Immigration and cultures.

Politics

It's election times in Sweden and I feel I need to vent on some of my opinions.
I am seriously scared of the rise of SD (The Sweden Democrats). They speak on and on about how we have to protect the Swedish culture against outside influence (i.e immigration and Islam).
I have lost friends because of stupid Swedish immigration policies, ever since I moved to this town I have meet around 6-7 friends from countries outside of Sweden, only 2 of them remain today because of deportation (is that the right word?) and relocation to other cities in Sweden. They where muslims, but nice chaps.

Therefore I hate their "blame everything on the immigrants/islam" outlook to politics. Imagine if the blamed everything on Judaism or Christianity. Noone would take their words seriously. Make Islam the scapegoat and apparently they can say whatever the hell they want!

Some kind of speech about how evil Islam is wich deeply disturbed me(pt 1 of 2):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrAw90SDdYE&feature=related
Summary of their key points:
- Sweden should be culturally Swedish. ("Give us Sweden back" is their official slogan. as if criminal immigrants have somehow stolen it. )
- Immigrants who have different customs than us (i.e non-western ones) is a threat to our national security(!).
- Immigrants are far more likley to commit crimes. According to them this is because they are culturally different, not because they are simply poorer than the average swede...
-They also cost a bunch of money to house and feed. Ignoring the fact that immigrants, like any person, will most likly try to get a job as soon as possible. I may be an optimist, but I see immigration as a good investment (allthough a very long-term one).

Since this forum is a very multicultural place, with people from many different corners of the world I would like to hear your opinion

They sound like they have quite a bit in common with the Tea Party here in the States, particularly that slogan of "Give us Sweden back".

Sparkywolf wrote:They sound like they have quite a bit in common with the Tea Party here in the States, particularly that slogan of "Give us Sweden back".

They seem to have a lot in common, though judging from a quick look at their site and wikipedia article, they don't seem just as immigration-focused.
I did find this on the wiki, very disturbing:
"arious polls have also probed Tea Party supporters for their views on a variety of political and controversial issues. A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the State of Washington reported that ... 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power.""
It made me think about how SD would likley treat homosexuals... they don't say anything about that issue on their site as far as I know. They would probably treat them like crap too. They could argue that homosexuality is, in a way, a different culture too.


I just found this golden nugget... HOLY SHIT! This is the new ad for SD and I feel very uncomfortable watching it (wich means they did their job, I guess. They depend on peoples fear for survival) , worst thing about it is that this is going to be on tv for a while now so I will likley see it dozens of times this couple of weeks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkRRdth8AHc&feature=player_embedded
In case it isn't self-explanatory: "Hey Mr. Voter. You have to make a choice, should our money go to the poor nice old ladys pension, or the dark scary muslims rushing for the counter!" (not literal translation, obviously). This is probably the most black and white political ad I have ever seen!


I think we need immigration to pay our future pensions. Native Swedes simply arn't making enough babies, if it wasn't for non-swedes, Swedens population would be shrinking. It is true that immigration is costy, but we have to think of the future benefits as well. You have to spend money to make money and having a bigger workforce will definatly make some hard cash for future pension funds.

Things are never as black and white as theese parties wants them to seem.

They are absolutely right. All migration in this age is wrong. It is invasion by devious means.

They are absolutely right. All migration in this age is wrong. It is invasion by devious means.

Would never consider moving out of your country because you think it is wrong?
What's the difference between emigration nowadays and emigration we used to see historically?

No I never would move out. It is wrong.

Historically there were 'empty' new lands to move to and populate, and world populations were less too.

JamesStGeorge wrote:They are absolutely right. All migration in this age is wrong. It is invasion by devious means.

Now while I understand the concerns one might have about mass migration, I believe every man is born free and should be able to move freely across the globe and settle down wherever one feels like home.

And especially in this age, when people communicate with friends around the world without barriers, it seems to me that migration makes a lot more sense than anytime before.

Call it globalization if you want, but I see the world going towards a single universal culture... and heck, I like it.

JamesStGeorge wrote:No I never would move out. It is wrong.
Historically there were 'empty' new lands to move to and populate, and world populations were less too.

This topic is well timed cause I was in Budapest last week.I've count 5 afro-hungarian and 3 chinese.It may sound oddish to you, but for me it's a materialized minimundus.

