You're either a full and free citizen of the empire or not imo; special classes of citizenship based on race and geography are an abomination to all lovers of freedom and justice.
Edited to add: why don’t people get angry when they realise there is blatant and systemic racism being funded with their money, on their behalf?
The US system does not raise the same concerns about racism. There are different political subdivisions in the US with different relationships with the federal union. For example, those in Puerto Rico don’t pay federal taxes. Washington DC has no independent sovereignty, unlike the states, etc. But those distinctions aren’t based on race or nationality (everyone is a US national). And in many respects they are mutual decisions. Puerto Rico has repeatedly rejected ballot measures to become a state. If a Puerto Rican person wants to vote in US elections, they can just move to any other political subdivision of the US that is a full state.
I have to disagree strongly with this, as we’re talking about differences of degree and not kind; the unique status of Peurto Rico is literally the result of a racist law effectively preventing non-whites from becoming US citizens: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
This law was finally repealed...in the 1950s, decades after the US claimed the territory as spoils of war, and the 1917 act that gave them quasi-citizenship. It is in truth just a facsimile of true US citizenship, because congress can revoke it and they are not allowed to vote in presidential elections while residing in their home territory. No citizen residing in Texas or Hawaii would consider that remotely fair, because it isn’t.
The US is an unusual case in the history of empires, because it was a colonial power that seems to downplay that fact publicly. Perhaps that is because it doesn’t fit with the national mythos. Whatever the reason, part of the legacy is having different degrees of citizenship based on race and geography that must eventually be reconciled one way or the other.
Per wikipedia's interpretation of The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Guamanians are US citizens at birth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Guam#U.S._citizenshi...
Probably more of an economic decision than one based in racism.
> You're either a full and free citizen of the empire or not
The British empire was disbanded, so there's nobody really to take your quarrel up with.
> special classes of citizenship based on race and geography
> are an abomination to all lovers of freedom and justice.
Again, you're assuming it's based in race and geography. It seems more like the motivation was based in economics.
It's always racism vs. economic reasons - not conservative enough for your voters, you lose votes; not economically sensible, you bring ruin upon your country. We have already saw this with Brexit.
Generally the answer to every problem in every other Country isn't to just ship them to your Country, that's an unsustainable model. Typically the people who migrate are either young, well educated or wealthy - which in the grand scheme of things does nothing to fix the problems in their originating Countries.
Yeah like denying service to "high risk" individuals(black people[0], muslims or women). It's all an economic decision which may be backed by some statistics and further keep the individuals in these statistics. Better, when you see high risk individuals (such black people) just run and gun them down because the economy tells us they may be dangerous. It's all about economy...right? Slavery was an economic decision as well.
[0] https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us...
[2] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/security-services-company-...
[3] https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna...
The comment really applies to the US empire, or indeed any empire in general.
I hear why you’re saying, but the economic argument just doesn’t make any sense to me; having more citizens should benefit a national economy. Besides, there are many things we do without economic rationale; maybe slavery would boost GDP, but we’ve decided that this is irrelevant because it’s morally reprehensible.
Generally that trend holds true - as long as migration is well handled. There are immediate infrastructure costs that need to be paid that the Country won't immediately see a return on.
Also governments aren't particularly profitable at the best of times, most of them are running at a deficit regardless of the number of people in their Country.
Your comment is particularly ridiculous if your intent was to apply it to “the US empire” (where everyone in the territories has the right to move anywhere in the country).
From the BBC:
"In fact, it is doubtful that caste had much significance or virulence in society before the British made it India's defining social feature."
The UK establishment embraced multiculturalism when it was flat on its back economically; it has subsequently sold out many people who were loyal to it for shameful political expediency, e.g. the Ghurka and Windrush scandals: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha_Justice_Campaign https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal
It’s an obvious chance to parlay some good from the UK’s colonial legacy, why would anyone oppose it?
