Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [WorldCitizen] Re: A new novel for the peoples of the world

Expand Messages
  • ro-esp
    ... that s beside the point, unless you ve heard of wars between bloodtypes or such ... That s why I think we should improve the situations elsewhere. Starting
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 23, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Je Sat, 20 Mar 2004 07:25:12 -0000, "elpresidente235" <elpresidente235@...> sendis:


      >> > The book is 'Deep Blue - A Novel of Racial Conflict'
      Ronaldo:
      >> I don't believe in those "races". I heard that genetic diversity
      > _within
      >> the african "race"_ is a lot higher than within non-africans.
      > Conflicts
      >> IMHO arise from discrimination or cultural/mentality-clashes

      > Well, that is partially true; while there is little or no real
      > genetic variation between different ethnic groups, you can classifly
      > these same groups by their suceptibility to various diseases, namely
      > heart disease and certain forms of cancer. So in that respect, race
      > does exist.

      that's beside the point, unless you've heard of wars between bloodtypes
      or such

      Ronaldo:
      >> I think it's too simplistic to take a tough stand in favour of
      >> fighting symptoms (restrict immigration for instance). I don't
      >> think people will move thousands of kilometers, away from friends,
      >> relatives and mother tongue, just for fun. If you want to reduce
      >> migration, you should do something about the conditions
      >> (environment, poverty, political suppression) that people flee from.
      >> Let's face it, we (rich countries/corporations) have been sucking
      >> out resources there for decades.

      > This is true, but we can't just allow unmitigated immigration
      > into "1st world" countries.

      That's why I think we should improve the situations elsewhere. Starting
      with not selling our surpluses below the costprices, for instance

      > In the United States, for instance,
      > there is a problem with the number of immigrants crossing the
      > nation's southern border, ignoring the legal immigration process. As
      > a result, they can't advance in American society because there is a
      > risk of deportation (Eventually, at least - the Immigration and
      > Naturalization Service is in complete disarray at this time)

      would they be able to advance if they were legalised ? Surely the US is
      big enough and rich enough

      > and their host states are going bankrupt due to health care costs

      Maybe those states don't tax their rich citizens enough

      > (In many states, public hospitals are required to provide care to
      > everyone who seeks aid, regardless of their status as a resident.

      And with good reason. Untreated disease leads to more people being
      unable to work or even take care of themselves, thus adding burden to
      everybody (well, unless you just kill the sick ..), so in the longer
      run, not treating would be more expensive. This is especially true about
      for instance tuberculosis

      > As a result, hospitals are being overloaded by the large numbers of
      > illegal immigrants who can't pay their medical expenses).

      Is that because they're underpaid or do indigenous people have similar
      problems ?

      > On top of that, there has been a crime problem due to illegals who
      > entered the country to avoid prosecution back home.

      Hmm, if they flee from prosecution one would expect that they would do
      their utmost to prevent capture (and subsequent extradition). Maybe it's
      their failing to find a decently paid job, or other illegality-connected
      factors that drive them to crime.

      Where I live, 80 % of crime is committed by a few dozen illegal-drug-
      addicts. I hope to see the day that those substances are finally
      legalised (like that other very hard drug, alcohol), but that aside

      > I agree that everyone should be given an opportunity to come to a
      > more prosperous country and become a productive member of society.

      I don't want mere "opportunity", I want everybody to be able to live a
      "decent" life, wherever

      > However, immigrants have to enter their "host countries" through
      > legal channels

      if they can, they will

      > and abide by the laws and customs of the land.

      do they have enough ways to find out about those ? It would help them
      pick the most suited for them, but in reality many refugees don't even
      know where they flee to untill they get there.
      If they choose to go to the US or UK, I suspect that it has more to do
      with what language you learn in school and what movies you see than with
      the laws and customs

      > Besides, there are some people who simply cannot join society or
      > contribute to the community at large, and therefore cannot be
      > allowed into the "host country" (I'm thinking specifically of those
      > who have committed violent crimes).

