Hello Martin, Nice to hear from you again. With respect to population trends, I will concede that this may be an inexact science. It is a fact that no reputable demographer has been willing to put his career on the line and make a prediction for the population of non-European ancestry in Britain by 2050. The US Census Bureau is not so coy; their middle-range projection for 2050 puts the percentage of that segment of their population at over 50%. That is really the nub of the Brimelow Question – why is this happening and why is it a ‘good thing’? There are a number of examples of modern societies where immigration is for all intents non-existent. The one I was particularly thinking of is Japan. In many respects Japan and Britain are strikingly similar and there is no obvious reason why a Japanese-style immigration regime could not have been implemented in Britain in the post-war period, had the political will been there. I won’t quibble with your estimates for the components of ongoing immigration streams into N. Europe. Except to note that for the UK the family reunion channel was supposed to ‘dry up’ in the 70s, according to proponents of the 1971 Commonwealth Immigration Bill. Yet here we are 30-odd years later still admitting 30,000 or so family members from the New Commonwealth each year. I can see that we will have to agree to differ on the status of the New Commonwealth citizens who emigrated to Britain starting in the 1950s. I am mildly astonished that you would attempt to claim that any of these incomers were British before arrival. This must be based on an extremely legalistic interpretation of the 1948 British Nationalities Act rather than any real-world criteria of Britishness. Regarding a definition of who is an immigrant, I suppose a reliably consistent classification would be those who are granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK. It is very remarkable to see how the numbers of such persons is increasing each year, and the countries from which they originate - most of which have no historical connection to the British Empire. With the increasing access to permanent settlement now available to all kinds of new entrants – working holidaymakers, work permit holders, asylum seekers, etc – the number of immigrants cannot fail to grow very substantially. And of course since each new settler automatically gains the right to bring in other family members, the cycle is self-perpetuating. You may be familiar with the case of the Pakistani population of Oxford that started with two men in the 1950s and is now – thanks to the magic of chain migration – several thousand strong. And again, in conclusion, I suggest you are missing the central point of the Brimelow Question. It is not actually seeking to a resolve the issue of whether continuing mass immigration is good or bad. Rather, it is asking the following. Since there are so many unknowns involved, would it not be more prudent to debate and evaluate the pros and cons of continuing the present strategy rather than blithely accepting the default position that although mass immigration is fundamentally inevitable, rather like the weather, it will all come good in the end. In view of the demographic realities vis-a-vis the third world I believe this question is germane to all developed countries, not least the UK. Perseus

mbe on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

mbe — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:42:14 +0100

THe Brimelow book has been extensively reviewed and I have read many of those reviews, as well as the summary of Perseus. Normally, I would not want to comment on other people;s scientific work without reading it carefully, but the Brimelow book is not scientific literature. As far as I know, its sole aim is to influence popular opinion: by that criterion, it must be considered a success. However, I am not a politician or political activist and do not work in that way. MBE

dkomis on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

dkomis — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:30:40 +0100

mbe, In a previous post you admitted not to have read Brimelow's book - I quote "...The Brimelow arguments: These date from more than 10 years ago, I think. I have some remarks to make on your summary [assuming that you have not misrepresnted his arguments, as I have never bothered to read it]." Yet now you "...conclude on this Brimelow argument: it is a ridiculously simplistic and inaccurate presentation > of choices, which avoids major structural issues as > if they simply do not exist. Furthermore, this vague > general argument cannot be applied to any country in > the way that it is formulated: each country has a > unique set of characteristics - historically, > sociologically and economically - which politicians > need to respect." Interesting that one could have such strong views about a set of arguments he claims he hasn't bothered to read. Either you have a propensity for "malakia" Martin or Perseus has brilliantly managed to summarize all 317 pages of "Alien Nation" in just under eight lines.

