General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

[Gorbles]

Me : "not dealing with the problem of immigration leads to increased votes for the far-right"

Immigration has been dealt with here, for years. We take in amongst the least refugees, we accept amongst the least asylum seekers. We even get the navy to intervene with small boats crossing the Channel.

Counter-argument : "lots of laws made to make immigration harder, yet the far right is still strong, so you're wrong ! And you provide no evidence !"

Our right-wing party has gotten more right wing to the extent they're synonymous with the party that used to be considered far-right. They've also been in power for 14 years.

I'd say it's stupid to believe that the right wing party in charge is failing to tackle immigration in order to make itself stronger, but that's actually half of the correct answer. The other half is that immigration in this country is a made-up problem.

Similar to how immigration in France will not be a problem to the extent that the far-right claim it is. Factually. It won't be. You can argue that it's a problem, but your lack of knowledge about things like asylum seekers suggest your argument isn't actually founded on a factual appraisal of the problem. Your reliance on public opinion suggests that you consume news to strengthen your belief on the topic, and don't actually research any problems, alleged or otherwise.

Me : Provides evidences that immigration hasn't been reduced, hence the counter-argument doesn't actually counter anything.

Your evidence is nonexistent (as explained by multiple posters), and you evidently know nothing about the UK or the makeup of its parties.

I don't know much about France, my earlier posts were deferring to Adrienler who seems to. As we'd expect with both of you being French, right? However your response to them was to accuse them of having an illness so severe it compromised their mental faculties. Great job. Convincing counterargument.

You can BS or move goalpost or try to go on tangent to drown the issue all you want, the facts are still here.

We're only here because of your goalpost moving to try and claim that an extremist solution to immigration can't be extreme because it's popular. However that works.

There are precious little facts here. This is your perspective on immigration, backed by some kind of projection against CFC OT posters who you think represent some kind of political group that unfairly label people with right-wing opinions as being right wing. Cry me a river

Your position on immigration is right-wing. Take it or leave it. This isn't a value judgement, I'm just saying it how it is, despite all your attempts to claim some kind of rational superiority on the topic.

 

[Akka]

Your reliance on public opinion suggests that you consume news to strengthen your belief on the topic, and don't actually research any problems, alleged or otherwise.

Considering that the central point I've been making since the first post is about the disconnect between actual opinion and political class on the subject (and its obvious consequences on voting), it stands as especially and comically stupid to try to contrive the use of public opinion data as a bad thing to use.

But then it just illustrate the complete lack of good faith you have shown since the beginning. Just like the accusation of lack of research when you provided absolutely nothing as evidence beyond your own opinions.

Not going to waste my time answering to the rest when it's just of the same vein. Either answer to the actual arguments made with actual counter-arguments, data with data, reasoning with reasoning, and then I'll answer, or just keep at it with your pointless tangents, moving goalposts and attempt to shame me, but then I'll simply ignore you.

 

[Samson]

I don't really see your point here, nor how it disprove anything.

The primary point, that started this subthread, was me saying that asylum seekers are within their legal right to seek asylum by whatever means are available to them, and that national laws that restrict this are on dodgier legal territory than the individuals right to seek asylum. You then seemed to claim that that was a different question and the immigration debate here, specifically in France perhaps, was different. We have got no closer to what that might be, but it may very well be true.

Yes, there is a number of economic migrants trying to pass as refugees. Pretty sure that it also count as illegal.

There is a EU law that requires refugees to register in the first EU country they reach, though.

These are exactly the sort of laws that I think are on very questionable legal territory given international obligations. They are certainly not rare though.

 

[Gorbles]

Considering that the central point I've been making since the first post is about the disconnect between actual opinion and political class on the subject (and its obvious consequences on voting), it stands as especially and comically stupid to try to contrive the use of public opinion data as a bad thing to use.

I didn't say it was a bad thing to use. I'm saying your position reflects a lack of research on the subject, and additionally that something being popular doesn't speak to its quality much at all. But we're going in circles here, as many people have pointed this out and you've either ignored them, or tried to attack their character.

But then it just illustrate the complete lack of good faith you have shown since the beginning.

