Tag Archives: maahanmuutto

Exit Talk

Normaali

Viikko 45


 

Date: June 28th, 2016
Motion
: THB that Britain cannot navigate post-Brexit, so it must negotiate
Role: Whip (opp.)


Now that the British are on their way out of the EU, it is good to contemplate what there is at stake at large. Is the British exit credible, feasible, plausible or possible, or is it only after a lengthy detour that they will make their way back into the welcoming lap of Mother Europa? Will Union Jack and Europa kiss each other and make up, as they did in that street-demonstration-level performance of a dedicated Brexit-skeptic couple in the run-up to the referendum?

Economy and Free Trade
The EU has its biggest trump card in its free trade, as our PM sketched out. The EU has managed to pull everyone in on its drive to even out the creases in international trade within its land area. Money flows freely from country to country; the Internet spreads goods and money further and deeper liberally, and there is a wide selection of everything on offer from legal to illegal commodities. It’s here that Britain is the most vulnerable on its own. Here the proverb, ”It’s the Economy, stupid”, is appropriate and apt. If Britain wants to succeed alone, it needs to resort to one of the three C’s that there are: China, the Commonwealth or the City of London. In other words, Britons need to begin trading better, wiser and wider with other trading partners the world over to offset the losses in declining trade with the rest of the EU, which happens to be the area geographically closest to the UK. Alternatively, it may begin taxing its own moneymakers and citizens more.

Immigration Controls
When it comes to policing its borders with the rest of the world (Arab countries, Africa), the EU is very lax, which was our MP’s message. People may enter the union’s land area quite easily, but there is a process for the newcomers to get a permission to stay or not stay and an eventual deportation, if their presence is not welcome due to links to terrorism, terrorist groups, crime, criminality and antisocial behaviour. The British would benefit from stricter immigration controls on her borders, since the UK is a favoured destination the world over, everywhere, and the situation is unfair from the British layman’s perspective. On the other hand, other countries in the EU ease the pressure on Britain, as providers of social security, welfare and places to live and study for the new ”underclass” exist also elsewhere. It is unclear how well Britain would fare on its own, if other parts of Europe would not act as a buffer against the influx of people intent to seek asylum or a place to emigrate to.

Military Politics
The military and martial is the least credible part of the European Union’s sphere of activities. Nobody really touched on this issue. The Union does not have a functioning army, its measures in a crisis would be inadequate, and it does not demand anything vocally enough, as opposed to the four superpowers that exist. If any nation in Europe wants to guarantee its independence and safety, the best option is to write a letter of application to NATO. The chance of admittance is good. Almost all of Europe is already affiliated under NATO. If the EU was a real muscle-flexing superpower, which is it is demographically and geographically, it would fall somewhere between India and Russia in terms of being a military deterrent. The United States, China and Russia eclipse it in terms of military spending and a scare factor.

Britain has probably ”burned the bridge” to Europe or ”blocked the tunnel” to France, if we allow a bit of allegorical parlance. The opposite side of the ”chasm” is already closer than the bank or position whence Britain set out. It’s up to the British government to steer the ship right so that it can achieve its national volition without hurting its assets and fortune. With the present amount of talent in politics, it’s a tall order though…

Our side has formulated these key areas where Britons must act and shine if and when they want to regain some of their national sovereignty. One might say that ex-PM Thatcher has, with this evidence, won the hearts and minds of average Britons, as they have waved goodbye to Continental Europe along the lines she once laid out.

Thank you.


Arvio: Whip kokoaa yhteen puolensa pointsit ja päämäärät. Jos joku on jättänyt hommansa hoitamatta, whipin lienee pakollista paikata hänen jättämäänsä aukkoa. Whipin puheessa tärkeämpää on sovinnollinen kokonaisvaltaisuus kuin eripurainen yksityiskohtaisuus.

Mainokset

United Colours

Normaali

Viikko 41


 

MotionTHW take as many refugees as possible, as defined by the national infrastructure
Role: Whip (govt.)