mbe on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

mbe — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:25:50 +0100

Hi again, Perseus, Sorry not to have replied sooner, but I was without internet access. Well, it was not my intention to avoid dealing with the arguments! However, I did want to stress that in terms of demography, there are other more important and actual issues. I do not accept the concept of "immigration trends" as a component of population projections, because such "trends" do not have the predictability of other aspects of population change, such as births and deaths. I am not surprised that you do not accept the proposition that immigration is uncontrollable: however, I know of no liberal democracy which has managed to stop immigration flows. You mention "robust and successful immigration control regimes" and as a comparative immigration specialist I cannot imagine which! Maybe you refer to the German constitutional change to the asylum process, which had the effect of reducing asylum-seekers into Germany. However, the reality is that 50-60% of known immigration into most northern European countries is family reunification, with some skilled workers and asylum-seekers making up the rest. It is extremely difficult for legal, moral and political reasons to limit the family reunifcation rights of immigrants; it is almost impossible to control spontaneous asylum-seeking; and the small amount of recruitment of skilled labour is a clear policy choice. IN effect, the unskilled labour which is heavily utilised in European countries consists of illegal immigrants, asylum-seekers working illegally, and family members of immigrants: without these, there would have to be semi-skilled labour recruitment into most countries. This is an important point, and should not be put aside. Turning specifically to the UK, I am confused about what you think is an immigrant. Are you referring to those people from the Commonwealth who were British and started migrating into the UK in the 1950s? This is the whole Enoch Powell "rivers of blood" argument revisited. I think most people would be inclined to accept that period of migration as a post-colonial adjustment, and perfectly legitimate. The fact that many of the migrants had different skin colours etc is what led to the Race Relations Act and the multi-racial character of modern Britain. Generally, the UK has followed quite an exclusionary approach to immigration since the 1970s, allowing mainly family members as immigrants from the Commonwealth. If by immigrants you mean asylum-seekers, this is a recent issue and difficult to handle in a liberal democracy. If you mean illegal immigrants, this is practically difficult to stop. So, where are the policy choices?? As far as the population trends of the UK are concerned, the most disturbing thing as I see it, is the mass emigration of highly skilled/educated British since 1981. THe "brain drain" is a serious issue for the UK, in both economic and cultural terms. THe immigration of many diverse nationalities since 1981 has compensated in terms of numbers, it may have compensated [particularly with Americans, Canadians, Australians] in terms of skilled temporary workers, but it has substantially affected the cultural and social life of the UK. This is, presumably, what people mean by the "negative impact on an established society". However, to preserve that established society, the UK would have had to prevent emigration as well as immigration, as many fascist and Eastern bloc countries have done over ther twentieth century. So, to conclude on this Brimelow argument: it is a ridiculously simplistic and inaccurate presentation of choices, which avoids major structural issues as if they simply do not exist. Furthermore, this vague general argument cannot be applied to any country in the way that it is formulated: each country has a unique set of characteristics - historically, sociologically and economically - which politicians need to respect. There is no simple argument in the form: 'either we have immigrants or we don't'. Finally, as I insist, no country has managed to keep out immigrants: where do we go from here? Clearly, by trying to manage as well as possible the inevitable conflicts and problems caused by change: this lack of proper management is where modern politicians are most vulnerable to criticism. Martin Baldwin-Edwards Athens

dkomis on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

dkomis — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:15:46 +0100

mbe Dear Mr. Edwards, I have had the opportunity to read your (very interesting) paper "Southern European Labour Markets and Immigration: A Structural and Functional Analysis". Like I said, I am neither an expert on the subject, nor do I have the time (or interest anymore) to argue the points of your thesis. The "arguments", however, that you have put forward in this forum, pale in comparison to that work as they indeed are flimsy and superficial. What is most surprising Sir is your patently offensive manner towards both me and AP and towards the country and the people who have extended their hospitality to you and have given you the opportunity (through your association with the Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences) to advance your career. Objective and constructive criticism is always welcomed. Subjective and unfair, on the other hand, is best kept to oneself. In your case Sir such criticism is also unbecoming of your status as both a member of the academic community and as a so-called "expert" on immigration. Finally Sir, if this wildly accusatory, vastly unsubstantiated and borderline racist retort is what you would define as "scientific" then no, I do not have any "scientific" questions to ask you. dk