      That would be worth a different thread. Anyone ?

      greetings, Ronaldo



      -- http://www.esperanto.net
      -- Arachne V1.69, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
    • Spandana Suddapalli
      Hi Ronaldo, I find myself in agreement with all your responses. Passports and visas were substantially instituted only during WWI in response to general
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 25, 2004
      • 0 Attachment

        Hi Ronaldo,
        I find myself in agreement with all your responses. Passports and visas were substantially instituted only during WWI in response to general European paranoia at the time and in an effort to prevent the free movement of labor, which has been their primary purpose ever since. Adam Smith said in 1776 that no free market could ever be beneficial unless labor was as free to follow its natural tendency to move toward the highest wage as capital was free to move toward the highest level of return on investment. The world now has approximately one half of a free market: a free market for capital but not for labour. This is disastrous.

        It is also hypocritical for any American except the Native Americans to object to free immigration to the US. Curious that so many Americans, now that they have theirs, adopt the position for which their ancestors murdered the Native Americans. If they thought objecting to immigration was barbaric of the Native Americans, why don’t they think they are barbarians themselves?

        Richard Duffee


        On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 ro-esp wrote :

        >Je Sat, 20 Mar 2004 07:25:12 -0000, "elpresidente235" sendis:
        >
        >
        > >> > The book is 'Deep Blue - A Novel of Racial Conflict'
        >Ronaldo:
        > >> I don't believe in those "races". I heard that genetic diversity
        > > _within
        > >> the african "race"_ is a lot higher than within non-africans.
        > > Conflicts
        > >> IMHO arise from discrimination or cultural/mentality-clashes
        >
        > > Well, that is partially true; while there is little or no real
        > > genetic variation between different ethnic groups, you can classifly
        > > these same groups by their suceptibility to various diseases, namely
        > > heart disease and certain forms of cancer. So in that respect, race
        > > does exist.
        >
        >that's beside the point, unless you've heard of wars between bloodtypes
        >or such
        >
        >Ronaldo:
        > >> I think it's too simplistic to take a tough stand in favour of
        > >> fighting symptoms (restrict immigration for instance). I don't
        > >> think people will move thousands of kilometers, away from friends,
        > >> relatives and mother tongue, just for fun. If you want to reduce
        > >> migration, you should do something about the conditions
        > >> (environment, poverty, political suppression) that people flee from.
        > >> Let's face it, we (rich countries/corporations) have been sucking
        > >> out resources there for decades.
        >
        > > This is true, but we can't just allow unmitigated immigration
        > > into "1st world" countries.
        >
        >That's why I think we should improve the situations elsewhere. Starting
        >with not selling our surpluses below the costprices, for instance
        >
        > > In the United States, for instance,
        > > there is a problem with the number of immigrants crossing the
        > > nation's southern border, ignoring the legal immigration process. As
        > > a result, they can't advance in American society because there is a
        > > risk of deportation (Eventually, at least - the Immigration and
        > > Naturalization Service is in complete disarray at this time)
        >
        >would they be able to advance if they were legalised ? Surely the US is
        >big enough and rich enough
        >
        > > and their host states are going bankrupt due to health care costs
        >
        >Maybe those states don't tax their rich citizens enough
        >
        > > (In many states, public hospitals are required to provide care to
        > > everyone who seeks aid, regardless of their status as a resident.
        >
        >And with good reason. Untreated disease leads to more people being
        >unable to work or even take care of themselves, thus adding burden to
        >everybody (well, unless you just kill the sick ..), so in the longer
        >run, not treating would be more expensive. This is especially true about
        >for instance tuberculosis
        >
        > > As a result, hospitals are being overloaded by the large numbers of
        > > illegal immigrants who can't pay their medical expenses).
        >
        >Is that because they're underpaid or do indigenous people have similar
        >problems ?
      • Gary K. Shepherd
        Hi It has been my experience that Americans object to immigration because they are fairly ignorant of their own history. Few, for instance, are aware that the
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 26, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi
          It has been my experience that Americans object to immigration because they
          are fairly ignorant of their own history. Few, for instance, are aware that
          the proportion of immigrants to those born in the country is actually
          smaller now than it was in the early 20th century.

