The meaning of "No One Is Illegal"

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
voice of the damned
The meaning of "No One Is Illegal"

Continued from here...

https://tinyurl.com/yyr4qswj

Pondering

I do want to continue discussion on this but I am doing fulltime emergency child care of two pre-schoolers until at least Monday night. I may come on after I put them to bed but I will probably be too exhausted from singing and dancing to baby shark although I do hope to turn them on to better music. 

Unionist

Ok, this one is a bit harsh IMO, but it does express one viewpoint:

The Left Case against Open Borders

And for "balance", here's a kind of opposite view:

What Would an Open-Borders World Actually Look Like?

I personally have no hard and fast opinions on a subject as huge as this. I want to see the root causes of mass emigration addressed (including imperial/colonial wars, climate change, etc.) so that people can live their lives without having to flee and start over. I also want to see national borders and nation states evolve into irrelevance (but not by the free flow of capital or colonial conquest). And I have this utopian idea that we should start working toward Marx and Engels' ideal of: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" - in other words, harness technology, automation, and the fellowship of humanity to provide ever-expanding ranges of necessary goods and services for free to everyone (as we now do with some), and gradually sever the link between work and wages.

Ok, I'll awake from my dreams now.

Martin N.

A lovely dream but the reality is that as long as the world has maniacs that consider oppression and murder as tools used to achieve power, it will be a nightmare, not a dream. If history teaches anything, it is that Benjamin Franklin was and still is correct: "Those who bend their swords into ploughshares end up ploughing for those who don't ".

Martin N.

An open borders world will see an even worse flood of immigrants to high standard of living countries. Even now, Canada benefits from South African doctors, Philippines nurses etc to the detriment of those countries.

The new 'colonialism' is to steal their talent rather than their resources. The solution is for the standard of living in the emerging economies to increase rather than stealing their best and brightest. Canada needs to export its governance and law capabilities; its regulatory capabilities and construction technologies to help others prosper.

Martin N.

Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, Lenin etc. Their 19 th century ideals sprang from the realities of the nightmare of living in totalitarian monarchies. The 20 th century realities of their successful revolution was trading a totalitarian monarchy for a totalitarian autocracy.

quizzical

re South Aftican/Zimbabwe Drs. we have a whole clinic full of them and they literally fled for their lives. oh sure enough they were part of colonialist Africa but there was no theft of talent.

re Filipino nurses imv they're coming to Canada. Canada is not actively seeking them.

cco

Immigrating to Canada was my personal choice (and not an easy process). Canada didn't "steal" me from the US, nor did I have any kind of obligation to stay there and apply my talents where I was born. It's a strange twist of logic to say that countries are entitled to people who are born there, but it's not a totally unfamiliar one – it's the same logic North Korea uses to punish defectors.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Large numbers of people migrate only when there is intense pressure from things like war and drought. Canadians have caused the upheaval of tens of thousands of people from Central America with our support for fascist coups that benefit our predatory mining companies and textile companies.  Since NATO has gone into a perpetual war cycle we have seen hundreds of thousands of displaced people around the globe.

Most humans like to live and die in the same area of the planet. We need to find a way to de-fang the militarists who are in control of our political system then we will not have to worry about people flooding our borders. We need high walls to protect ourselves from the unworthy who were born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line. Instead of people demanding protection from the consequences of the policies of our global fascism we should be demanding peace.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I must say that given my settler family history I find the debate about who is legal and illegal just a lot of NIMBYism. My maternal side immigrated in 1626 and my paternal side in 1854. I guess I could argue that after my great, great grandfather arrived they should have stopped allowing people to immigrate

voice of the damned

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I must say that given my settler family history I find the debate about who is legal and illegal just a lot of NIMBYism. My maternal side immigrated in 1626 and my paternal side in 1854. I guess I could argue that after my great, great grandfather arrived they should have stopped allowing people to immigrate

If you want to argue that the borders are illegitimate because they were made up by settlers to begin with, that's fine, it's a legitimate position. But we have to be clear... No Borders means No Borders. 

Is it your view that no one can ever be denied entry when trying to pass through the Canadian borders outlined on the map, or when trying to enter Canada after disembarking from a plane at an airport? 

voice of the damned

cco wrote:
Immigrating to Canada was my personal choice (and not an easy process). Canada didn't "steal" me from the US, nor did I have any kind of obligation to stay there and apply my talents where I was born. It's a strange twist of logic to say that countries are entitled to people who are born there, but it's not a totally unfamiliar one – it's the same logic North Korea uses to punish defectors.