But let's look the other side of the coin.
I accurately found 0 words in Piratus' oration about what muslims feel.You think that the first sentence of a muslim child is "I want to go to Sweden!"? I wouldn't learn swedish, written and unwritten rules of Sweden if somebody would even pay for it. That's the real problem with immigration. They bring their rules,their language,their tradition and everything what they practiced in their homeland.

Pishkirlin wrote:

JamesStGeorge wrote:They are absolutely right. All migration in this age is wrong. It is invasion by devious means.

Now while I understand the concerns one might have about mass migration, I believe every man is born free and should be able to move freely across the globe and settle down wherever one feels like home.

And especially in this age, when people communicate with friends around the world without barriers, it seems to me that migration makes a lot more sense than anytime before.

Call it globalisation if you want, but I see the world going towards a single universal culture... and heck, I like it.

The sheer fact people can communicate over the world demonstrates there is even less excuse to migrate! Contact is not limited now to the face to face.

One universal culture would be terribly boring, surely the point of cultures is there are differences.

Any migration is wrong now, your concept of a free for all, is permission for mass migration, you can't have it both ways, accepting mass migration as a problem, but believing it should be a right for any to go anywhere they fancy.

Basically humans are territorial animals, for good reason. Based on family, tribe and up to nation. Every man is born with obligation and duty, to family, tribe, and nation, they are the providers and guarantors of all freedoms. You can be born free, travel to other people's lands, but they are free also, to shoot you for it! Invasion is not just the more recent idea of landing armies. The drip, drip, drip, movement of peoples, who settle is the older form. Migration is still invasion, and should be dealt with as such. For greater peace and contentment overall. Migration invasion is storing up big, big, trouble for the future.

Adding another dimension to the discussion - The economic one.

1. 
   Typically to get someone working in your economy the individual/state has to pay a lot of money educating, feeding and providing healthcare for a child to grow up and work in the economy. With an economic migrant the native country pays this, therefore the costs of getting a worker into the economy is MUCH less. Thereby providing a large positive trade off to the economy.
   
2. 
   Most countries have control over their own borders so they can decide who comes into the economy (E.g. No criminal record, skilled worker, etc) this makes the above factor even more positive.
   
3. 
   Migrants will often work for less driving the price of goods down which provides drive to the economy.

When a country's economy is growing the demand for skilled labour often outstrips demand, this makes migrants very useful during the good financial years.

However, when you hit something like a recession the jobs are no longer there but the migrants are and a lot of anger is directed towards getting "Jobs for native people" etc as people (perhaps, rightly) don't really like the idea of people coming in and stealing their jobs.

Oremus.

Oremus.

Ok No.1.
This is the most inexcusable reason for migration. It is unacceptable to expect a relatively poor country to pay all the costs of bringing a child to adulthood, and for training it to a skill, just to lose that person as they become able to help their homeland. Just so that a selfish individual can 'have a better life etc.' just for themselves by migrating away.
Any by your definition 'gaining' country of a cheap ready made productive individual should be ashamed to steal them from the less well off.

2. So ensuring all the worst and less able are left in the poorest lands, while the more able abandon them. This is good?


3. Migrants as cheap labour, critically damage the host nation's low paid and unemployed. They remove from employers the duty to train their own people, denying opportunity from the local poor. Adding burdens to the State purse to support those then unemployed as a migrant took their job for less. Forcing down even further low pay increases the wealth divide and social cohesion of the migrant receiving nation. Breeds resentment and eventually trouble.


The good economic times can easily be regulated by work permits, with no right to stay and settle at all under any circumstances. This is way better for the lands the transient workers come from too, as their people they educated and paid for, return, with some good earnings and increased experience knowledge etc. Plus by its temporary nature it gives that chance to vastly more people, rather than being hogged by a migrant who settled and their children too.

James wrote:Migrants as cheap labour, critically damage the host nation's low paid and unemployed.

Oremus wrote:when you hit something like a recession the jobs are no longer there but the migrants are and a lot of anger is directed towards getting "Jobs for native people" etc as people (perhaps, rightly) don't really like the idea of people coming in and stealing their jobs.

I belive in free trade that goes both for goods and labor. If person x can work better and/or for less than person y he deserves the job more than person y.
You argue that person y would have priority to the job because he happened to be born in that country.
That is not economicaly optimal nor fair.