Not at all. I appreciate at this point you need to reach for a reason to dismiss, though.

Just like the accusation of lack of research when you provided absolutely nothing as evidence beyond your own opinions.

You haven't provided anything. What little you did provide was counterpointed, and you ignored it.

I'm from the UK. I don't need to run around on Google providing evidence about the UK you're not going to read because your worldview dictates that immigration is a problem. No amount of data is going to solve that.

The problem you're not getting is that something being an opinion doesn't make that thing right. Neither does something being popular.

You've provided zero evidence of anything except demonstrating that something is popular, and a graph relating to UK immigration that disproves the claim you're making about it.

(also, Samson already did a lot of this work and you either sidestepped it or refused to believe in its validity)

Not going to waste my time answering to the rest when it's just of the same vein.

Entirely your choice. Bit rich from the poster that said "you must be severely ill because I find your argument silly" to another poster. Such good faith you displayed handling that, eh?

Either answer to the actual arguments made with actual counter-arguments, data with data, reasoning with reasoning, and then I'll answer, or just keep at it with your pointless tangents, moving goalposts and attempt to shame me, but then I'll simply ignore you.

Everybody (well, the four or so of us here) already did. Your "data" is near-nonexistent, and your reasoning is a tautology. Not at any point have you stopped to consider that immigration isn't a problem. Your starting position is that it is.

Which means your argument from that point has been nothing but confirmation bias. To the extent you made grand claims about UK immigration policy and the strength of the far-right that you weren't able to back up in the slightest. That's all on you.

To recap:

1. Yes, a French far-right party suggesting something makes it a part of their far-right platform.
2. No, you cannot evaluate the singular suggestion out of context.
3. No, a majority approving of the suggestion doesn't stop it being made by a far-right party running on a far-right platform.
4. No, the right to asylum is not illegal.
5. No, asylum seekers don't have to stop at the first possible country. Individual nation-states may be trying to enforce this, but that doesn't invalidate the right to asylum.
6. Arguing with someone who holds a right-wing position on immigration is certainly not going to help beat the far-right, but neither's the person holding that opinion. In fact, he's helping them.

Have a great rest of your day Akka, but I think we're done here.

 

[Kyriakos]

I guess they had the "courage" to ask if they can rely on their votes
Michigan is a swing state, so nice going.

 

[Farm Boy]

There are lots of ways, but most of the time lethal means are used it is to keep people in not out.

Walls are a lot slower to build than a mess of wire is to place. For where one doesn't have a big miles wide deep water moat. Plus we had a big thing about not controlling the border at all, at least until the country started being asked to do it all more together like. Then the tune started getting more "complicated."

 

[EnglishEdward]

These are exactly the sort of laws that I think are on very questionable legal territory given international obligations.

Which particular international obligation is it that says that refugees are exempt from a state's laws on registration ?

 

[Gorbles]

Which particular international obligation is it that says that refugees are exempt from a state's laws on registration ?

Who said they were exempt? Are you intentionally misreading Samson's post in the hope the goalposts get dragged a bit further?

 

[Akka]

The primary point, that started this subthread, was me saying that asylum seekers are within their legal right to seek asylum by whatever means are available to them, and that national laws that restrict this are on dodgier legal territory than the individuals right to seek asylum. You then seemed to claim that that was a different question and the immigration debate here, specifically in France perhaps, was different. We have got no closer to what that might be, but it may very well be true.

I think there is a need for some recap here.

There was a point made about illegal immigration being rejected by a majority of the population. From there, a claim that using the word "illegal" was an attempt at manipulating opinion, to which I answered that "illegal" was actually the adequate term because not respecting due process was, in fact, illegal. From there you spoke about asylum seekers, and I said that (genuine) asylum seekers are not illegal migrants.
So yes, when it comes to how accepted immigration in the general population is, there is a clear difference between genuine asylum seekers (which are, on the whole considered "fair" to accept, even though a significant minority still doesn't want them) and other migrants, especially economic ones. That was my point.

Your point seems to be more about the legal frailty relative to asylum seekers, did I get that right ?

These are exactly the sort of laws that I think are on very questionable legal territory given international obligations. They are certainly not rare though.