Do you think it's legitimate, though, if Canada were to say(as I have heard proposed): "Okay, we recognize that the brain drain from [let's say] South Africa is causing a lot of hardship for that country, so to do our part, for the time being we're not going to accept any applications from South African doctors to work in Canada"?  

Because while I, too, don't accept the idea that Canada hiring South African doctors is a form of stealing, I also think that a policy of not hiring any in order to help out South Africa(sort of a reverse form of foreign-aid) is something we COULD do, without it being a violation of anyone's human rights.  

 

voice of the damned

cco wrote:
it's the same logic North Korea uses to punish defectors.

Well, places like North Korea usually punish people who try to leave the country without authorization, for any reason, and for any duration of time, with the aforementioned authorization being granted pretty sparingly. 

With the case of doctors from Africa, their home countries usually aren't banning them from leaving, much less imposing brutal punishment on them for doing so. And even Canada wouldn't be saying they can't come here for a visit, or even a work-visa to pour coffee at a Banff Starbucks and see the Rockies for a few months. We just wouldn't be offering them the privilege of practicing medicine in Canada. 

 

cco

voice of the damned wrote:

Do you think it's legitimate, though, if Canada were to say(as I have heard proposed): "Okay, we recognize that the brain drain from [let's say] South Africa is causing a lot of hardship for that country, so to do our part, for the time being we're not going to accept any applications from South African doctors to work in Canada"?  

No. If Canada wants to help a country suffering from brain drain, there are direct ways to do that (aid, setting up universities). The idea that preventing people from leaving a country helps that country is anathema to me, and it seems based on extremely thin logic in any event – the idea that all those emigrating doctors would have jobs that they're running out on in pursuit of Canadian riches.

WWWTT

Martin wrote

The new 'colonialism' is to steal their talent rather than their resources.

Incorrect statement. Human Resources are the most valuable!

WWWTT

cco wrote

Canada didn't "steal" me from the US

Maybe not you, but the Canadian government fast tracks certain people’s with certain skills and promotes immigration to Canada. 

WWWTT

In my opinion, immigration is a part of imperial colonialism when dictated by anyone non Indigenous. Now this comment I’m making may ver well make me a hypocrite?

 

cco

People who come voluntarily. The scandal is how some immigrants are treated once they arrive, not that Canada allows immigration from countries who could really use those people back at home.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

I do want to continue discussion on this but I am doing fulltime emergency child care of two pre-schoolers until at least Monday night. I may come on after I put them to bed but I will probably be too exhausted from singing and dancing to baby shark although I do hope to turn them on to better music. 

My respect to you for stepping up and taking care of that.  May you get some sleep sometime in the next month or so.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Martin N. wrote:

Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, Lenin etc. Their 19 th century ideals sprang from the realities of the nightmare of living in totalitarian monarchies. The 20 th century realities of their successful revolution was trading a totalitarian monarchy for a totalitarian autocracy.

My God that's smug. 

It leaves out the fact that there was never any possibility of Russia or China or any of the places influenced by their leaders in the 20th Century being freed from tyranny, especially the tyranny of poverty and inequality, by Western-style capitalism.  And there was no popular support for the introduction of the ideas of Adam Smith in any of those places.

It also leaves out the fact that, since Russia, Poland and Hungary have gone from Stalinist dictatorship to capitalist-nationalist dictatorship, the "magic of the market" has freed much of anybody from much of anything.  

Given the physical, environmental, and social damage unregulated market capitalism is doing in much of the world these days-look at the way that Brazil has descended into racist/homophobic/transphobic/fascist misery since Bolsonaro took power-you've got little to gloat or pontificate about.

In any case, it's not Marx and Engels' fault that Lenin feared democracy and that Stalin and Mao were murderous opportunists.   And as Hitler proved, a capitalist state can be just as murderous as those regimes turned out to be.

And in what universe is Kropotkin to blame for Stalinism or Maoism?

voice of the damned

cco wrote:
voice of the damned wrote:

Do you think it's legitimate, though, if Canada were to say(as I have heard proposed): "Okay, we recognize that the brain drain from [let's say] South Africa is causing a lot of hardship for that country, so to do our part, for the time being we're not going to accept any applications from South African doctors to work in Canada"?  

No. If Canada wants to help a country suffering from brain drain, there are direct ways to do that (aid, setting up universities). The idea that preventing people from leaving a country helps that country is anathema to me, and it seems based on extremely thin logic in any event – the idea that all those emigrating doctors would have jobs that they're running out on in pursuit of Canadian riches.

