Dump Trump

[ducati916]

1. Duc, a country can be multi-ethnic, multiracial and still be nationalistic

2. For instance in the United States, caucasians, african-americans, and indigenous, or indeed any other racial group can feel nationalistic about the United States

3. Indeed I myself as a Civic nationalist am not racist at all

1. Absolutely.

2. Yes they can. That does not however prevent those who hold the power, from decreeing that some are more American/British/ than others. Take the massive backlashes in Europe currently [Austria/Germany/Norway/Sweden/Spain/France] on the immigration issues. The UK pulled out of Europe largely on immigration issues. All the governments are under pressure from increasingly nationalistic political adversaries to become more nationalistic, which essentially means: tough on immigration.

3. I am not accusing you of being one.

jog on
duc

 

[wayneL]

1. Absolutely.

2. Yes they can. That does not however prevent those who hold the power, from decreeing that some are more American/British/ than others. Take the massive backlashes in Europe currently [Austria/Germany/Norway/Sweden/Spain/France] on the immigration issues. The UK pulled out of Europe largely on immigration issues. All the governments are under pressure from increasingly nationalistic political adversaries to become more nationalistic, which essentially means: tough on immigration.

3. I am not accusing you of being one.

jog on
duc

Oh I apologise if you thought that I thought that you were accusing me, I was just using myself as an example.

But is your point tWo such a bad thing if judiciously employed? I think a society- nation has the right to choose whom they admit to their Society.

Ultimately a nation has the responsibility to act in the best interests of their own nation and it's people. If that means excluding certain others, and that may not mean groups but maybe other cultural considerations, then so be it.

It may not involve racism at all.

 

[Smurf1976]

I was not referring to you, rather when a country turns overly nationalistic, for any reason, including economic ones [are they not always], then it is a slippery slope for immigrants who often cop the blame for economic woes.

I do agree it potentially could be a slippery slope situation.

Country x competes unfairly against businesses in country y.

People in country y not unreasonably object to businesses in their country being harmed and ordinary people being put out of work. Fair enough if the business in country x legitimately has a better product or means of production, business is business and people can accept it if someone else really has done it better, but it's not at all fair and reasonable if they're cheating by avoiding tax, underpaying workers or dumping waste in the ocean etc.

Ends with people in country y hating people in country x for what's happened when the real issue is the actions of government or business not the people as such.

I can see how that could happen yes.

In the same way it could be said, to pick some random examples:

*Trump doesn't speak for all Americans.

*That the UK voted to leave the EU doesn't mean everyone in Britain hates Germans, French or Italians. It's an economic and political thing, nothing personal.

*Regardless of who's in government at any given time, a decent % of Australians, or the residents of any particular state or territory, didn't vote for them and don't necessarily agree with their policies.

And so on.

 

[ducati916]

1. Oh I apologise if you thought that I thought that you were accusing me, I was just using myself as an example.

2. But is your point tWo such a bad thing if judiciously employed? I think a society- nation has the right to choose whom they admit to their Society.

3. Ultimately a nation has the responsibility to act in the best interests of their own nation and it's people. If that means excluding certain others, and that may not mean groups but maybe other cultural considerations, then so be it.

4. It may not involve racism at all.

1. Not an issue.

2. Which is, is it not, the slippery slope.

3. You either have open borders, or you do not. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a middle ground. As a simplified example:

We live in a street of 5 houses. As neighbours we are all in agreement that if one [or more] wanted to sell and move away, that we would only sell to someone with 'XYZ' characteristics. Now those characteristics may, or may not, encompass racial characteristics.

Are we racist [assuming for a moment that 'XYZ' characteristics contain or are considered to be racist in their content] in exercising our legal property rights?

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

I do agree it potentially could be a slippery slope situation.

Country x competes unfairly against businesses in country y.

People in country y not unreasonably object to businesses in their country being harmed and ordinary people being put out of work. Fair enough if the business in country x legitimately has a better product or means of production, business is business and people can accept it if someone else really has done it better, but it's not at all fair and reasonable if they're cheating by avoiding tax, underpaying workers or dumping waste in the ocean etc.