When it comes to refugees, the discussion is lively and ambiguous, as the previous contributions have amply demonstrated. Our side has championed refugees strongly, whereas the opposing side has maligned and condemned them in equally strong-language terms. Being a spectator, I might be tempted to choose either side at the flip of a coin.

However, as the whip, I’m going to opt for defending the refugees in the way that is open to me. I’m going to tell you why they should be let in in pandering to the theory of ”influential allies”, something which is usually missing in the political debate, where the individual is rotely placed at the center, being alone the ”driving force” of forces around her/him.

Our first speaker reminded you about the national reputation and the fact that no nation is an island. All countries have ties to neighbouring countries and they also have ties to more far-off countries which expatriates have emigrated to and immigrants immigrated from. France has a special relation with Algeria. Indians and Pakistanis have a special relation with the UK. The descendants of slaves have always had a special relation with the former slave-trading conquering countries, this hinting at a trading partnership, even if the merchandise were the ”merchants themselves”. In other words, refugeeship would only be a way to form new ties in an evolving world, and nothing more than that. It would be about give-and-take, not just about giving or taking per se.

Our 2nd speaker told you that the reason for aiding and abetting refugees is the fact that they may result in improving your life quality in your own sphere. A refugee can be a future spouse or dependent. Refugees may turn up at the workplace, owning or manning them, usually as colleagues. Dining out would be a very common way of meeting refugees, but true for any number of us.

Our 3rd speaker offered you the viewpoint that, even if one personally did not have any contact with refugees, that MIGHT be the case among one’s family and relatives or friends and acquaintances. Would you sever your contacts off with them due to their hooking up in some way with refugees? Considering they might only pop up in conversation without your never even having personally met them, your attitudes would be the thing souring down or cheering up the prevailing ”situation”.

In any event, what I’m saying is that none of this may be relevant to you as a citizen. You may NOT care about national reputations, personal contacts or familial affiliations, as we’re a nation of singles’ households; those singles sometimes having severed their ties vertically to their genetic and geographical past, and horizontally to their fellow man, except for the employer or the state. In that case, consider this: you still have to like refugees, for they are liked by the elite of this country. If you care to take note, you’ll see that politicians, artists, businessmen, clergymen, athletes, journalists and civil activists all tend to accept and endorse refugees.

Together they have more power than the side opposing refugees, in all likelihood. An individual member of the elite does not count either way, but as a mass, members of the elites are too formidable to offer resistance to. As much as you may like critics of immigration, they seem to be feeble, prejudiced, disorganized, uneducated and misled. They do have visibility and a voice, also structures, but it’s small fry compared to the forces that have allowed immigration into our country. This, I think is the final argument that carries in the end: even if you don’t like refugees, the fact that people more powerful than you like them forces you to like them, too.

Thank you.


Arvio: Puheessa summataan kaikki aiemmat puheet yhdeksi kokonaisuudeksi. Ideana on kursia kokoon muiden parhaista (tai sopivimmista) paloista vielä yksi hyvä puhe. Loppu on hämmentävä. Toivon sen taivuttavan kuulijan puolelleen; puhe kun on yhdistelmä retorisilla keinoilla ja tosielämän esimerkeillä vaikuttamista. Mutta en tiedä, miten se otetaan vastaan. Joku voisi pitää sitä valheellisena, epäloogisena vetoamisena ja kehäpäätelmänä.

Fugees on the Charts

Normaali

Viikko 21



Date
: May 23rd, 2017
Motion: THW hold a referendum on policies, practises and quotas regarding asylum-seeking
Role: PM (gov.)


The question of refugees is a pressing predicament of our times. They keep pouring in, and we don’t know what to do with them. If it was a THR/THW/THB that Question subjected to a debate society, the pro and con sides, the champions and brakers and the accusers and defenders would all be out there and ready with ammo to shoot at the other party with. At least now that the internet is filled with ”hate speech” and a lot of Western democracies have ”protest” or ”populist” parties that try to stem the tide of asylum seeking in a given country.

I think that it’s clear that the question is not as simple or simplistic as the man on the street would let you understand. There are several aspects of the issue that have to be taken into account.