          I personally think that immigrants use a disproportionate percentage of
          public benefits because they are poorer than the 'native-born' population,
          and they are poorer because employers take advantage of their status to pay
          them less, knowing that those that complain can be threatened with
          deportation. If they were no longer restricted, I tend to think that things
          would even out over the long run.

          World peace and Unity,
          Gary

          At 10:16 AM 3/25/2004 +0000, you wrote:

          >Hi Ronaldo,
          >I find myself in agreement with all your responses. Passports and visas
          >were substantially instituted only during WWI in response to general
          >European paranoia at the time and in an effort to prevent the free
          >movement of labor, which has been their primary purpose ever since. Adam
          >Smith said in 1776 that no free market could ever be beneficial unless
          >labor was as free to follow its natural tendency to move toward the
          >highest wage as capital was free to move toward the highest level of
          >return on investment. The world now has approximately one half of a free
          >market: a free market for capital but not for labour. This is disastrous.
          >
          >It is also hypocritical for any American except the Native Americans to
          >object to free immigration to the US. Curious that so many Americans, now
          >that they have theirs, adopt the position for which their ancestors
          >murdered the Native Americans. If they thought objecting to immigration
          >was barbaric of the Native Americans, why don't they think they are
          >barbarians themselves?
          >
          >Richard Duffee
          >
          >
          >On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 ro-esp wrote :
          > >Je Sat, 20 Mar 2004 07:25:12 -0000, "elpresidente235" sendis:
          > >
          > >
          > > >> > The book is 'Deep Blue - A Novel of Racial Conflict'
          > >Ronaldo:
          > > >> I don't believe in those "races". I heard that genetic diversity
          > > > _within
          > > >> the african "race"_ is a lot higher than within non-africans.
          > > > Conflicts
          > > >> IMHO arise from discrimination or cultural/mentality-clashes
          > >
          > > > Well, that is partially true; while there is little or no real
          > > > genetic variation between different ethnic groups, you can classifly
          > > > these same groups by their suceptibility to various diseases, namely
          > > > heart disease and certain forms of cancer. So in that respect, race
          > > > does exist.
          > >
          > >that's beside the point, unless you've heard of wars between bloodtypes
          > >or such
          > >
          > >Ronaldo:
          > > >> I think it's too simplistic to take a tough stand in favour of
          > > >> fighting symptoms (restrict immigration for instance). I don't
          > > >> think people will move thousands of kilometers, away from friends,
          > > >> relatives and mother tongue, just for fun. If you want to reduce
          > > >> migration, you should do something about the conditions
          > > >> (environment, poverty, political suppression) that people flee from.
          > > >> Let's face it, we (rich countries/corporations) have been sucking
          > > >> out resources there for decades.
          > >
          > > > This is true, but we can't just allow unmitigated immigration
          > > > into "1st world" countries.
          > >
          > >That's why I think we should improve the situations elsewhere. Starting
          > >with not selling our surpluses below the costprices, for instance
          > >
          > > > In the United States, for instance,
          > > > there is a problem with the number of immigrants crossing the
          > > > nation's southern border, ignoring the legal immigration process. As
          > > > a result, they can't advance in American society because there is a
          > > > risk of deportation (Eventually, at least - the Immigration and
          > > > Naturalization Service is in complete disarray at this time)
          > >
          > >would they be able to advance if they were legalised ? Surely the US is
          > >big enough and rich enough
          > >
          > > > and their host states are going bankrupt due to health care costs
          > >
          > >Maybe those states don't tax their rich citizens enough
          > >
          > > > (In many states, public hospitals are required to provide care to
          > > > everyone who seeks aid, regardless of their status as a resident.
          > >
          > >And with good reason. Untreated disease leads to more people being
          > >unable to work or even take care of themselves, thus adding burden to
          > >everybody (well, unless you just kill the sick ..), so in the longer
          > >run, not treating would be more expensive. This is especially true about
          > >for instance tuberculosis
          > >
          > > > As a result, hospitals are being overloaded by the large numbers of
          > > > illegal immigrants who can't pay their medical expenses).
          > >
          > >Is that because they're underpaid or do indigenous people have similar
          > >problems ?
          >
          >
          >"I have believed that the only way peace can be achieved is through world
          >government" (Jawaharal Nehru)
          >
          >For more information: www.worldservice.org and info@...
          >
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          >ADVERTISEMENT
          >
          >
          >----------
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > *
          > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldCitizen/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldCitizen/
          >
          > *
          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > *
          > <mailto:WorldCitizen-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>WorldCitizen-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > *
          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
          > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