Besides, how do you create jobs? I figure that jobs, like anything else, are created if there is a demand for jobs and supplies for jobs (i.e natural resources). Sweden is a great example of a country where we have plenty of natural resoursces, but can't extract it all because of a low population density.

If immigrants move into Sweden, they will start consuming swedish products. And because we have plenty of resources to make more products, it will create a demand for jobs, wich will be filled by thoose same immigrants.

korte wrote:But let's look the other side of the coin.
I accurately found 0 words in Piratus' oration about what muslims feel.You think that the first sentence of a muslim child is "I want to go to Sweden!"?

No, I don't. I belive that other people are just as patriotic as we are and thus wouldn't leave their own country for nothing. I can move to a richer country (Norway) if I want to. However, I feel I belong here and this is also where I have my friends and family, so I won't.

I wouldn't learn swedish, written and unwritten rules of Sweden if somebody would even pay for it. That's the real problem with immigration. They bring their rules,their language,their tradition and everything what they practiced in their homeland

I don't care if my neighbour celebrates Ramadan instead of Midsummer. I belive that as long as people treat each other well they can belive and do whatever they want.
If they commit crimes they should be punished like any other person, but we should not force them our culture (unless their culture somehow is based on crimes, wich I gaurantee no culture is).

The only problem is people who can't bother to learn the language of their new country. This is only a problem if the immigrants live in areas where there are little to no Swedish people, the same is true for swedes. There is a suburb in a city in Spain where a lot of swedes have migrated, with no Spanish resident nearby, they don't need, nor bother, to learn Spanish.

Let the immigrants live in an area where there are still native peole present and they will learn the native langauge. They may not use it in their own home (no problem, amigo! ), but they will use it when intarcting with natives.

The serious problems only accur if to many immigrants move in to the same residential area. Especially if they are really crappy tenemts where you can't even expect the native population to obey laws.

I will give you great example. In my neighbourhood the goverment decided to let two people, from nations that both was at war, live in the same apartment! They could put their differences aside and make a new life here. If they would have been located to a bad neighbourhood, where people where already fighting and crime rates where high it would have been much more trouble.

You can be born free, travel to other people's lands, but they are free also, to shoot you for it!

This is insane!
Are you saing that If someone shot my best firend and his family (who are immigrants), they should be able to walk away free? Should the Authorities just accept that they killed my friend and made his brother (who was born in Sweden) an orphant?
Are we supposed to ignore laws and morals in order to protect our native nations laws and morals?!!

I hope you are not deadly serious about your example. You must shorley know someone who is not born in your country yet live there? Would you just watch as someone shot him?

Here is a real, but not as extreme, example of this:
SD are activley working against the construction of Mosques in Sweden in order to "protect" Sweden from the "dangerous" muslim influence.
The laws and moral behind freedom of religion and freedom of speech is sacrificed in order to protect our "pure" swedish culture from muslim influence.

I agree with Pishkirlin, living in whatever country you please should be a human right. We frown upon goverments who build walls to stop people from emigration (East Germany was the prime exapmle of this) but if countries build walls to prevent immigration most people won't object at all (look at the U.S - Mexican border for the prime example of this).

EDIT: I changed the title of the thread to something more genreal, instead of just pointing at Islam and europe.

It looks like whatever is happening in Sweden has already happened in Denmark.
Dankstfolkeparti (Danish People's Party, a very honest and truthful name, at least.) is already inside the danish parlament and other major danish parties have been greatly influenced by them.

Interesting fact, Denmark has fewer immigrants per native than Sweden has, and also have a higher GDP per person than Sweden.

Piratus wrote: and also have a higher GDP per person than Sweden.

I hope you can eat an apple a day in Sweden >_<

Crisis grants rise to unpopular, declining and forgotten ideologies. Á la cummunism and nazism. The hole thing is about supports from the state (like dole).Let's say that last year the swedish government gave 2 unit of support to people. But this year they can only give 1 unit. Give it to the muslim has different culture, religion etc. and don't produces as many tax as a swedish whose ancestors lived there for hundreds of years. It would be a bit nonsense isn't it?

Korte wrote: Crisis grants rise to unpopular, declining and forgotten ideologies. Á la cummunism and nazism. The hole thing is about supports from the state (like dole).Let's say that last year the swedish government gave 2 unit of support to people. But this year they can only give 1 unit. Give it to the muslim has different culture, religion etc. and don't produces as many tax as a swedish whose ancestors lived there for hundreds of years. It would be a bit nonsense isn't it?