mbe on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

mbe — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:49:30 +0100

gaelflyn: I understand that the quality of life in UK has collapsed, and you seem to be on the hard end of it. I am sorry about that, and it is something that I had expected to happen and one of the reasons I left UK. I am not sure, though, either that you are right in blaing it on ethnic tensions, or that you do yourself any good in the UK context by blaming immigrants. the fault clearly lies with bad government for decades in Britain, and the greed of "elites" -- be they thatcherite or blairite -- in securing their own personal finances and power. As far as Greece is concerned, as usual the Greeks spout offensive "malakia" about everything, with wrong "facts", personal opinion as a supposed reality, and a complete lack of respect for everyone except themselves. Unhappily, the quality of life in Greece is collapsing through the corruption and stupidity of Greek people: our colleagues here exemplify it wonderfully, and I owe them thanks for showing it. For the last 10 years, Greece has been kept afloat by massive EU subsidies and the almost slave labour of Albanians and other hard-working immigrants. Quite frankly, the ability of most Greek people to deal with problems, to work effectively on their own or with others, is about zero. Furthermore, I doubt that a Greek would recognise a rational argument even if it leaped out at him and bit him on the ass. For a little rationality, you might try revising your calculations of immigrants in Greece: as far as we know, they are about 650,000 non-EU non-Greek migrants, of whom about 500.000 are of working age. Out of a population of 11m this is high, but not that high... As far as having any say about this immigration is concerned, you are all quite wrong. The 1991 Law prevented all immigration, so people came illegally. Then, they were employed by GREEKS, housed by GREEKS, and subsequently their families were allowed in by GREEKS. Now, it seems that GREEKS abroad are selling illegal visas, in Greece the GREEKS are selling illegal work permits and the GREEKS continue employing illegal workers. Maybe our Greek friends in this Forum didn't take any money, and this is why they are angry. Unless anyone has any serious scientific questions to ask me, rather than annoying me with personal bigotries, this discussion is closed. Martin Baldwin-Edwards Athens

ap on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

ap — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:14:23 +0100

I'd like to comment on MBE's post and his reply, because although I think dkomis's retort was overstated and I don't agree with all his views, he does have a point. Although MBE takes pains to point out his academic specialization in the field, his second and third comments do suffer from what dkomis claims -- superficiality. Social conservatism and and intolerance to difference serve very specific social ends, and he doesn't seem to understand this. He uses the example that his neighbors might object to his presence "because I might "look different", or "not behave properly" or somehow not conform to the behaviour that others wish to inpose upon me." Yes, of course they would. Society functions because there IS a code of behavior, or multiple codes of behavior, that people are expected to obey. Social theorists have been talking about how this works for a very long time (habitus, hegemony, ideology, etc). A new person shows up who doesn't seem to know the rules, or seems to have a different set entirely? That's a social threat. All societies have a rather limited ability to accept the rights of people to act differently than the norm. It's not a useful stereotype to associate "the elderly" with this mentality, as it's one that all of us share, even those of us whom dkomis would disparagingly call "left wingers" (a term I'd identify myself with in fact). It's not simply that change is scary, or that people are afraid of difference because they're ignorant or old -- it's that change and difference are reasonably perceived as threats to what is currently accepted as normal, as moral, as understandable. An entire culture is built on the fact that those ideas are perceived as being shared. Immigrants often don't share them. They may come to share them, to adapt to a certain degree, or they may not. Of course, change happens, as thousands of things influence that culture all the time -- new ideas, new technology, and (as we're talking about here) new people. But individuals will always kick and scream as they're dragged through the change. Why? They say it's because their culture, their way of life, is under attack. Are they wrong? No, they're absolutely correct. The question is whether or not you think such a change is automatically a bad thing. Personally, I don't. But I don't call people bigots just because they do. Understanding those fears, and addressing them, is an important part of addressing immigration problems in Europe. Dismissing those fears as unfounded, uneducated, or racist is unproductive. Here, in Greece (where I'm located as well), Albanians do take an unfair amount of blame for violent crime and burglary. (Though as more "foreign-looking" immigrants arrive, Albanians seem to be moving out of the spotlight. Difference is always a relative matter). The economy has been difficult, wages are some of the lowest in the EU and the cost of living is one of the highest, and immigrants are one place that people look to blame. Does that mean that they're simply scapegoats for other problems? Does MBE really mean to suggest that unrestricted illegal immigration on the scale that Greece has undergone in the past 10 years doesn't have its own social consequences? Does he really want to reject dkomis's list of possible consequences of illegal immigration ("real and/or perceived dangers to the identity of the host community, of strains on the welfare system and on the infrastructure of the host society, of cultural differences and failing assimilation, of overpopulation and urban sprawl, of deterioration of the natural environment, of depression of wages (particularly among the poor natives and previous immigrants) of (increased) marginalization and alienation and of "balkanization" of our societies to name a few.") as simply the spoutings of someone "who knows rather less about the matter?" That seems an unfair categorization to me. It's difficult to celebrate the migrations of the present immigrants in Greece as instances of impowerment, as MBE would like, while their status makes them vulnerable to economic exploitation. Immigrants are scapegoats and victims in Greece to a tremendous degree, but to state that we should not talk about this issue in terms of "unemployment, changing social configurations of cities, etc," as MBE states, makes me suspect that MBE doesn't get out of the office much to see what's going on in Greece around him. Exactly what kind of academic field do you follow, MBE? When you ask for people to discuss what the "real problems" are, does that mean you don't consider any of the economic or social problems that dkomis or gaelflyn raise as "real problems"? I myself am "pro-immigration" and pro-legalization of the current immigrant population. But I still take all of comments that the posters here have presented and the problems that they see with the current status of immigration (whether those insights be "academic" or personal) as a serious part of the debate, concerns that should be addressed by those who would argue for the rights of immigrants, and not as figments of their imagination or as previously existing problems that have nothing to do with immigrants but mistakenly get associated with them. Dkomis is right when he says name-calling doesn't help (or disparaging people's lack of academic credentials, in my opinion). (By the way,dkomis might take his own critique, that name calling doesn't help, to heart).