Citation needed. I seriously doubt your balance of probabilities.
Britain pre-Windrush was on its knees.
Britain pre-EEC was "the sick man of Europe".
Please bring up some actual numbers to back your reactionary talking points, at the very least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_largest_h...
The United Kingdom represented 6.42% of the world's economy in 1960 (highest point), falling to 3.42% in 2012 (lowest point). It accounted for 5.2% of the world's economy in 1820, 9.1% in 1870, and 8.3% in 1913. England, Scotland and Wales generated 1.8% of the world's GDP in 1600
Windrush arrived in 1948. That "mass immigration" is literally what brought Britain to its highest point.
Then the rest of the world was de-colonized, started working for themselves rather than for Europe, and here we are.
So the question again is: Do you genuinely believe that this drop in relative output was caused by inward migration, considering all the other historical factors?
I'm not sure why you're coming up with a fictional hair-care product. If you aren't comfortable sharing your answer, then that's fine.
I’m afraid I don’t understand the logic behind what you’re trying to say regarding the relationship of GDP and immigration. Obviously net inward migration can only raise the total GDP of a country. The question of what happens to average incomes is much more nuanced, but there’s a fair bit of evidence that low paid workers can be hard hit in the short term, whereas everyone benefits in the long term: https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-and-jobs-labour...
I am not suggesting that you’re a racist or anti-immigration, just that your views on the relationship between GDP and immigration are wrong. Besides that, they do nothing to refute my original point that we should not have different classes of citizen based on race and geography.
You are talking about the same Britain that voted in favour of Brexit because they got tired of looking at Eastern Europeans? The same that allowed Tommy Robinson to rise to fame through even the main media channels? The same one that you can be called a 'paki' in while just walking down the street with your family in 2020? The same one that still has glass ceilings in finance and industry if you're not white?
Britain is a utopia compared to many countries, but don't get carried away. Also, don't half-understand things about other nations and then try and sell them over her as fact. You are out of your depth.
My suspicion is the rise of darwinism (who was a brit) intersected with the rise of colonialism. Colonizers may not have been too accepting of the whole "everyone comes from adam and eve" narrative when they met locals they deemed to be savages and inferior. Not that I am saying darwinism is the cause,just that their greed and arrogance thrived on any ideology that can be abused to help them with their goals.
We know that throughout human history, there had always been slaves. Whether they were from war conquests, prisoners, or what not. And maybe, some of them eventually got their freedoms, after serving for a term. Basically, they came and went, and no one thought anything of it.
But, what truly made the British and American system of slavery so evil, was that it became codified into laws. And written on papers, and enforced by the military, and police. And financed by the banks. This was truly, predatory capitalism, of the highest order. Thus, slavery became institutionalized.
This elevated slavery, from something that unfortunately happened to random people like prisoners, to completely enslaving, subjugating, humiliating, and genociding, a specific race of people, purely based on the color of their skin. And all this, happened in a democracy.
https://modernguidetohinduism.weebly.com/the-caste-system.ht...
I would suggest that 19th Century Indologists conflated and confused two different types of descriptions of caste hierarchy in the Hindu canon. The Vedas, Upanishads, and Puranas are descriptivist, and rather matter of factly report a stratified society, where privilege and wealth was inherited largely within the family. This is no different than any other Iron Age society anywhere in the world.
