Host Nation's Rights
Certainly, the most basic human rights of immigrants everywhere should be respected by every nation, and be clearly defined by local laws. There has been plenty of debate and discussion over this issue.
But the other side of the coin is often ignored. What about the rights of the host nation or the affected native population?
Via "Gates of Vienna" I found a Norweigian site called "honest thinking", which deals with a lot of issues about political thought control and censorship. They run the website in several different languages, and their English is sometimes a little awkward. However, they have very eloquently written what they call is an "Immigration Manifesto":
The immigration policies currently in vogue in most Western countries show increasing signs of being unsustainable, and the associated problems are likely to grow ever more severe in the coming years. This is one of the largest ethical dilemmas of our time. We therefore believe the entire foundation for the prevailing regime needs to be reconsidered, and submit this manifesto as a starting point for reasoning about these challenges.
1) It is a moral duty to promote human rights all over the world.
2) The concept of human rights must not be confused with any particular legal implementation or formulation of that concept, since such explications could contain internal inconsistencies or imply consequences that would cause conflict with the previous tenet.
3) The worth of a human being is independent of his or her gender, religion, ethnic background, sexual preferences, culture, language, and other such markers.
4) Cooperation across cultural, language, religious, and ethnic borders is desirable and necessary.
5) Even so, culture, language, religion, and ethnicity are instrumental in establishing each individual’s identity, and thus central in forming his or her sense of belonging and loyalty. Any policy aimed at sustainability must take this into account.
6) It is therefore legitimate for any sovereign state to implement restrictions towards non-citizens in such a way that control over its demographic development is retained.
7) It is unacceptable, without foregoing careful consideration and proper democratic processes, that political dispositions be made to alter the demographic composition of a state in such a way that its stability, its inner cohesion, and the mutual loyalty of its population be threatened.
We are apprehensive of individuals, organizations, and other legal entities that try to quench free and open debate on the above issues, and regard such political actors as having little or no legitimacy in questions of democracy and human rights. Moreover, ideologies and political movements whose goals are irreconcilable with the above tenets should be considered devoid of moral and intellectual integrity, unless they are able to justify said discrepancy.
Ole Jørgen Anfindsen, Ph.D., editor, HonestThinking
Jens Tomas Anfindsen, Ph.D., editor, HonestThinking
To be honest myself, #2 above could be written a little more clearly. I believe what they are essentially trying to say is that trying to force equality and human rights through legislation, is often counter productive (eg censorship, affirmative action, etc). But the rest of it is rock solid. The authors are certainly referring to European cities such as Brussels or Malmö, but the same concepts apply to US cities such as Los Angeles as well.
To anyone who thinks this is racist, just consider this for a moment: What do you think would have been the impact if the European powers actually respected such nation's rights in the 16th-17th century Americas, or 19th century Africa or China? Simply put, many Native American genocides, African slavery, and the opium trade in China would never have occured. Period. Let's avoid the mistakes of the past.
(And no, I'm not saying that the Europeans never should have settled in the Americas. It's just that the real tragedy was that at that time, there was plenty of room for both peoples to coexist)
Interested in reading more? Click on any of the labels below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed
4 comments:
Most native americans were inadvertantly killed by diseases brought by the European settlers, not deliberately.
Of course, the same thing could happen from immigrants today.
So do you advocate an end to immigration? Wasn't the US of A built on the fresh input of immigrants who built the country into what it is today? Or are you saying now that the boat is full? From what I've read of yours already, you don't like people who aren't white and have a particular thing against Latinos.
You concentrate on race conflict and refuse to see the positive impact of immigration. You automatically assume that a mixture of cultures leads to problems. Have you ever been to Canada? Walk down a street in Toronto or Vancouver and you'll see people from all cultures and religions getting along just fine. I can see your right-wing audience getting ready to write crap including the term soviet canuckistan, but so what: we have proven that multiculturalism can work.
Not an end to immigration (except in the most crowded countries like the Benelux in Europe), but just a slowdown to more responsible levels. Is that unreasonable?
Certainly, immigration has positive sides, but negative sides as well. I've visited Canada many times, and they have two big advantages here:
1) Their immigrants are really a mixture (like the USA's used to be) and don't largely come from one single ethnic group creating a "nation within a nation".
2) Canada simply has a crapload of land to spare. It's far less densely populated than either the US or Europe. Australia is also sparsely populated, but they have water problems. It will be a long time, however, before Canada faces the same freshwater crisis that we have now in the SW USA.
I am a bit concerned about 'Honest Thinking.' They appear to believe that people like chomsky and ward churchill are being silenced for their anti-American views, which is hardly the case.
Post a Comment