Good argument, but it still leaves 2 points unresolved:
1. Why would someone have higher rights to live in a country just because his ancestors happened to belong to that nation? I don't belive we should judge people based on which nation he happened to be born in.
2. Theese immigrants, after education that is probably cheaper than educating a native child, will also go to work. Bringing in more tax to the goverment. Their childrenwill also do the same after reaching adulthood.
So, yes. Immigration does cost a whole lot, especially if the host is a socialist country, like Sweden. But you have to spend money to make money :

• Let's say the native population doesn't reproduce enough for population growth. That country would literaly need immigration to support future retirees.
  
• Let's say the host country is underpopulated i.e that it's national resources can support more industry and jobs. Wouldn't it be a waste not to take care of them for a while so they can they enrichen the whole country in the long run?

I belive this is true in Sweden. And in fact a lot of countries in the western world.

Yes there are problems with immigration, but you would be suprised how many times the real problem is caused by poverty rather than religion or culture.

Piratus wrote:
Good argument, but it still leaves 2 points unresolved:
1. Why would someone have higher rights to live in a country just because his ancestors happened to belong to that nation? I don't belive we should judge people based on which nation he happened to be born in.
2. Theese immigrants, after education that is probably cheaper than educating a native child, will also go to work. Bringing in more tax to the goverment. Their childrenwill also do the same after reaching adulthood.
So, yes. Immigration does cost a whole lot, especially if the host is a socialist country, like Sweden. But you have to spend money to make money :

• Let's say the native population doesn't reproduce enough for population growth. That country would literaly need immigration to support future retirees.
  
• Let's say the host country is underpopulated i.e that it's national resources can support more industry and jobs. Wouldn't it be a waste not to take care of them for a while so they can they enrichen the whole country in the long run?

I belive this is true in Sweden. And in fact a lot of countries in the western world.

Yes there are problems with immigration, but you would be suprised how many times the real problem is caused by poverty rather than religion or culture.

Yes, cut the rainforest and make a park stuffed with oaks and apple trees...

After all those nations make war who emmigrate later. Democracy = Two wolfs and a sheep votes about the dinner...

Fiji, were out populated by immigrants, and lost control of their land. They attempted to fight too late.

Migration is only invasion.

Israel stole an entire land by immigration backed by force and powerful friends.

It is all very well to play being 'nice', open, let anyone go where they like, naive, etc. but in the end, even if in centuries time like Serbia, migration will always cost the native peoples. Far far better to be firm now early in the stage and eject migrants peacefully. Ask the native Americans, Aboriginal Australians.

Many countries have parties finally countering the bad selfish intellectual political class of the last 60 years or so who let this happen with no consultation with their people. Foreigners are what you go away to visit for interest, not find have taken over the house next door. The fact you see the reaction happening in Sweden, and the USA, and Denmark, and Holland, UK, Italy, France, might just tell you something! It is the natural normal human reaction to invasion. People are not 'just' people, that is childish, they are grouped, territorial, beings. Nations are the biggest practical and functional grouping. Defend yours or be over run.

JamesStGeorge wrote:Fiji, were out populated by immigrants, and lost control of their land. They attempted to fight too late.

Migration is only invasion.

Israel stole an entire land by immigration backed by force and powerful friends.

Hawaii turned from kingdom to republic cause of the american elite. Mexico lost New Mexico,Texas and Arizona cause of american immigration. Hungary lost 2/3 of it's territory cause of romanian and serbian people. Australia will turn to republic, cause socialist parties start to build on asians. The frontiere of turkish conquest is Cologne now.

Piratus, I think we don't need a new example

Wow, thoose are some really good points.

Mexico lost New Mexico,Texas and Arizona cause of american immigration.
Hungary lost 2/3 of it's territory cause of romanian and serbian people.

Israel stole an entire land by immigration backed by force and powerful friends.

Wich I agree is wrong, cultural identity and nations should not be seen as something connected in political matters. Just because a country has a certain name, it doesn't mean that only a people with a certain cultural identity should have the right to live in it, and Vice versa.

Australia will turn to republic, cause socialist parties start to build on asians.

If Asian immigrants come to Australia, work hard and contributes to society, they should ofcourse have the right to vote, just as any native Australian. Australia was literally founded on criminal immigrants, so I find it extremely ironic that they are complaining about this kind of thing.