Well, they can do those things as well. But honestly, I don't see it as any affront to anyone's rights if the Canadian government says "Sorry, we're not handing out visas to doctors from your country right now because your government has asked us not to".

At least, no more of an affront than to say "Sorry, we're not handing out visas to doctors right now because we think we have all the doctors we need in Canada for the time being." Either way, the result is the same for the rejected doctor.

I take the point that, if we refuse a visa to a South African doctor, there is no way to guarantee that he will be willing or able to practice his profession back home.

contrarianna

Unionist wrote:

Ok, this one is a bit harsh IMO, but it does express one viewpoint:

The Left Case against Open Borders

And for "balance", here's a kind of opposite view:

What Would an Open-Borders World Actually Look Like?

I personally have no hard and fast opinions on a subject as huge as this. I want to see the root causes of mass emigration addressed (including imperial/colonial wars, climate change, etc.) so that people can live their lives without having to flee and start over. I also want to see national borders and nation states evolve into irrelevance (but not by the free flow of capital or colonial conquest). And I have this utopian idea that we should start working toward Marx and Engels' ideal of: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" - in other words, harness technology, automation, and the fellowship of humanity to provide ever-expanding ranges of necessary goods and services for free to everyone (as we now do with some), and gradually sever the link between work and wages.

Ok, I'll awake from my dreams now.

Thanks for that Unionist.  The first article by Angela Nagle is interesting, stirring controversy:

In November 2018, American Affairs published Nagle's controversial essay ”The Left Case against Open Borders.”[17] Writing in The Independent, Slavoj Zizek referred to the “ferocious attacks on Angela Nagle for her outstanding essay ..." [18]. The Nation responded with a critical essay, calling it "just one of the volley of pieces by liberals and people to the left of center who have derided the out-of-touch utopianism of open-borders advocates."[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Nagle

A central point in her essay deserves attention:

The transformation of open borders into a “Left” position is a very new phenomenon and runs counter to the history of the organized Left in fundamental ways. Open borders has long been a rallying cry of the business and free market Right. Drawing from neoclassical economists, these groups have advocated for liberalizing migration on the grounds of market rationality and economic freedom. They oppose limits on migration for the same reasons that they oppose restrictions on the movement of capital. The Koch-funded Cato Institute, which also advocates lifting legal restrictions on child labor, has churned out radical open borders advocacy for decades, arguing that support for open borders is a fundamental tenet of libertarianism, and “Forget the wall already, it’s time for the U.S. to have open borders.”2 The Adam Smith Institute has done much the same, arguing that “Immigration restrictions make us poorer.”3

Following Reagan and figures like Milton Friedman, George W. Bush championed liberalizing migration before, during, and after his presidency. Grover Norquist, a zealous advocate of Trump’s (and Bush’s and Reagan’s) tax cuts, has for years railed against the illiberalism of the trade unions, reminding us, “Hostility to immigration has traditionally been a union cause.”4....

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-bo...

Yet her arguments, entirely political and economic, ignore the related environmental dimension of immigration. David Suzuki touches on that linkage:

"The Vancouver-based founder of the influential Suzuki Foundation was quoted in a French magazine in 2013  saying Canada’s immigration policy was disgusting because “we plunder southern countries by depriving them of future leaders, and we want to increase our population to support economic growth. … It’s crazy!”

Like some European environmentalists, Suzuki maintained “Canada is full” because most population growth occurs in congested cities. While praising Canadian multiculturalism and supporting welcoming more refugees, Suzuki’s main arguments zeroed in on how Canada is contributing to the brain drain from developing countries and that population growth is an environmentally destructive way to prop up Western economies."...

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-how-radical-env...

Beyond a narrowly humanist, anthropocentric, perspective on fairness, (which could be summed up as:"Why should we live privileged lives of unrestrained consumption in capitalist centres while people in other parts of the world suffer? Answer:  Eliminate borders, so all can do the same") there is a wider context of planetary health, the sixth mass extinction, and environmental survival. From that perspective unrestricted immigration to developed nations is not a good thing. Average consumption and the environmental footiprint of denizens of developed countries is obscenely high and increasing population density in that demographic hastens environmental destruction. 