          Gary K. Shepherd
          Documents Center
          Morris Library
          SIU
          Carbondale, IL 62901
          618-536-2163
          gshepher@...
        • elpresidente235
          ... classifly ... namely ... race ... bloodtypes ... I know, I just wanted to point out that there is a slight distinction between races. ... friends, ...
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 29, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            > > Well, that is partially true; while there is little or no real
            > > genetic variation between different ethnic groups, you can
            classifly
            > > these same groups by their suceptibility to various diseases,
            namely
            > > heart disease and certain forms of cancer. So in that respect,
            race
            > > does exist.
            >
            > that's beside the point, unless you've heard of wars between
            bloodtypes
            > or such

            I know, I just wanted to point out that there is a slight distinction
            between races.
            >
            > Ronaldo:
            > >> I think it's too simplistic to take a tough stand in favour of
            > >> fighting symptoms (restrict immigration for instance). I don't
            > >> think people will move thousands of kilometers, away from
            friends,
            > >> relatives and mother tongue, just for fun. If you want to reduce
            > >> migration, you should do something about the conditions
            > >> (environment, poverty, political suppression) that people flee
            from.
            > >> Let's face it, we (rich countries/corporations) have been sucking
            > >> out resources there for decades.
            >
            > > This is true, but we can't just allow unmitigated immigration
            > > into "1st world" countries.
            >
            > That's why I think we should improve the situations elsewhere.
            Starting
            > with not selling our surpluses below the costprices, for instance

            But how do you encourage companies to sell their products abroad for
            less than the costprice? (Unless you are referring to foreign aid,
            which plenty of countries engage in, to little or no avail)


            > > In the United States, for instance,
            > > there is a problem with the number of immigrants crossing the
            > > nation's southern border, ignoring the legal immigration process.
            As
            > > a result, they can't advance in American society because there is
            a
            > > risk of deportation (Eventually, at least - the Immigration and
            > > Naturalization Service is in complete disarray at this time)
            >
            > would they be able to advance if they were legalised ? Surely the
            US is
            > big enough and rich enough

            Yes, I do think immigrants would have an easier time advancing in
            society if they were legalized. An illegal alien, fo instance, can't
            get a loan, buy a home, drive a car, or get any job better than that
            of janitorial work or "illegal activity."

            And yes, I also think that the US is big enough and rich enough (in
            certian areas) to handle the influx of immigrants; I just feel that
            the INS processing program needs to be streamlined to handle the load
            and border security needs to be tightened to ensure that immigrants
            only go through legal channels to get here.
            >
            > > and their host states are going bankrupt due to health care costs
            >
            > Maybe those states don't tax their rich citizens enough

            Ah, I see, that's the solution to everything! If there is a budget
            problem, it's obvious that we haven't taken enough from the rich!
            Here's the problem with that line of thinking: if a state (like, say,
            Arizona) raises takes to make up for a budget crunch

            > > (In many states, public hospitals are required to provide care to
            > > everyone who seeks aid, regardless of their status as a resident.
            >
            > And with good reason. Untreated disease leads to more people being
            > unable to work or even take care of themselves, thus adding burden
            to
            > everybody (well, unless you just kill the sick ..), so in the longer
            > run, not treating would be more expensive. This is especially true
            about
            > for instance tuberculosis
            >
            > > As a result, hospitals are being overloaded by the large numbers
            of
            > > illegal immigrants who can't pay their medical expenses).
            >
            > Is that because they're underpaid or do indigenous people have
            similar
            > problems ?