Fiji, were out populated by immigrants, and lost control of their land. They attempted to fight too late.

It is all very well to play being 'nice', open, let anyone go where they like, naive, etc. but in the end, even if in centuries time like Serbia, migration will always cost the native peoples. Far far better to be firm now early in the stage and eject migrants peacefully. Ask the native Americans, Aboriginal Australians.

Let me make it clear that there are fundamental differences between the immigration that natives faced back then and the immigration we face today.

First of all. The immigration of europeans to America and Australia (and I belive Serbia, but I don't know anything about Russian history) where activley supported by their own goverments. Spanish conquistadores in particular would go to regular war with native americans. If they hadn't paved the way and peaceful immigration was all that would happen, The Aztecs, Mayan and Incan empires would probably have survived.

The Christian Crusader who killed innocent muslims and conquered land in the name of God, the pioneers who sellted the americas and killed innocent native americans to conquer land, the nazis who conquered europe all had one thing in common - They belived that "their" religion and/or "their" people where somehow supposed to have it - and that thoose that where in the way of that goal where criminals and savages.

IMO that is what many of thoose opposed to immigration are doing today.Though much less extreme.

They belive that certain cultural groups (usually their own is one of them) are supposed to be the only people living in their country and the immigrants who are in their way of that ideal becomes stamped as criminals and parsites because their culture is different.


[quote:"James"]People are not 'just' people, that is childish, they are grouped, territorial, beings. Nations are the biggest practical and functional grouping. Defend yours or be over run. [/quote]
One of my classmates family are from Palestine, my close personal friend's family is from Albania. I hope you understand that I find it hard to think of them as enemies and invadors. They are eager to finish their education and get a job and have nothing against native swedes.
Should they not be allowed to live in the same society as me because they are culturally different? That seems like a huge step backwards, and will only serve to make the gaps and discrimination between people even bigger.

In short: I don't know how much immigration different nations can afford. But closing their borders completley is only going to make things worse. If we can't see how foreigeners really are we will only leave more room for the imagination...

Piratus wrote:
One of my classmates family are from Palestine, my close personal friend's family is from Albania. I hope you understand that I find it hard to think of them as enemies and invadors. They are eager to finish their education and get a job and have nothing against native swedes.
Should they not be allowed to live in the same society as me because they are culturally different? That seems like a huge step backwards, and will only serve to make the gaps and discrimination between people even bigger.

The problem you are having is mixing personal relationships with politics, morals, right and wrong, even human nature.

No your friends should not be allowed to take a life out of your country. That need not stop you being friends, when they are put back into their own lands. Correspondence world wide has never been easier now, so no problem. They have after all taken a place in education from a native Swede, and accommodation, and will take a job ahead of them too. Clearly also they would never have become known to you had they been properly kept out in the first place!

A gardener will remove a wild flower from his garden as a weed, which is just a plant in the wrong place. It is not personal, it is principle. Place matters, more than anything. People have theirs too, not a thing of free choice. It is not culture, it is family, tribe, nation, shared history, possession, place.

JamesStGeorge wrote:

The problem you are having is mixing personal relationships with politics, morals, right and wrong, even human nature.

No your friends should not be allowed to take a life out of your country. That need not stop you being friends, when they are put back into their own lands. Correspondence world wide has never been easier now, so no problem. They have after all taken a place in education from a native Swede, and accommodation, and will take a job ahead of them too. Clearly also they would never have become known to you had they been properly kept out in the first place!

A gardener will remove a wild flower from his garden as a weed, which is just a plant in the wrong place. It is not personal, it is principle. Place matters, more than anything. People have theirs too, not a thing of free choice. It is not culture, it is family, tribe, nation, shared history, possession, place.

You insist on human beings being inanimate objects (in both senses.) This is dehumanizing. People are not just defined by where they happen to be born or they culture they grow up in but also by self-determination - the choices they make. Your lack of belief in human free-will as you hysterically seek to "defend" cultures and countries is ridiculous. You will defend these countries but what will you sacrifice in their defence? Free-will? The right of goverments to make their own immigration laws?

No sir, your home culture is certainly worth defending but it is not worth the price of sacrificing our free-will and making us immobile slaves.