ap on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

ap — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:10:08 +0100

I'd like to comment on MBE's post and his reply, because although I think dkomis's retort was overstated and I don't agree with all his views, he does have a point. Although MBE takes pains to point out his academic specialization in the field, his second and third comments do suffer from what dkomis claims -- superficiality. Social conservatism and and intolerence to difference serve very specific social ends, and he doesn't seem to understand this. He uses the example that his neighbors might object to his presence "because I might "look different", or "not behave properly" or somehow not conform to the behaviour that others wish to inpose upon me." Yes, of course they would. Society functions because there IS a code of behavior, or multiple codes of behavior, that people are expected to obey. Social theorists have been talking about how this works for a very long time (habitus, hegemony, ideology, etc). A new person shows up who doesn't seem to know the rules, or seems to have a different set entirely? That's a social threat. All societies have a rather limited ability to accept the rights of people to act differently than the norm. It's not a useful stereotype to associate "the elderly" with this mentality, as it's one that all of us share, even those of us whom dkomis would disparagingly call "left wingers" (a term I'd identify myself with in fact). It's not simply that change is scary, or that people are afraid of difference because they're ignorant or old -- it's that change and difference are reasonably perceived as threats to what is currently accepted as normal, as moral, as understandable. An entire culture is built on the fact that those ideas are perceived as being shared. Immigrants often don't share them. They may come to share them, to adapt to a certain degree, or they may not. Of course, change happens, as thousands of things influence that culture all the time -- new ideas, new technology, and (as we're talking about here) new people. But individuals will always kick and scream as they're dragged through the change. Why? They say it's because their culture, their way of life, is under attack. Are they wrong? No, they're absolutely correct. The question is whether or not you think such a change is automatically a bad thing. Personally, I don't. But I don't call people bigots just because they do. Understanding those fears, and addressing them, is an important part of addressing immigration problems in Europe. Dismissing those fears as unfounded, uneducated, or racist is unproductive. Here, in Greece (where I'm located as well), Albanians do take an unfair amount of blame for violent crime and burglary. (Though as more "foreign-looking" immigrants arrive, Albanians seem to be moving out of the spotlight. Difference is always a relative matter). The economy has been difficult, wages are some of the lowest in the EU and the cost of living is one of the highest, and immigrants are one place that people look to blame. Does that mean that they're simply scapegoats for other problems? Does MBE really mean to suggest that unrestricted illegal immigration on the scale that Greece has undergone in the past 10 years doesn't have its own social consequences? Does he really want to reject dkomis's list of possible consequences of illegal immigration ("real and/or perceived dangers to the identity of the host community, of strains on the welfare system and on the infrastructure of the host society, of cultural differences and failing assimilation, of overpopulation and urban sprawl, of deterioration of the natural environment, of depression of wages (particularly among the poor natives and previous immigrants) of (increased) marginalization and alienation and of "balkanization" of our societies to name a few.") as simply the spoutings of someone "who knows rather less about the matter?" That seems an unfair categorization to me. It's difficult to celebrate the migrations of the present immigrants in Greece as instances of impowerment, as MBE would like, while their status makes them vulnerable to economic exploitation. Immigrants are scapegoats and victims in Greece to a tremendous degree, but to state that we should not talk about this issue in terms of "unemployment, changing social configurations of cities, etc," as MBE states, makes me suspect that MBE doesn't get out of the office much to see what's going on in Greece around him. Exactly what kind of academic field do you follow, MBE? When you ask for people to discuss what the "real problems" are, does that mean you don't consider any of the economic or social problems that dkomis or gaelflyn raise as "real problems"? I myself am "pro-immigration" and pro-legalization of the current immigrant population. But I still take all of comments that the posters here have presented and the problems that they see with the current status of immigration (whether those insights be "academic" or personal) as a serious part of the debate, concerns that should be addressed by those who would argue for the rights of immigrants, and not as figments of their imagination or as previously existing problems that have nothing to do with immigrants but mistakenly get associated with them. Dkomis is right when he says name-calling doesn't help (or disparaging people's lack of academic credentials, in my opinion). (By the way,dkomis might take his own critique, that name calling doesn't help, to heart).

