News If East Germany Could Secure Their Border So Can America

[JaredJames]

So far the closest practical historical example of this is the United States.

I know the US is made of separate states, but they do all come under one overall government and are part of the same country so actually I'd say it's the EU in respect to actually having individual countries 'remove' their borders so far as work goes.

Any EU resident can work in any other EU country without requiring work documentation.

 

[JaredJames]

Each national government is an socially-accepted "empire" and they work together to control migration and economic activity.

Work together? You're 'aving a giraffe mate. ("Having a laugh")

Each country has it's own laws, countries such as those in the EU may work together in some respects but it still comes down to the individual laws governing each country which dictate what happens with regard to migration and economic activity. Nothing to do with working together. If Britain doesn't want immigrants, it doesn't accept them. There's nothing anyone can do about it (I suppose they could try imposing sanctions on us in some shape, but not sure how effective that would be).

 

[brainstorm]

Work together? You're 'aving a giraffe mate. ("Having a laugh")

Each country has it's own laws, countries such as those in the EU may work together in some respects but it still comes down to the individual laws governing each country which dictate what happens with regard to migration and economic activity. Nothing to do with working together. If Britain doesn't want immigrants, it doesn't accept them. There's nothing anyone can do about it (I suppose they could try imposing sanctions on us in some shape, but not sure how effective that would be).

What I meant is that the governments work together to segregate people into their respective regions of citizenship. So if the UK deports someone, that person has to go where they have citizenship or where their citizenship won't get them deported. Thus, governments work together to maintain global apartheid. It just so happens that the ideology of national pride and belonging has convinced many people to accept relegation to a limited regional territory as a privilege instead of infringement of their right to free mobility. Make the cages cozy enough and the zoo animals will see them as a right and a privilege instead of as a prison.

 

[JaredJames]

What I meant is that the governments work together to segregate people into their respective regions of citizenship. So if the UK deports someone, that person has to go where they have citizenship or where their citizenship won't get them deported. Thus, governments work together to maintain global apartheid. It just so happens that the ideology of national pride and belonging has convinced many people to accept relegation to a limited regional territory as a privilege instead of infringement of their right to free mobility. Make the cages cozy enough and the zoo animals will see them as a right and a privilege instead of as a prison.

The UK only deports you if it has just cause. The main reason being that you've broken the law. They can't simply deport someone without a damn good reason.

They don't work together to segregate people. A person comes to the UK, violates the UK's laws and as such their own actions remove their right to inhabit the UK and so they are removed back to wherever they came from. They don't work together on this. The UK does this off their own back. There's no participation from the other country unless travel documents are required. In the case of China, it can take a year to get those documents. From India it is around 6 months. Their foreign goverments don't make it an easy process.

 

[mugaliens]

Didn't know that, probably makes sense from a bureaucratic standpoint though, as the Navy brass I'd bet wouldn't want to be concerned with hauling the Army's stuff around as opposed to power projection. I read this was a problem with the Air Force for a long time, that the Air Force was charged with providing close air support for the Army, but the Air Force brass had zero interest in this, and didn't believe it was even necessary, as they saw future wars as being nuclear and not requiring the Army.

The Air Force also provides airlift, not only for the Army but for all services. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USTRANSCOM" was created in order to manage air, land, and sea-lift while bypassing issues involving interservice rivalries.

 

[CAC1001]

Why is it that if people engage in free trade at a global scale, it's called empire, but if they do it at the level of (a) sub-global region(s), it's called a national economy and no eyebrows get raised? Have the ethics of conquest degenerated into "empire is ok as long as it is contained within national borders?"

What is the point of closing overseas military bases? Is it really a good idea to contain people within the national regions of their citizenship? Is there no value in having a world where people can freely go wherever they want and do whatever they want within reason? Or is it better to just allow bullies to divide the world up into ethno-national territories and segregate people in all their life activities except for certain designated purposes for which there would be visas?

Personally, I think we should be working toward more global freedom of movement and addressing the problems that come with migration and ethnic conflict on a case by case basis. Why are so many people for maintaining relatively segregated national regions? Why shouldn't anyone live and work where they want?

