I'm interested to hear that you're in favour of open borders, presumably including the entire coastline of Britain? If so, are you OK with murderers and rapists, fleeing from justice in their countries of origin, taking to the highways and byways? Should desperadoes given the freedom of assets paid for and maintained by citizens? Recently, I and a friend were given temporary housing in South Ilford, Essex. In the three days that we were there, the only non-Asian people we saw were a little old man and a charming young chap from the Ukraine, fleeing conscription. Many of our neighbours were immigrants and a few seemed quite resentful at having us planted in their midst - some of them were taxpayers, no doubt, but some didn't speak even a minimal amount of English. The governments of some of the countries from which immigrants come would not consider allowing impoverished British people to become immigrants. Only in an entire world without borders can any country realistically hope to survive mass immigration.
In Britain, a person granted legal immigrant status is then permitted to bring their entire family over, including their extended relations. There are entire villages in Bangladesh, for example, which are now totally empty. The former occupants must have had sufficient funds to enable their travel to Britain and were not starving or being subjected to abuse by their government. They are lovely people but their presence in the UK requires more school places, more health services, more housing and more availability of food, water and energy. Their vehicles add to wear and tear on the roads and increase the need for fuel supplies and so on... Most iimmigrants require emergency housing and council leaflets offer them help which is not readily made available to native Britons - hence the anger which periodically flares up amongst dispossessed natives.
If natives and immigrants were offered equal treatment, perhaps sharing the infrastructure would be acceptable to more Brits.
If I have managed to grasp the wrong end of your stick or even the wrong stick altogether, my apologies!
Great post. I always wonder who has the strongest claim to the public infrastructure.
In some cases, I feel the workers who homesteaded the land have the best claims- based on their productive input. That is, they have been paid by stolen funds but that payment is irrelevant. There was unowned land which was now homesteaded by them.
Though, as you mentioned the South Downs way can be argued as homesteaded for the intention to be used by all so my view wouldn’t hold for that. I wonder if that is legitimate ‘public’ property (those who homesteaded it implicitly intend for it to be open to all) and cannot be re-appropriated (homesteaded for other uses by a single individual).
I'm interested to hear that you're in favour of open borders, presumably including the entire coastline of Britain? If so, are you OK with murderers and rapists, fleeing from justice in their countries of origin, taking to the highways and byways? Should desperadoes given the freedom of assets paid for and maintained by citizens? Recently, I and a friend were given temporary housing in South Ilford, Essex. In the three days that we were there, the only non-Asian people we saw were a little old man and a charming young chap from the Ukraine, fleeing conscription. Many of our neighbours were immigrants and a few seemed quite resentful at having us planted in their midst - some of them were taxpayers, no doubt, but some didn't speak even a minimal amount of English. The governments of some of the countries from which immigrants come would not consider allowing impoverished British people to become immigrants. Only in an entire world without borders can any country realistically hope to survive mass immigration.
In Britain, a person granted legal immigrant status is then permitted to bring their entire family over, including their extended relations. There are entire villages in Bangladesh, for example, which are now totally empty. The former occupants must have had sufficient funds to enable their travel to Britain and were not starving or being subjected to abuse by their government. They are lovely people but their presence in the UK requires more school places, more health services, more housing and more availability of food, water and energy. Their vehicles add to wear and tear on the roads and increase the need for fuel supplies and so on... Most iimmigrants require emergency housing and council leaflets offer them help which is not readily made available to native Britons - hence the anger which periodically flares up amongst dispossessed natives.
If natives and immigrants were offered equal treatment, perhaps sharing the infrastructure would be acceptable to more Brits.
If I have managed to grasp the wrong end of your stick or even the wrong stick altogether, my apologies!
Great post. I always wonder who has the strongest claim to the public infrastructure.
In some cases, I feel the workers who homesteaded the land have the best claims- based on their productive input. That is, they have been paid by stolen funds but that payment is irrelevant. There was unowned land which was now homesteaded by them.
Though, as you mentioned the South Downs way can be argued as homesteaded for the intention to be used by all so my view wouldn’t hold for that. I wonder if that is legitimate ‘public’ property (those who homesteaded it implicitly intend for it to be open to all) and cannot be re-appropriated (homesteaded for other uses by a single individual).
Rod Long has got some good stuff on these questions in The Anatomy of Escape.
Ah yes, Roderick Long. Thanks for the recommendation.