There is also a prescriptivist strain within the canon, that suggests that the status quo is indeed optimal. The varna system described in the scriptures is not too dissimilar from the paradigmatic society of Plato's Republic: a hierarchy based on rule by Philosopher-Kings, and a division of society led by people best suited to it. Each person has innate qualities that endear them to one or the other major occupations, and society is most harmonious when people do the jobs best suited to them. The Vedas also suggest that these traits are largely familial, though this is not watertight. The scriptures are full of examples of people who transcend the varna of their family, and conversely there are no shortage of wicked brahmins and kshatriyas. Nor does the historic record show varna as a hindrance to social mobility in Ancient India. The Shunga dynasty was founded by a Brahmin, and the fabled Nanda dynasty by an erstwhile barber. The most famous of all ancient Indian dynasties, the Mauryan, was founded by a former slave, who belonged to a lineage of lowly peacock hunters. For contemporary Indians, these kings were not interlopers, but rather their military prowess proved that they were indeed Kshatriyas. The son of a Kshatriya King will likely be a king, but not always, nor must a king always be the son of a kshatriya. Usually, but not always. Indeed, the Bhagavata Gita, the definitive text for Hindus, states that all humans are born as shudras, or lowly, and it is their qualities and actions in life that elevate them. The British, however, took an obscure text, the Manusmriti, and used that as the authoritative matter on caste. The manusmriti is indeed vitriolic about keeping societal classes separate, but the class of smriti texts have no inherent authority.
As to the point that enlightenment is open only to brahmins, the considered opinion of the acharyas is that this is not true, and I can only think of a single textual example where this is a stated opinion of a (minority) Hindu school. A 16th century compendium of religious sects by a Gaudiya scholar stated that another school (madhva) held that enlightenment is open only to demigods and brahmins, and is understood more as a criticism of their beliefs. Every school after the bhakti movement of the 8th century has explicitly stated that worship and moksha is open to all, regardless of caste, or gender. I think the confusion arises from debates starting from the 8th century, if moksha is only possible for sanyasis, or renunciates. Sanyasis can be from any caste, or any gender. Some schools did indeed believe that renunciation is a necessary prerequisite to enlightenment, and is not possible for the lay public.
Worst of all, it does not cite a single authoritative source. NOT a single acknowledged source.
I have seen low effort papers written by middle school students with better citations than this nonsense.
I just feel sorry of you at this stage.
Try being a non-white boy dating a white girl. Do you think racism doesn't rear its head in that case?
In any case, this is pretty blatant whataboutism. The article is about the UK, not about other countries, and racism in other countries does not make racism in the UK less bad.
Fact is however, Britain is small and cannot possibly let in an enormous number of people. How many are we talking about?
Germany let in over a million in 2015 and the effects on rents are already devastating.
How would you like if we force a small African country to potentially let in every European citizen on moral grounds?
The British Isles wouldn’t need to let in an enormous number of people, but they could if they wanted to. The roughly 300,000 BN(O) and 63,000 BOTC passport holders could easily be accommodated.
The UK grew by 14 million people between 1950 and today, that’s net growth of 200,000 per year for 70 years. The idea that Britain is now full is just nonsense. Now that the birth rate is below replacement levels, mass immigration is required just to sustain the current population size anyway.
That being the case, most people are understandably reluctant to leave their homes unless absolutely forced to by war.
In short: all British citizens should be free to migrate around British territories any way they please, but they probably wouldn’t exercise that right anyway.
> How would you like if we force a small African country to potentially let in every European citizen on moral grounds?
Most of them are pretty relaxed about Western immigration, or have a reciprocation policy where the rules are a mirror of the rules of your Western country of origin.
In short, what caused the increased food and housing prices was government spending leading to inflation; immigration was only one of the causes of this spending (the financial crisis in the southern European countries was another.) The expected outcome on Germany is a net-positive one.
EDIT: For the idiots downvoting. I know that Puerto Rico held referendums, I lived there for a while and I know a lot of people in government. The most recent referendum was massively boycotted and got extremely low turn out. Because of this many politicians in Puerto Rico consider it invalid. Bottom line, way too many rich politicians in Puerto Rico benefit from the lack of taxes and oversight to allow statehood. If they want statehood they have to actually put together a delegation to handle the transition which they have NOT done yet.
What about these referendums?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_refer...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_refer...
Article IV (in part):
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
...