Are you saying that the U.S. military bases around the world contain people within their countries? America doesn't maintain anything like that.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Are you saying that the U.S. military bases around the world contain people within their countries? America doesn't maintain anything like that.

I don't understand your claim, would you clarify?

 

[CAC1001]

When brainstorm said the following:

What is the point of closing overseas military bases? Is it really a good idea to contain people within the national regions of their citizenship? Is there no value in having a world where people can freely go wherever they want and do whatever they want within reason? Or is it better to just allow bullies to divide the world up into ethno-national territories and segregate people in all their life activities except for certain designated purposes for which there would be visas?

...although upon re-reading it, perhaps I mis-interpreted it? I thought he was saying that the U.S.'s having military bases overseas keeps people constrained within the countries where we have the bases.

 

[brainstorm]

The UK only deports you if it has just cause. The main reason being that you've broken the law. They can't simply deport someone without a damn good reason.

Well, if they have a conditional visa with a time-limit, that provides a free-card for deportation if the conditions/limits of the visa are violated, no?

They don't work together to segregate people. A person comes to the UK, violates the UK's laws and as such their own actions remove their right to inhabit the UK and so they are removed back to wherever they came from.

Maybe it bothers you to call it segregation but it is in fact a form of segregation. If you look at how apartheid was regulated in South Africa, it was very similar to the way international traffic is regulated. People needed "passes" instead of "passports," but the general idea was to ensure that people only traveled to another region if they had a reason legitimated by the people/government of the receiving region (mostly employment, I believe). Beyond that, people were viewed as not 'belonging' outside their region of citizenship, the same as nationalism views nation-states at present.

They don't work together on this. The UK does this off their own back. There's no participation from the other country unless travel documents are required. In the case of China, it can take a year to get those documents. From India it is around 6 months. Their foreign goverments don't make it an easy process.

Sure they do. Travel documents are the main method of working together. A government creates a passport for a citizen, which is used/stamped by a second government and used to keep track of where to deport that person if they overstay their visa. Without the passport, they would have to go by whatever the person said and if they said that the UK was their country, there would be no way to deport them.

Are you saying that the U.S. military bases around the world contain people within their countries? America doesn't maintain anything like that.

When did I say that? It depends what you mean. There are a lot of subtleties in regulating human traffic, much of which involves manipulating voluntary compliance.

When brainstorm said the following:

What is the point of closing overseas military bases? Is it really a good idea to contain people within the national regions of their citizenship? Is there no value in having a world where people can freely go wherever they want and do whatever they want within reason? Or is it better to just allow bullies to divide the world up into ethno-national territories and segregate people in all their life activities except for certain designated purposes for which there would be visas?

...although upon re-reading it, perhaps I mis-interpreted it? I thought he was saying that the U.S.'s having military bases overseas keeps people constrained within the countries where we have the bases.

Um, no. What I mean is that if there was no global military presence, travelers would be at the mercy of local xenophobia. The result would be that people would restrict their movement to nationalized regions where they did not feel hostility toward themselves as "foreigners." Thus I think it is a good idea for ALL people, including soldiers/military to be globally integrated. That is the only way to de-escalate the tensions that arise from territorialism. When there is no transnational military presence, it sensitizes people to the prospect of "invasion." When "occupation" is no longer viewed as "occupation," the threat of conflict de-escalates and the presence of "foreign" soldiers becomes just an everyday fact of life. Until that level of comfort is reached, you have a situation where tensions and hostilities are potential in the attitude of local territorialists toward "foreign" individuals.

The only way global peace can occur is for such territorialism and native/foreign tensions to become everywhere fully diffused. For such tension to become diffused, people can't react to the idea of "foreign military presence" as "occupation." They have to just view soldiers as individuals who have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else.

 

[JaredJames]

Well, if they have a conditional visa with a time-limit, that provides a free-card for deportation if the conditions/limits of the visa are violated, no?

Note, "if the conditions/limits of the visa are violated". You can continuously re-apply for a visa providing you have a legitimate reason to do so. If so, it won't be declined.
If you violate the conditions of the visa, that is your fault not the countries. The country accepted you by giving the visa and you have effectively betrayed their trust in you. You don't deserve to be in that country. The conditions are there to protect the country not the person entering it.