We in developed nations, despite the available knowledge, on average show only minor interest in curbing our personal environmentally destructive lifestyles and consumption. Open borders is not a solution for the guilt of the priveliged. Worse, instead of leadership, the corporate-led governments (as we have seen in Canada) are more interested in promoting destructive consumption and expansion (eg tar sands) for the profit of their corporate cohorts while exploiting emerging nations. The government, whose main function appears to be a corporate public relations office, offers only  conscience-soothing environmental lip service and toothless environmental policy.  

Add to this that most immigration is economic in nature, and that environmentalism is, understandably, often way down the list of newcomer concerns. This latter point is made by Shinder Purewal:

Federal and B.C. Green candidates have won election in only one concentrated region of Canada, on Vancouver Island and the adjacent Southern Gulf Islands, in ridings that have scant visible minorities compared to most of the country’s cities....

“The first generation of immigrants often leave their homelands for economic reasons,” says Shinder Purewal, a Kwantlen Polytechnic University political scientist. “They’re willing to work in any sector that provides jobs. Early Sikh immigrants, for instance, worked in the lumber industry. Environmentalists calling for preservation of trees were often seen as a threat to their livelihood.”

Purewal routinely hears Indo-Canadians remark on how “the Greens would destroy the economy. Not only do they think this would mean lower living standards, it would lead to the state not being able to provide social programs. … Immigrants, who come from countries with almost no social programs, appreciate Canada’s health care and public education, along with workers’ compensation, employment insurance and old age pensions.”...

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-why-the-greens-...

The Green Party itself, however, from its policy statements have shown itself to be at least as pro-immigration as the NDP, perhaps hoping to reverse it's core negative image for newcomers.

I suppose the environmental case for limits for immigration could be also be lumped in with "nimbyism" especially when the writer is living in a priviledged part of the world.   Yet, it should be remembered that the planet is everbody's "back yard" and it is the majority of people remaining in the exploited less developed countries, with fewer safety nets, that are hit the hardest by environmental destruction from expanding capitalism.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Great conversation. There are so many dimensions when it comes to immigration, many touched upon in this thread.

The bottom line for most is if their lives were decent in their home countries, the attraction to immigrate would not be in question. This applies whether people are persecuted for their race, religion or sexual/gender identity, or living in economic hardship. I believe open borders have to exist for those persecuted because we cannot necessarily take responsibility for the governments or cultures that enforce those conditions.

As for economic migration, the colonial/imperialism system set the have and have not economic realities of the globe and we (as colonial powers or direct beneficiaries) are responsible for those disadvantages. And yet, even with that, often our immigration policies reward the most successful from those more impoverished countries - those professionals who could help lift the standards of life there.

voice of the damned

laine lowe wrote:

I believe open borders have to exist for those persecuted because we cannot necessarily take responsibility for the governments or cultures that enforce those conditions.

Well, I would fine-tune that to say that we should grant refugee status to anyone we have good reason to believe is being persecuted. I would leave "open borders" out of it, because the minute you stipulate that people need to prove they're being persecuted, it's no longer an open border. 

Pondering

Thanks Ken. 

From reading articles it seems most people interpret "no one is illegal" as meaning open borders so if that is not what the organization is promoting then they are doing a bad job because they are not getting their message across. Instead people are assuming they are extremist.

As to actual open boarders, only if you are ready to accept a truely free market and might makes right world because there is no way to have systems like police forces and medicare without borders. If Canada opened our borders only our population would double within a year, probably much less. NGOs would load up boats and start shipping us refugees in the 10s of thousands.There is no way for systems to survive that. The US would not allow Canada to double our population with mid-east refugees. We would absolutely become a staging ground for terrorists aiming at the US. 

The realistic left needs to focus on what has already been mentioned in this thread. First, it is our warmongering including economic that is creating refugees. I rarely hear anything about our killing Venezuelans through economic sanctions. 

Economic sanctions are billed as a non-violent pressure tactic. Instead they are being used to destroy a country's economy to justify invasion. There is absolutely no justfication to do this to Venezuela but not to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. 

Many refugees don't want to leave home. They don't want to come to Canada anymore than than racists want them here. They want to stay home but not be blown-up or starved to death through economic sanctions. 

The best way to deal with illegal immigration is to throw the book at employers who hire illegally. First offence, 10K fine, second offence 20K fine, third offence the company is seized. 

Neoliberalists use anti-immigration sentiment to gain support while simultaneously allowing business to get away with using illegal immigration to lower their business costs. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives want to stop illegal immigration. 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we prevent educated people from immigrating. The problem is that we don't take uneducated people from a country. We don't take a cross-section of their population. We take only the cream of the crop, the doctors and scientists and wealthy business people. We are that sense draining poorer countries of the very people they need to thrive. The people left behind become easier to exploit.   