            Well, it's a combination of being underpaid and also lacking health
            insurance to cover the costs, and while there are indigenous people
            who are uninsured as well, they are not in nearly as great numbers as
            illegal immigrants.

            On another note, I have no qualms with providing health care to the
            sick regardless of where they came form, I just have a problem with
            people coming into a country in a way that disregards the laws of the
            host.
            >
            > > On top of that, there has been a crime problem due to illegals who
            > > entered the country to avoid prosecution back home.
            >
            > Hmm, if they flee from prosecution one would expect that they would
            do
            > their utmost to prevent capture (and subsequent extradition). Maybe
            it's
            > their failing to find a decently paid job, or other illegality-
            connected
            > factors that drive them to crime.

            Bah! I don't care what the reasoning behind their crimes is, they
            still broke the law and have to be punished. Besides, violent crimes
            can't just be waved off as the concequence of poor job quality.
            >
            > Where I live, 80 % of crime is committed by a few dozen illegal-
            drug-
            > addicts. I hope to see the day that those substances are finally
            > legalised (like that other very hard drug, alcohol), but that aside

            It certainly is. Please stay on topic, I can argue with you about
            illegal drugs all day long if you want, just not here.
            >
            > > I agree that everyone should be given an opportunity to come to a
            > > more prosperous country and become a productive member of society.
            >
            > I don't want mere "opportunity", I want everybody to be able to
            live a
            > "decent" life, wherever

            Isn't that what opporiunity is? The ability to persue a "decent life"
            through hard work?
            >
            > > However, immigrants have to enter their "host countries" through
            > > legal channels
            >
            > if they can, they will

            exactly

            > > and abide by the laws and customs of the land.
            >
            > do they have enough ways to find out about those ? It would help
            them
            > pick the most suited for them, but in reality many refugees don't
            even
            > know where they flee to untill they get there.
            > If they choose to go to the US or UK, I suspect that it has more to
            do
            > with what language you learn in school and what movies you see than
            with
            > the laws and customs

            That's what immigrant processing programs are for; anyways, I'd think
            that everyone has the common sense to know that they shouldn't steal
            or kill. I'm not concerned about jaywalking and littering offences,
            I'm concerned about armed robbery and murder.
            >
            > > Besides, there are some people who simply cannot join society or
            > > contribute to the community at large, and therefore cannot be
            > > allowed into the "host country" (I'm thinking specifically of
            those
            > > who have committed violent crimes).
            >
            > That would be worth a different thread. Anyone ?

            Alright, I'm interested. Somebody make a posting on this topic.

            -Lewis
          • ro-esp
            ... I didn t know that ... I think it s disastrous that investments have a turnout, because that often means money is sucked out of a society. However, I do
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Je 25 Mar 2004 10:16:08 -0000, Spandana Suddapalli sendis:

              > Passports and visas were substantially instituted only during WWI

              I didn't know that

              > in response to general European paranoia at the time and in an effort
              > to prevent the free movement of labor, which has been their primary
              > purpose ever since. Adam Smith said in 1776 that no free market could
              > ever be beneficial unless labor was as free to follow its natural
              > tendency to move toward the highest wage as capital was free to move
              > toward the highest level of return on investment. The world now has
              > approximately one half of a free market: a free market for capital but
              > not for labour. This is disastrous.

              I think it's disastrous that investments have a turnout, because that
              often means money is sucked out of a society. However, I do think freedom for
              humans is a lot more important than for money.