Maybe it bothers you to call it segregation but it is in fact a form of segregation. If you look at how apartheid was regulated in South Africa, it was very similar to the way international traffic is regulated. People needed "passes" instead of "passports," but the general idea was to ensure that people only traveled to another region if they had a reason legitimated by the people/government of the receiving region (mostly employment, I believe). Beyond that, people were viewed as not 'belonging' outside their region of citizenship, the same as nationalism views nation-states at present.

You can apply for holiday visa's to the UK continuously. Stay here as long as like (visa's are 6 months at a time so you'd have to re-apply). As long as you can prove you can pay your way, without working illegally and without being a burden to the country they won't stop you.

The only thing stopping you traveling or entering a country is if you are suspicious (can't prove why you are traveling or can't support yourself etc) or if you have violated your travel conditions (come to the country on a tourist visa and then worked etc).

Just because you aren't British, doesn't stop you living here. It's more difficult, but that is only because you need to prove you aren't going to be a burden / problem for the country.

 

[brainstorm]

Note, "if the conditions/limits of the visa are violated". You can continuously re-apply for a visa providing you have a legitimate reason to do so. If so, it won't be declined.
If you violate the conditions of the visa, that is your fault not the countries. The country accepted you by giving the visa and you have effectively betrayed their trust in you. You don't deserve to be in that country. The conditions are there to protect the country not the person entering it.

I don't know why you feel the need to get into the details of the authoritarian logic of it all. All I was pointing out is that different national authorities cooperate to effectively segregate individuals into "regions of belonging." You don't seem to be able to rise above the level of naturalizing regional belongingness as if it was assigned genetically or by God.

If you look at nationalism anthropologically as a form of human culture, you should notice that it is a form of territorialism and that it is utilized to facilitate relative segregation of people into relatively separate regions - at least this is the ideal it strives for. In principle, I am for open, non-territorial regionalism where anyone can live and work anywhere without being treated as a "foreigner" but there is currently too much nationalist territorialism for people to simply accept anyone else's presence as natural regardless of citizenship and ethnic identity. Presumably this will dissipate in the coming century or two the way racial/ethnic segregation has been dissipating for the last century or so.

You can apply for holiday visa's to the UK continuously. Stay here as long as like (visa's are 6 months at a time so you'd have to re-apply). As long as you can prove you can pay your way, without working illegally and without being a burden to the country they won't stop you.

I'm actually surprised to hear you don't have to leave and come back to get another 6 month visa and that there is no limit to continuous visa requests. What is actually the point of making people get a visa at all in that case? Can people legally apply to any job without citizenship in UK law?

The only thing stopping you traveling or entering a country is if you are suspicious (can't prove why you are traveling or can't support yourself etc) or if you have violated your travel conditions (come to the country on a tourist visa and then worked etc).

Just because you aren't British, doesn't stop you living here. It's more difficult, but that is only because you need to prove you aren't going to be a burden / problem for the country.

So you have to be independently wealthy? Is there no official or unofficial discrimination against job-applicants identified as "foreign?"

 

[JaredJames]

I'm actually surprised to hear you don't have to leave and come back to get another 6 month visa and that there is no limit to continuous visa requests. What is actually the point of making people get a visa at all in that case? Can people legally apply to any job without citizenship in UK law?

Well there are clauses, you can only remain in the UK for 6 months at a time (even with visas up to 10 years long). But what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing stopping you remaining here by going away and coming back. However you have to realize that coming here for six months, and then trying to get straight back in will flag you up to immigration.

So you have to be independently wealthy? Is there no official or unofficial discrimination against job-applicants identified as "foreign?"

Working visas are different to tourist ones. There are different classes for working visas and they present different issues to tourist ones - they are harder to get.

Like I said before, the EU has removed the need for a work visa within other EU states. It's the countries outside of the EU (particularly the middle eastern block) that prove to be the biggest problem when it comes to illegal immigration and working illegally. The visas are there to ensure people wanting to work here do so with the governments knowledge and contribute to the country they are inhabiting.