dkomis on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

dkomis — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:10:17 +0100

Mr. Edwards Sir you are right, I am neither an academic nor an immigration specialist. I am just a concerned citizen who, by the way does not come from your "own racist country of UK" as you put it, but from Greece. I did not dismiss your "serious and hard work" as superficial and left wing but if your serious and hard work is as superficial and left wing as your flimsy pro-immigration argumentation in this forum, then sir I do dismiss your "serious and hard work" as superficial and left wing. I suggest that you read what you attempt to reply to more carefully and to avoid flaunting your elitist and academic arrogance because frankly it is in rather bad taste. Additionally, you might wish to reconsider your obvious ease at using words such as "bigot" - it is not polite to say the least. Now do you have any real answers to the questions posed in this forum? Sincerely, An Athenian Greek.

Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World,

zesssto — Fri, 12 Mar 2004 23:57:21 +0000

I am a Somali who has grown up in the West. I have experienced exclusion and inclusion. What I am about to say has no bearing on the personal relationship between immigrants and natives, or between Africans and Europeans in the West, it concerns the Future of Africa. If the current immigration trend continues, where all the gifted and educated Africans are allowed to flee to the West, Africas problems will never be fixed. Africa will never been developed. Simply put, these people (who are coming in droves to places like Netherlands, U.K, France, America etc) are the vital building blocs of their societies, they are the ones who understand and can best resolve the problems. The West by giving them an easy way out, though out of humanitarian compassion, does not take into account the long-term interest of Africa. If the 5% of a given population, which happens to be the educated segment, flee, do you think the 95% who are uneducated will fare any better in fixing their societies up? Imagine, if all the educated European peoples, specifically the academics and professionals were allowed to flee to America after the massive destruction caused by the Second World War. Read the rest of this post...

open Democracy News Analysis - Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World, - Comments

vielorenz on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

leandrog.uk on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

agingqueen on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

*Pupri* on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

aldoogy on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

mbe on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

perseus_1 on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

mbe on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

dkomis on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

mbe on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

dkomis on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

mbe on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

ap on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

ap on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

dkomis on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"

Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World,

Pupri on "Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World"