              I also think that "investing" (creating enterprises) in regions with
              high unemployment is better than dragging people from those area's to
              regions where unemployment happens to be lower. The idea that a majority
              of humanity is dwelling in an urban environment is quite disturbing to
              me

              [I'll be getting back on lewis elpresidente later]

              greetings, Ronaldo



              -- http://www.esperanto.net
              -- Arachne V1.69, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
            • ro_esp2
              ... sucking ... aid, ... I m referring firstly to subsidies that create surpluses (like butttermountains, grainhills etc). I ve been to a farmers meeting a
              Message 6 of 10 , May 4, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "elpresidente235"
                <elpresidente235@y...> wrote:

                > > Ronaldo:
                > >If you want to reduce
                > > >> migration, you should do something about the conditions
                > > >> (environment, poverty, political suppression) that people flee
                > from.
                > > >> Let's face it, we (rich countries/corporations) have been
                sucking
                > > >> out resources there for decades.
                > >
                > > > This is true, but we can't just allow unmitigated immigration
                > > > into "1st world" countries.
                > >
                > > That's why I think we should improve the situations elsewhere.
                > Starting
                > > with not selling our surpluses below the costprices, for instance
                >
                > But how do you encourage companies to sell their products abroad
                > for less than the costprice? (Unless you are referring to foreign >
                aid,
                > which plenty of countries engage in, to little or no avail)

                I'm referring firstly to subsidies that create surpluses (like
                butttermountains, grainhills etc). I've been to a farmers meeting a
                while back, and heard them say they don't like agrosubsidies either.
                They prefer real prices for their products, that is, prices that
                cover their expenses and keep them above the poverty line

                Another kind of subsidies I heard of a few years ago: it was a
                european subsidy, and went on between france and germany. Apparently,
                two components (eggs and oil?) were mixed in one of the 2 countries,
                then exported (as mayonaise ?) to the other one, which was
                subsidised. Then, it was unmixed again, and exported back, which was
                also subsidised...




                > And yes, I also think that the US is big enough and rich enough (in
                > certain areas) to handle the influx of immigrants; I just feel that
                > the INS processing program needs to be streamlined to handle the
                load
                > and border security needs to be tightened to ensure that immigrants
                > only go through legal channels to get here.
                > >
                > > > and their host states are going bankrupt due to health care
                costs
                > >
                > > Maybe those states don't tax their rich citizens enough
                >
                > Ah, I see, that's the solution to everything!

                no strawdolls please. there's other possibillities. Disbanding the
                INS altogether should be discussable, given the name of this list..

                But any way you turn it, cutting expenses will mean some people will
                have less money, so it's best to get it from those who'll feel it
                least


                > If there is a budget
                > problem, it's obvious that we haven't taken enough from the rich!
                > Here's the problem with that line of thinking: if a state (like,
                say,
                > Arizona) raises takes to make up for a budget crunch

                looks like something fell out here

                > > > there has been a crime problem due to illegals who
                > > > entered the country to avoid prosecution back home.
                > >
                > > Hmm, if they flee from prosecution one would expect that they
                would dotheir utmost to prevent capture (and subsequent
                extradition). Maybe it's
                > > their failing to find a decently paid job, or other illegality-
                > connected factors that drive them to crime.
                >
                > Bah! I don't care what the reasoning behind their crimes is, they
                > still broke the law and have to be punished.

                That's rather end-of-pipe. Don't you think prevention might be cheaper
                (in both money and suffering by victims) ? What about those who
                commit a crime to get into jail, because there they get health care
                they couldn't afford on the outside ?

                > > > I agree that everyone should be given an opportunity to come to
                >>>>> a more prosperous country and become a productive member of
                society.
                > >
                > > I don't want mere "opportunity", I want everybody to be able to
                > live a
                > > "decent" life, wherever
                >
                > Isn't that what opportunity is? The ability to persue a "decent
                life" through hard work?

                I said everybody. Unfortunately there's no one-on-one-relation
                between income and hard work, nor is paid work distributed on the
                basis of how much everybody wants to work. If it were, people like me
                would work some 20 hours a week, and those who want to drive cars,
                fly in aeroplanes, have yachts etc would work more.

                If those things are what one pursues one should buy lottery tickets,
                or shares (stocks, bonds ? I don't know the terminology ), because
                they're attainable only if others work for you

                so much for now, greetings, Ronaldo
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.