Workers are concerned about immigrants/refugees taking their jobs because immigrants and refugees do take jobs that others won't do for the wages and conditions being offered thereby weakening workers rights. Instead of increasing university spots and financing for students Quebec is looking for 400 French teachers from France. Apparently Canada can't afford to fund enough positions for doctors or teachers in our universities so we are forced to look elsewhere. 

The right twists the arguments of the left to serve the right. The right isn't pandering to racists they are using them to control the narrative. To force the left into defending refugees and immigration rather than defending workers. Saying, "we defend workers too" is meaningless because the left is not protecting workers from refugees and immigrants working under the table. 

The right has figured out that the left is always for the most powerless. Refugees are always the most powerless but they can be attacked as queue jumpers and terrorists. 

The argument that we should be "taking care of our own first" resonates even though it is a false message because we aren't taking care of our own either. 

How is it moral for us to say "if you can set foot on our land, and you are a legitimate refugee, we will accept you. If you are too poor or too weak to make it then rot in a refugee camp." We are setting up a situation in which we will get the strongest and richest. It would be more generous to ship them back in exchange for taking twice as many weaker and poorer refugees. 

The best argument we have against economic sanctions and meddling militarily, isn't that they are evil; it is that we are creating refugees who will then land on our shores.

You don't want Muslim refugees and terrorists? Don't attack their countries. Problem solved. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The realistic left needs to focus on what has already been mentioned in this thread. First, it is our warmongering including economic that is creating refugees.

Yes, the old "WE'RE the ones creating refugees!!" trope.

Here's a list, for the "realistic left", of the actual refugee claims made in Canada in 2018

Nigeria appears to be at the top.  Who's invading Nigeria?  Who's sanctioning Nigeria?  Not Canada.

Greece, whose economy has been tanking in slo-mo for years now sent a grand total of 6 refugees.  China, whose economy is booming, sent 1,942 refugees. 

Iran sent nearly 5 times the number of refugees that Iraq did.  Turkey, curiously, sent three times the number of refugees that Syria did.

Afghanistan, where Canadian soldiers were actually deployed, sent 552.  Burundi, where I don't recall our troops landing, sent 757.  Did we invade Burundi for their oil and our complict MSM is keeping it quiet at the behest of the 1%? 

If you pride yourself on being a realist, look at the real numbers.

Unionist

I have never met anyone who believes that Canada (or other countries) should have no control whatsoever over who enters our territory - apart from our obligations under international law (refugees). Maybe I just don't get around enough. Still, I do believe that humanity should strive toward a future where "nation states" are no longer needed. We're nowhere near that.

WWWTT

Lots of other reasons to immigrate that I have not read here yet. 

Language for starters. My wife and I are considering moving to China so our children are fluent in Mandarin. 

I have heard of families immigrating to Israel for jewish religious education for their kids. I’m sure there are examples from other followings. 

Another big one is weather/climate. I’m personally getting sick of Canada’s winters!

Perhaps people will want to immigrate to Canada because marihuana is legal now?

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

I have never met anyone who believes that Canada (or other countries) should have no control whatsoever over who enters our territory - apart from our obligations under international law (refugees). Maybe I just don't get around enough. Still, I do believe that humanity should strive toward a future where "nation states" are no longer needed. We're nowhere near that.

People interpret the words "no one is illegal" as open borders. If that isn't what they mean then they are miscommunicating. 

http://rabble.ca/toolkit/rabblepedia/no-one-illegal

They organize around the notion that granting citizenship to some who are privileged and denying it to others exploits migrants and perpetuates oppression. They host workshops, rallies and campaigns related to international and local immigration issues.

Without nation states there are no laws. 

When I say we are animals I mean we are literally animals. As animals our young are dependent for a long time. Like wolves we need a pack to survive. We need a selection of other humans to mate with and we are better off hunting in groups. Just because we have developed into more advanced creatures that can purchase packaged foods doesn't mean we no longer have the instinct or need to form packs. 

Without nation states might makes right. That isn't utopia it is hell. Even the strong are forced to fight constantly. How else do you imagine the world would work without nation states?

JKR

Unionist wrote:

I have never met anyone who believes that Canada (or other countries) should have no control whatsoever over who enters our territory - apart from our obligations under international law (refugees). Maybe I just don't get around enough. 