 

[brainstorm]

Well there are clauses, you can only remain in the UK for 6 months at a time (even with visas up to 10 years long). But what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing stopping you remaining here by going away and coming back. However you have to realize that coming here for six months, and then trying to get straight back in will flag you up to immigration.

Working visas are different to tourist ones. There are different classes for working visas and they present different issues to tourist ones - they are harder to get.

Like I said before, the EU has removed the need for a work visa within other EU states. It's the countries outside of the EU (particularly the middle eastern block) that prove to be the biggest problem when it comes to illegal immigration and working illegally. The visas are there to ensure people wanting to work here do so with the governments knowledge and contribute to the country they are inhabiting.

Right, this was my point. So the point is to segregate people into eastern and western Europe? Yes, temporary stays are permitted but only under the conditions that people aren't settling permanently. They want people not to permanently migrate to certain regions. It is a system of segregation by the ideology of regional-belonging.

 

[JaredJames]

Right, this was my point. So the point is to segregate people into eastern and western Europe? Yes, temporary stays are permitted but only under the conditions that people aren't settling permanently. They want people not to permanently migrate to certain regions. It is a system of segregation by the ideology of regional-belonging.

Have you not heard of emigration? People move to other countries to live and it isn't that difficult - providing you do it legally.

There's really not much more to it than working here for a few years whilst holding a work visa and then proving you have a good understanding of British life and culture.

Also, if you marry someone in the UK you pretty much guarantee acceptance (it's not certain, but it's a lot more difficult to get you out once married).

You clearly don't understand the process, here is the general outline direct from the Border Agency:

After you have lived legally in the UK for a certain length of time (usually between two and five years), you may be able to apply for permission to settle here. This is known as 'indefinite leave to remain'..

Your right to apply for settlement will depend on your current immigration category. You should read the section for your category (in Working in the UK, Partners and family members or Asylum) to find out whether and when you can apply for settlement.

Most applicants will need to show that they have a knowledge of language and life in the UK.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/settlement/

I think it's also worth noting that in the US, any child born in the country is automatically a US citizen. There are a number of pregnant women from poorer countries who will travel to the US during late stages of pregnancy and have the child there. That way they gain a way to remain in the country. This is not true for the UK however.

Your views are extremely idealised. As nice a concept as yours is, you seem blissfully unaware of the reasons for countries having borders and the need for immigration control.

 

[brainstorm]

Your views are extremely idealised. As nice a concept as yours is, you seem blissfully unaware of the reasons for countries having borders and the need for immigration control.

Eating is a need. Warmth is a need. Is nationalism a need? Regardless, I'm not talking about whether migration control benefits some people. I am just saying that relative global segregation is what is achieved by nationalist migration control. In other words, people aren't allowed to live and work wherever they want. Why not? What would happen if they did?

 

[Office_Shredder]

I think it's also worth noting that in the US, any child born in the country is automatically a US citizen. There are a number of pregnant women from poorer countries who will travel to the US during late stages of pregnancy and have the child there. That way they gain a way to remain in the country. This is not true for the UK however.

That's not really how it works

http://asu.news21.com/2010/children-of-deported-parents/

 

[JaredJames]

That's not really how it works

http://asu.news21.com/2010/children-of-deported-parents/

You might want to read that article. A tad bias I must say.

If I've understood it correctly, the only reason that woman was deported is because of the father and her inability to defend herself - helped by the fact he was a citizen.

Also, there is a huge section which says they are trying to get the amendment through, which was dismissed in 2009, that would mean a child basically needs one US citizen parent to gain citizenship in the US. If not, they would be refused citizenship and returned to the parents country of origin (how it works in the UK).

That article only speaks about deported parents, it doesn't give figures (deported / allowed to remain). I'd be interested to see those before I make a judgement here.
I'm not saying I don't believe you regarding how it works, but given the bill they are trying to get through regarding the 14th amendments I'd say it's obviously an issue with people having children in the US and trying to use them to remain - even if it fails and they end up getting deported. There appears to be some bias in the article.

One thing I am curious about though, how do those kids end up homeless? They either remain in the US or go home with parents. If you know you have no one to look after your child (or fostering isn't going to happen), why would you leave them there and let them get into the situation of being homeless? I'd say that's neglect on the parents part.