Ends with people in country y hating people in country x for what's happened when the real issue is the actions of government or business not the people as such.

I can see how that could happen yes.

In the same way it could be said, to pick some random examples:

*Trump doesn't speak for all Americans.

*That the UK voted to leave the EU doesn't mean everyone in Britain hates Germans, French or Italians. It's an economic and political thing, nothing personal.

*Regardless of who's in government at any given time, a decent % of Australians, or the residents of any particular state or territory, didn't vote for them and don't necessarily agree with their policies.

And so on.

Which is why democracy is inherently flawed. The Swiss Cantons are the best 'government' currently available.

jog on
duc

 

[SirRumpole]

For instance in the United States, caucasians, african-americans, and indigenous, or indeed any other racial group can feel nationalistic about the United States

Laudable up to a point, but it can go too far and can clog up the bs detector when strong nationalists stir the pot for their own benefit.

 

[wayneL]

1. Not an issue.

2. Which is, is it not, the slippery slope.

3. You either have open borders, or you do not. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a middle ground. As a simplified example:

We live in a street of 5 houses. As neighbours we are all in agreement that if one [or more] wanted to sell and move away, that we would only sell to someone with 'XYZ' characteristics. Now those characteristics may, or may not, encompass racial characteristics.

Are we racist [assuming for a moment that 'XYZ' characteristics contain or are considered to be racist in their content] in exercising our legal property rights?

jog on
duc

I dont believe an open border policy is beneficial in any way

 

[wayneL]

Laudable up to a point, but it can go too far and can clog up the bs detector when strong nationalists stir the pot for their own benefit.

Of course, any ideology can range from pragmatic to ridiculous, left or right.

This is why I hope for a return to somewhere near the center.... a mixed economy, and a reserved and tolerant (in all directions) social order.

We (Oz) are pretty close economically, but socially there are problems

 

[ducati916]

I dont believe an open border policy is beneficial in any way

Ok.

So everyone in the country, like my street, is in agreement. No-one will sell immigrants any property, nor hire them in employment, nor contract them if self-employed.

You can have an open border policy and still have zero immigration.

Of course the example is silly. The reason being that self-interest will predominate. If an immigrant offers me a silly price for 'X', I'll likely take it. Or, I simply like immigration. Or any other reason.

Thus nationalism is political in nature. Where an elite decide who/when/where/etc. These decisions if 'nationalistic' tend to be discriminatory based on race.

If you need doctors/nurses/teachers/etc, does it matter which culture/ethnicity they are, assuming that they are qualified and competent?

Does it matter that they wish to practice their religion/culture/other in [your] country?

jog on
duc

 

[wayneL]

Ok.

So everyone in the country, like my street, is in agreement. No-one will sell immigrants any property, nor hire them in employment, nor contract them if self-employed.

You can have an open border policy and still have zero immigration.

Of course the example is silly. The reason being that self-interest will predominate. If an immigrant offers me a silly price for 'X', I'll likely take it. Or, I simply like immigration. Or any other reason.

Thus nationalism is political in nature. Where an elite decide who/when/where/etc. These decisions if 'nationalistic' tend to be discriminatory based on race.

If you need doctors/nurses/teachers/etc, does it matter which culture/ethnicity they are, assuming that they are qualified and competent?

Does it matter that they wish to practice their religion/culture/other in [your] country?

jog on
duc

Those people add to our society, but going from the sublime to the ridiculous, what if we allowed a massive influx of 13the century style Mongolians led by none other than a direct descendant of Genghis Khan...

There could be a negative effect.

Yes its a silly example, but Im sure you see my point through the hyperbole.

Or perhaps look to Western Europe as an example?

 

[Smurf1976]

If you need doctors/nurses/teachers/etc, does it matter which culture/ethnicity they are, assuming that they are qualified and competent?

No, it doesn't matter in a practical sense. I would argue however that we shouldn't be poaching doctors from less developed countries unless those countries do in fact have a surplus of trained doctors and that we also should not be denying the opportunity that people born in Australia can become a doctor.