I’ve never met one either.

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The realistic left needs to focus on what has already been mentioned in this thread. First, it is our warmongering including economic that is creating refugees.

Yes, the old "WE'RE the ones creating refugees!!" trope.

Here's a list, for the "realistic left", of the actual refugee claims made in Canada in 2018

Nigeria appears to be at the top.  Who's invading Nigeria?  Who's sanctioning Nigeria?  Not Canada.

Greece, whose economy has been tanking in slo-mo for years now sent a grand total of 6 refugees.  China, whose economy is booming, sent 1,942 refugees. 

Iran sent nearly 5 times the number of refugees that Iraq did.  Turkey, curiously, sent three times the number of refugees that Syria did.

Afghanistan, where Canadian soldiers were actually deployed, sent 552.  Burundi, where I don't recall our troops landing, sent 757.  Did we invade Burundi for their oil and our complict MSM is keeping it quiet at the behest of the 1%? 

If you pride yourself on being a realist, look at the real numbers.

Plus, if you follow the logic of "You invade, you take the refugees", then a country is only obligated to take in refugees from places it has been involved in attacking. That would let nations like Switzerland and Sweden off the hook, but I don't think that's the kind of conclusion refugee advocates want us to draw. 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

"Without nation states there are no laws"; is one of the weirdest things I've read in a long time.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

How else do you imagine the world would work without nation states?

A lot of science fiction like Star Trek make nation states obsolete by establishing overarching systems of global governance. In these science fiction stories nation states usually have powers similar to that of our provinces. In some science fiction stories planets like our Earth are even governed by intergalactic governments such as the United Federation of Planets. Maybe one day Earth will be just one “province” within an intergalactic universe? If that happens I hope it’s governed by PR. I think in Star Wars, the evil Galactic Emperor Palpatine came to power because of FPTP!

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

JKR wrote:

I think in Star Wars, the evil Galactic Emperor Palpatine came to power because of FPTP!

LOL. Fabulous concept. I wonder whether it could be weaponized.

swallow swallow's picture

Once upon a time, many babblers would have been involved enough in popular struggles to know about the group No One is illegal. Today, the awareness of activism here seems to be on par with the Toronto Star comments. Not terrible, but not really engaged with social movements either. 

JKR

Michael Moriarity wrote:

JKR wrote:

I think in Star Wars, the evil Galactic Emperor Palpatine came to power because of FPTP!

LOL. Fabulous concept. I wonder whether it could be weaponized.

It turns out that a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda both decided to run for the position of intergalactic emperor using the Force but they split the pro-Force vote allowing the evil emperor Palpatine to use the Dark Side and win with just 33.4% of the vote! Tragically Obi-Wan and Yoda forgot the ancient Jedi rule that to this very day  states: PR = the Force; FPTP = the Dark Side!!!”

Follow the Force Luke, choose PR!!!

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The realistic left needs to focus on what has already been mentioned in this thread. First, it is our warmongering including economic that is creating refugees.

Yes, the old "WE'RE the ones creating refugees!!" trope.

Here's a list, for the "realistic left", of the actual refugee claims made in Canada in 2018

Nigeria appears to be at the top.  Who's invading Nigeria?  Who's sanctioning Nigeria?  Not Canada.

Greece, whose economy has been tanking in slo-mo for years now sent a grand total of 6 refugees.  China, whose economy is booming, sent 1,942 refugees. 

Iran sent nearly 5 times the number of refugees that Iraq did.  Turkey, curiously, sent three times the number of refugees that Syria did.

Afghanistan, where Canadian soldiers were actually deployed, sent 552.  Burundi, where I don't recall our troops landing, sent 757.  Did we invade Burundi for their oil and our complict MSM is keeping it quiet at the behest of the 1%? 

If you pride yourself on being a realist, look at the real numbers.

You know better than that. It isn't a one to one relationship and of course people immigrate for many reasons other than war and economic necessity. Refugees are being created by Saudi Arabia and the US and many other countries. The point is we wouldn't have as many Syrian refugees if Syria wasn't being attacked.  Maybe some Maduro actions are turning Venezuelans into refugees but the economic sanctions destroying their economy are having an impact too. 

The point is to point the anger in the right direction; at employers of undocumented workers, not the workers themselves. At the people who cause the conditions creating refugees not the refugees. 

After 9/11 there was outrage if anyone suggested the attack had anything at all to do with US actions in the mideast. All terrorism is now classified under crazy people we can't really do anything about other than increasing security.