You say there is a confusion between personal relationships and morals. No sir, there is no conflict between these. Morally is based upon personal relationship. Indeed, it is based upon love - which stems from personal relationships. You would have us be moral to a person as if they were a rock on the ground (And one that is certainly not allowed to move!)

The world you see in your dreams solves many problems - but it creates many more. Indeed, it is a nightmare.

Oremus.

Oremus wrote:This is dehumanizing. People are not just defined by where they happen to be born or they culture they grow up in but also by self-determination - the choices they make.

Thank you Oremus, I have been trying to explain this many times, but I am just not good enough at debating (especially in english) to do it.
I don't care about Swedes, Palestinians, Poles etc. I care about humans and we should accept as many immigrants as is economically and demographicaly possible. It will pay off in the long run, both by making a nation culturally richer and economically richer.

James wrote:
They have after all taken a place in education from a native Swede, and accommodation, and will take a job ahead of them too.

This is the thing that bugs me about that statement:

Imagine how many teachers and houses we have today because people have migrated from other countries and gone to work here! Just like the natives do.

imagine how many jobs theese people have created by starting buisnesses, and by consuming Swedish products! Just like the natives do.
When speaking of immigration people forget about theese things. Wich are key to the economical debate.
People assume, perhaps subconsciously, that immigrants can't support a nations future economy, but a newborn Swedish baby can.
This is in effect a kind of rasicsm.

I can understand that if we have too many jobless immigrants at once and the system will collapse, but a gradual intake would be fair and benifical to the host country in the long run.

A gardener will remove a wild flower from his garden as a weed, which is just a plant in the wrong place. It is not personal, it is principle. Place matters, more than anything. People have theirs too, not a thing of free choice. It is not culture, it is family, tribe, nation, shared history, possession, place.

This is a very good way of discribing how differently we think about this subject!

You belive the world is like a bunch of flower gardens where all the flowers have their own gardens where they belong and should stay no matter what.

I belive the world is more like bunch of vegetable gardens. As long as the plants in them are productive and there is room for them it is stupid to discard them as weed.

I have to agree with Oremus.

People are not just the place where they happen to be born. Granted, they probably share some common values with the community within which they grew up, but it is not necessarily true. I'd change an Italian criminal for a honest Zulu anytime. Humanity and common sense should suffice to create a bond among men of good will no matter where they were born.

I, for myself, don't want to be judged according to labels such as the place where I was born, the colour of my skin, my job, my customs, my faith, my football team (which I don't have) and so on. I am a human being like any other and as such I'll treat all other men, choosing among them my friends and foes not according to geography, race, social class or religion but rather to their moral values.
And these cannot be magically stuck on people just because they belong to a certain category, not even when said category is a moral system such as religion or a political party, even less when it's merely matter of a territory or customs.

Fraternity among men should always be above customs, in my opinion.

P.S. I'm also glad my father and my mother didn't think like some of you. Something special can come out as a result of migration. And I, like any other man, am special.

Pishkirlin wrote:People are not just the place where they happen to be born.

Well, let's take this to its logical extreme. If people weren't supposed to move around, my country would not even exist. It was the migration of many peoples who created America and the smaller migrations within that extended the boundaries ("Go West, young man," for example) of the country.

If you tried to look at me as the sum of my ancestors, well, I'm half Ukrainian, an eighth Native American and three-eighths German (probably, anyway, as that line of the family came over around the Mayflower, so it's diluted). Now, James, where should I stay put under your immobility of humans theory? Further, where is your boundary of "place"?

To look at things from a standpoint of what exists right now: I'm also Californian, should I stay in my state my whole life instead of seeking my fortune on the opposite coast, in areas that may be better suited to my earning ability (i.e., where I can afford to buy a house) and lifestyle choices? Or should I just stay in America somewhere? (Okay, granted, that's the opinion of a lot of people because boy, do we have some terrible tourists and gov't policies.)

It sounds to me like James has very strong tribal roots, probably lives very close to family and is very interconnected with his community. That's okay, even great, at least for him. It's just not the case for many cultures and other people.

Sparkywolf wrote:

Well, let's take this to its logical extreme. If people weren't supposed to move around, my country would not even exist.

Good point. But let's not stop there - let's take it even further: What about the original human beings who evolved in Africa and then spread out across the rest of the globe?

If the principle of No migration is an absolute one then this fellow is arguing that we really should still all be living in Africa.