Immigration shouldn't be simply an easy way out to avoid the expense of training people in Australia to be doctors.

Same with anything. If there are young people in Australia wanting to train as plumbers (for example) then no, we should not be importing plumbers to fill gaps in the workforce. Instead we should train those who want to do it.

 

[Stock Jock]

 

[Stock Jock]

 

[ducati916]

1. No, it doesn't matter in a practical sense. I would argue however that we shouldn't be poaching doctors from less developed countries unless those countries do in fact have a surplus of trained doctors and that we also should not be denying the opportunity that people born in Australia can become a doctor.

2. Immigration shouldn't be simply an easy way out to avoid the expense of training people in Australia to be doctors.

3. Same with anything. If there are young people in Australia wanting to train as plumbers (for example) then no, we should not be importing plumbers to fill gaps in the workforce. Instead we should train those who want to do it.

1.
(a) So in our less developed country we do have a deficit of doctors. The individual however [somehow] managed to pay his way through medical school. He now wants to leave to provide a better lifestyle for his family in a more developed country; or
(b) the State paid for his education. The State requires 'X' years service prior to being allowed to leave. Assuming that that period has now been served; and
(c) there is a shortage and demand in the better developed country; then
(d) it is likely that that doctor will emigrate. This will reduce the opportunities for home grown doctors, while depriving the lesser developed country of doctors; unless
(e) that country specialises in the training and export of doctors.

2. If immigration is [currently] the answer to a shortage, there is a failing in the system. It may be:

(a) There is not the training facilities/expertise to train/teach, or
(b) a lack of [suitable] candidates.

This goes back to 1(e) where we may have a situation where the export goods are people with skills. It could also mean that the investment and time required is excessive when compared to simply importing the skill, which reinforces 1(e).

3. Once young people in a mature [rich] economy get past the rock star/sports star/etc /first job/job while at Uni period and have to consider a real job [career] how attractive are these [subjective] lesser occupations to them?

If there are shortages and there seem to be, it must be because the job/profession is unattractive, for whatever reason, or lack of training infrastructure to train homegrown skills.

To fill the requirements on a voluntary basis, if no demand, you will require immigration. To fill via training, if no training infrastructure, you need investment [assuming the demand is there for training]. If you invest, what do you have to give up?

Of course with the internet, competition can come from anywhere. You can outsource to India/etc for all manner of work via the internet if price is your primary consideration. Geographical borders are no final protection anymore.

Soon there will be further competition from robotics across all manner of jobs/professions.

Brave new world.

jog on
duc

 

[wayneL]

"Open border" is an oxymoron.

Promoting the idea of an open border is tantamount to promoting the idea of globalism (please note the difference between this and globalisation).

Globalism is nothing more than a sanitization and obfuscation of the terms "one world government" and/or "new world order".

Look no further than the EU project to see how this is not in the interests of ordinary folk and is starting to fail.

Human nature deems it cannot work in practice.

 

[SirRumpole]

2. If immigration is [currently] the answer to a shortage, there is a failing in the system. It may be:

(a) There is not the training facilities/expertise to train/teach, or
(b) a lack of [suitable] candidates.

If we are talking about doctors, another issue may be that established doctors don't want to train their competition.

 

[Logique]

Indeed the AMA is a union, and fiercely protective of it's own turf.

Honestly, thank goodness for foreign doctors entering our medical system. People think medicine is expensive now! Just imagine the alternative.

 

[ducati916]

"Open border" is an oxymoron.

Promoting the idea of an open border is tantamount to promoting the idea of globalism (please note the difference between this and globalisation).

Globalism is nothing more than a sanitization and obfuscation of the terms "one world government" and/or "new world order".

Look no further than the EU project to see how this is not in the interests of ordinary folk and is starting to fail.

Human nature deems it cannot work in practice.

Agreed.

The smaller the State, the better.

jog on
duc

 

[bellenuit]

"There was no collusion" has now morphed into "we don't know if there was collusion". Wait a few days until we have "there was collusion but the president didn't know about it, but anyway it is not a crime" to "the president did collude but ...."

 

[Stock Jock]

​