Only a minority of people fall into the neat categories of ”pro-refugees” or ”contra-refugees”. These two opposites could be described as those who will blindly say ”yes” or ”no” to someone who is seeking asylum. I think these camps only account for about ten per cent, or 10 %, of the population, respectively. Only 10 % of people say a ”blind” YES to refugees, and only 10 % of people say a ”blind” NO to refugees.

The rest, the majority of people, base their opinion on statistics. They want to know lots and lots of things about refugees; basically, the same kind of data that we get and know about native citizens of a given country. Ordinary people want to know how (well) refugees a) integrate into society, b) find employment, c) marry across racial and religious boundaries, d) drink, e) smoke, f) have a presence in penitentiaries, g) go for higher education (universities, polytechnics, etc.), h) know birth control, i) travel abroad, j) vote at elections, k) know what to eat to avoid obesity, l) remain as citizens after the initial benefits have been spent and m) pay their taxes. 

And so on and and so on. Ordinary people are not blind naysayers to asylum seeking, nor are they blind yeasayers to it either. If the group that is coming in behaves in a lot of ways like the native population does, the natives are more prone to have positive and permissive views of immigration. If the group that tries to sneak in behaves in a lot of ways unlike the native population and breaks its norms flagrantly and over and over again, the natives are prone to have negative and dismissive views of immigration.

I think that this simple framing of the field has the benevolent impact of establishing the fact that people cannot be divided into ”racists” versus ”good people” or ”tolerantsia” anymore and any longer. The margins get divided into the fringe ”lunatics” of blind naysayers and yeasayers, WHEREAS the middle majority may be characterised as the ”statisticians” or the ”immigration-critical” or the ”fool-sufferers”.

A lot of people in the West consider it their moral duty or obligation to be ”pro-immigration”; the reason being the fact that the West (Europe, North America, Australia) has enjoyed the highest rate of development and economical prosperity of all nations in all of the hemispheres on all of the continents. However, this is a general ethos of blind yeasaying. Empathy, guilt and solidarity are the watchwords which are used time and again to justify a mass influx of strange people into countries where they have fit in, whether they want or not, willy-nilly.

The reason why populist regimes pop up in unexpected places has to do with this kind of blind yeasaying. People know what the media think and tell us, but independently they have A MIND OF THEIR OWN and their minds on the statistics. If they suspect and see it confirmed that foreigners commit more crimes than natives, their view of seeking asylum is likely to be antithetical, no matter how hard the blind yeasayers are trying to prove the opposite to be ”true”!

I think that it’s vital that authorities on immigration begin taking into account the true status of seeking asylum and immigrants. They cannot rely on people’s support for it anymore. They need to prove that asylum seekers a) settle, b) establish themselves and c) begin to build their new country of choice — rather than a) maintain ties with their old country, b) support its burgeoning terrorist networks and c) refuse to even learn the language that the host country speaks. It is a question of whether the newcomers are a workhorse that feeds the breast whose tit it sucks on, or are a Trojan horse that only exists in order to attack and subvert the order that exists at the receiving end.

So far, work-based ”trickle-down” immigration has been a far greater net contributor to national economies than asylum-based ”floodgates-up” immigration. Nation-states and authorities and civil servants should make sure that the gap between these two should be as narrow as possible, in order to retain the status quo as close to the status quo that existed in the receiving ends before the mass influx of immigrants.


Arvio: Vaikka pakolaisuudesta on selvästi jakautuneet mielipiteet, liberaalit väittelyseurat eivät halua väitellä asiasta polarisoidusti, jotta eivät kenties leimaantuisi. Tässä on reippaasti kantaa ottava puhe turvapaikkapakolaisuutta vastaan, sillä voidaan ajatella mahdollisen kansanäänestyksen jakavan kansan juuri niihin, jotka rajoittaisivat tulijoiden määrää asetuksin ja niihin, jotka sallisivat tulemisen kansainvälisten sopimusten viitoittamalla tiellä. Pääministerin kuuluu olla kärjekäs ja painokas, vaikkakaan ei räikeän puolueellinen, ja muut voivat jatkaa haluamallaan tavalla.