On the point of legality, let's remember that there is a right to leave your country, but no right to chose which country can accept you. Countries are bound to respect the non-refoulement principle, which prevents sending back asylum seekers toward countries where they will be persecuted. It doesn't require a country to accept any asylum seekers, only to not send them back into danger (which can sometimes actually force the country to at least temporarily accept the person, but only due to not being able to sent him back).
The requirement to start asylum procedures in the first EU country the refugee enters, was to avoid having administrative "ping-pong" with refugees being send back and again between several EU countries, due to this.
Also let's remember that a valid asylum procedure might be quite more lenient than a regular immigration one, but it's not a lawless free-for-all allowing people to enters anywhere and reach whatever place they wish before making it (still speaking about EU, there are official entry points which you're supposed to go through if you seek to get asylum, and theorically not doing so can be liable to forfeit your whole case).

 

[Birdjaguar]

From there, a claim that using the word "illegal" was an attempt at manipulating opinion, to which I answered that "illegal" was actually the adequate term because not respecting due process was, in fact, illegal.

The words we choose to use often reflect our underlying biases. A person crossing from Mexico into the US can be both illegal and undocumented. They can also be a refugee or an asylum seeker. The words we choose can be important. In this case all four words can be true at the same time.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Not to mention the surpassing of the term "alien" by "immigrant" in popular discourse, referring to the same thing but with different connotations entirely.

 

[Farm Boy]

Right. One make you raaaaaysist.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Adding Akka's point to provide context:

There is a EU law that requires refugees to register in the first EU country they reach, though.

These are exactly the sort of laws that I think are on very questionable legal territory given international obligations. They are certainly not rare though.

If refugees are not to be bound by the laws of the country they enter, they would therefore be implicitly exempt from such laws.

Which particular international obligation is it that says that refugees are exempt from a state's laws on registration ?

 

[Birdjaguar]

If one looks at history, mass migrations by people who want to move, are very hard to stop.

 

[Gorbles]

If refugees are not to be bound by the laws of the country they enter, they would therefore be implicitly exempt from such laws.

This is a logical failure. If specific laws may be on questionable legal ground, this does not make refugees "not bound by the laws of the country they enter". One of these things is not the other.

So, an intentional misreading? Or just completely ignorant of the difference?

 

[Akka]

The words we choose to use often reflect our underlying biases.

Not only that, but they often show deliberate attempts at manipulation, like oppressive states calling "terrorists" any opponents so as to associate with them the implication of illegitimate violence.
But samely, so is trying to displace the actual adequate word with a softer one. It's the exact same attempt, just on a different subject.

A person crossing from Mexico into the US can be both illegal and undocumented. They can also be a refugee or an asylum seeker. The words we choose can be important. In this case all four words can be true at the same time.

Again, I fully agree. Words are important because they refer to different realities. And as said above, trying to displace the adequate word by one which refers to a different reality is manipulation. Trying to pretend that people who knowingly break the law and legal procedures aren't in illegality is showing much more bias than using the word which correctly refers to the situation.

If refugees are not to be bound by the laws of the country they enter, they would therefore be implicitly exempt from such laws.

Which particular international obligation is it that says that refugees are exempt from a state's laws on registration ?

International treaties generally supercede regular laws, so it's possible that a law can be actually invalid due to not respecting a treaty (for example, a law that would allow to send back a genuine asylum seeker to a warzone).

 

[Samson]

Which particular international obligation is it that says that refugees are exempt from a state's laws on registration ?

It is saying that you cannot claim asylum in the second safe country you get to that is against international law.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Right now I understand your point.

My understanding is that an asylum seeker can claim asylum where they like.

But if they have passed from their own country to a safe country, and then proceed
to a third country of their choice for reasons unrelated to fear of persecution (e.g. for
economic betterment), the third country may decide that while they may have been
an aslum seeker when they arrived at the safe country, their departure from that safe
country to the third country was as an (economic) migrant and asylum need not be granted.

 

[Gorbles]

Man, all this pretzeling is making me hungry.

 

[Senethro]

I must be stupid because I don't get why being an economic migrant is bad.

But it must be really obvious because its such a widespread assumption and noone ever questions it.