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;
Too many rich people and politicians benefit from the lack of oversight and low taxes plus the corruption that results for them to allow statehood. If Puerto Ricans are serious about wanting statehood they can stop voting for these corrupt clowns anytime and vote in people that will complete the process of obtaining statehood.
Turnout in the 2012 referendum was 78%.
But on 2012: of 1,878,969 voters, 515,115 (27% of turnout) left the choice between statehood, independence, or free association blank at the behest of the PPD, who’s governor elect immediately asked President Obama to ignore the results due to ambiguity, while the outgoing PNP governor asked President Obama to begin the legislation process.
It’s not even remotely as simplistic as you’re implying by dropping a 78% figure and flitting away without any further context, have the decency to at least read the links you’ve posted.
The Puerto Rican government chose not to pursue statehood based on the low turn out, but the option is still available to them anytime. This has nothing to do with the USA federal government and everything to do with Puerto Rican politics.
Let’s agree that having different classes of citizenship is just a terrible idea for the precious values of freedom, justice, and democracy. No other argument really matters. Working backwards from that, we should eliminate any circumstance in our control that creates any special class of citizen, be they living in gilded cages or rusty iron ones.
Besides, they are already U.S. citizens by right, they don’t need to vote on anything. They are just denied full constitutional rights because reasons. It’s a disgrace and we all know it.
The referendums they held were boycotted by a huge majority of the population and due to the low turn out not considered valid. There is a VERY strong anti-statehood movement in Puerto Rico and a minority that want full independence and a minority that want statehood.
The Puerto Rican government chose not to pursue statehood based on the low turn out, but the option is still available to them anytime. This has nothing to do with the USA federal government and everything to do with Puerto Rican politics.
Too many politicians in Puerto Rico benefit from the corruption and low taxes to allow statehood.
What is the threshold for determining whether an election is valid? If I don't like the choices can I also boycott? Would it have any effect if another 6% of the population did likewise?
1. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-t...
What I’m saying is, there should be no option of quasi-citizenship. Either you enjoy all the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship, or you don’t.
We’ve already settled this argument long ago so it’s just a question of whether we’ll fairly enforce the conclusion we came to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-class_citizen
That's not true. Look at the results from the 2012 and 2017 referendums:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_refer...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_refer...
> The option is available to them anytime they want it.
That is not true either. None of these referendums have triggered a change of status.
The Puerto Rican government chose not to pursue statehood based on the low turn out, but the option is still available to them anytime. This has nothing to do with the USA federal government and everything to do with Puerto Rican politics.
Too many politicians in Puerto Rico benefit from the corruption and low taxes to allow statehood.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20160424062259/http://www.taiwan...
Jfc..
It was always more paternal than fraternal, quite a lot of the freedom was won with violence (e.g. Kenya), if it were equal there would be no talk of "carry the idea alone", the UK did not join the EU in 1973 it joined the EEC (EU free movement only appeared in 1992), and the British public made it clear that they were only OK with free movement so long as the number of nonwhite people in the UK remained small.
1971 and the Kenyan Asians was the trigger for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_1971 - that was the point at which Commonwealth citizens lost the right to live in the UK itself. Two years before EEC accession. (And the same year as decimalisation of the currency!)
At the height of the Empire there were effectively no internal movement restrictions other than income inequality and the difficulties of transport; you no more needed permission to move from Delhi to London than from Glasgow.
Oh and gave it a go as in gave letting everyone in the old empire continue to be able to come to UK a go.
During the decolonization of the British Empire, the UK did not want large numbers of non-white people immigrating to the British Isles. HK was only one instance of this. BN(O) nationality was one of many convenient bureaucratic fictions created in order to rationalize how someone born as a British subject in a British territory could lose the right to continue to live on British territory. Particularly affected were people of Indian ethnicity who had immigrated to other British colonies as civil servants; they became ethnic minorities in their newly independent countries and while their white coworkers were granted British citizenship, they were left behind.
Thousands of people became stateless as a result of this policy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_citizen [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas)