Sviesta Ciba |

this is a ransom demand (

kakjux) rakstīja,
@ 2016-06-24 10:09:00

Entry tags:

pasaule, uk

They got what they wanted. Kurās valstīs mūsdienās grib software testerus? Zināju jau, ka nevajag man to šejienes pilsonību.

(Lasīt komentārus) - (Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)

brookings
2016-06-25 13:33 (saite)

Well, that is what happens when your country can't control immigration - you can keep a lid on it by calling anyone who is not sure it is a good idea a racist or xenophobe, but only until a point: eventually, it will explode. Anyway, I hope you don't suffer any trouble - I'm a migrant, too, of course, and when I hear negative things about Brits, I can get a little emotional, too (and then start generalising ;)).

Most of London voted for Remain, no? Where I am from originally it was over 70% for Leave - and I think those people had a reason for voting that way.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

kakjux
2016-06-25 15:03 (saite)

Even if I might not agree, I can accept that there is more to it than just immigration issues and even if there aren't. And I don't think that all Brits are bad racist monsters, I accept that a lot of people have researched this and made up their minds carefully. And that I have to live with. But I don't like all the fear mongering and encouraging of racist and xenophobic behaviour (both issues happen on both sides, to be fair).

But deep inside, I do feel a bit hurt. And scared. And the uncertainty is just killing me. A friend of mine has her contract ending at the end of next week and she can't find a new job because nobody dares to hire EU people even if they have lived here for years (and I don't blame them, I wouldn't as well).

And I am scared that there is more and more support for nationalist views all around the world. It's fucking terrifying and I know there is nowhere to run from that. EU seemed to be the union that kept Europe at peace for all these years. Never has Europe been at peace in it's own territory for this long. So, yes, I don't know what else to do, but run back to EU (though Latvia is not an option for me).

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	brookings 2016-06-25 15:06 (saite)
	Quick question - do you consider yourself to be a member of the Latvian nation? (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	kakjux 2016-06-25 15:21 (saite)
	No. Actually I don't and I haven't for a very long time, even before I moved to London. I am and have been a Londonder for 9 years now. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

brookings
2016-06-25 15:28 (saite)

So... well, that was your choice, and I feel a little sad about it. You consider yourself a Londoner, but have no roots there. Don't take it the wrong way -I have been here in Latvia for 16 years, but I don't presume to call myself anything other than a Brit - that's where I was brought up - that's where my roots are. Sure, I have learned Latvian and integrated and I have two delightful daughters who are half British/half Latvian, and the experience here has dramatically coloured my understanding ... but I am British - it can never be washed away, and I wouldn't want it to be. After all, I chose to come here: another country.

This is where the rise in nationalism comes from - actually, it isn't really a 'rise' - more a rise in the significance of the question. It comes from having this certainty of your national identity threatened, diminished, traduced, or just forgotten in convenience.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

kakjux
2016-06-25 16:02 (saite)

I think it's very personal, our identity. I think I never identified particularly as Latvian, I don't feel I have roots there. probably comes from me being disconnected with my family. I more appreciate all the life I have made for myself here. I started with very little and bit by bit built on it. with help, sometimes without, but I did it. and I am thankful to London for being here, for taking me in, a completely lost, well, a child really, and letting me develop and turn into this person who finally had something to be proud of. and yesterday morning on the tube, I felt that this is being taken away from me and I got really angry.

but I appreciate that other people's identities are different and I respect, or at least try to respect that. just please don't take away who I am from me.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	brookings 2016-06-25 16:06 (saite)
	I don't know - to me if you were born and raised in a certain country, you are from that country and your a product of/answer to its language, culture and experience. I might want to be a Latvian - I might insist that people refer to me as such, but really... I never will be one. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

begemots
2016-06-26 01:23 (saite)

Might've quoted this before, but:

I believe that a distinction must be drawn between the concept of “immigration” and that of “migration”. Immigration occurs when some individuals (even many individuals, but in numbers that are statistically irrelevant with respect to the original stock) move from one country to another (like the Italians and the Irish in America, or the Turks today in Germany). The phenomenon of immigration may be controlled politically, restricted, encouraged, planned, or accepted. This is not the case with migration. Violent or pacific as it may be, it is like a natural phenomenon: it happens, and no one can control it. Migration occurs when an entire people, little by little, moves from one territory to another (the number remaining in the original territory is of no importance: what counts is the extent to which the migrants change the culture of the territory to which they have migrated). There have been great migrations from East to West, in the course of which the peoples of the Caucasus changed the culture and biological heredity of the natives. Then there were the migrations of the “barbarian” peoples that invaded the Roman Empire and created new kingdoms and new cultures called “Romano-barbarian” or “Romano-Germanic”. There was European migration toward the American continent, from the East coast and then gradually across to California, and also from the Carribean islands and Mexico all the way to Tierra del Fuego. Even though this was in part politically planned, I use the term “migration” because the European whites did not adopt the customs and the culture of the natives, but rather founded a new civilization to which even the natives (those who survived) adapted. There have been interrupted migrations, like those of the Arab peoples who got as far as the Iberian peninsula. There have been forms of migration that were planned and partial, but no less influential for this, like that of Europeans to the East and South (hence the birth of the so-called postcolonial nations), where the migrants nonetheless changed the culture of the autochthonous peoples. I don’t think anyone has so far described a phenomenology of the different types of migration, but migration is certainly different from immigration. We have only immigration when the immigrants (admitted according to political decisions) accept most of the customs of the country into which they have immigrated, while migration occurs when the migrants (whom no one can stop at the frontiers) radically transform the culture of the territory they have migrated to. Today, after a 19th century full of immigrants, we find ourselves faced with unclear phenomena. In a climate marked by pronounced mobility, it is very difficult to say whether a certain movement of people is immigration or migration. There is certainly an unstoppable flow from the south to the north (as Africans and Middle Easterners head for Europe), the Indians have invaded Africa and the Pacific Islands, the Chinese are everywhere, and the Japanese are present with their industrial and economic organizations even though they have not moved physically in any significant numbers. Is it possible to distinguish immigration from migration when the entire planet is becoming the territory of intersecting movements of people? I think it is possible: as I have said, immigration can be controlled politically, but like natural phenomena, migration can't be. As long as there is immigration, peoples can hope to keep the immigrants in a ghetto, so that they do not mix with the natives. When migration occurs, there are no more ghettos, and intermarriage is uncontrollable. What Europe is still trying to tackle as immigration is instead migration. The Third World is knocking at our doors, and it will come in even if we are not in agreement. The problem is no longer to decide (as politicians pretend) whether students at a Paris university can wear the chador or how many mosques should be built in Rome. The problem is that the next millennium (and since I am not a prophet, I cannot say exactly when) Europe will become a multicultural continent – or a “colored” one, if you prefer. That’s how it will be, whether you like it or not.
//U.Eco: Migration, Tolerance and the Intolerable, NY, Harcourt, 2001

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

brookings
2016-06-26 08:14 (saite)

So, he defines 'migration' as movement that can't be controlled politically and 'immigration' as movement that can.
So free movement of Labour in the EU just encourages immigration (as 'migration' can't be controlled)?
Merkel's call also encourages both, no? Or, really, does the penultimate line give it away - it encourages non-European movement into Europe, which is what the author is really saying is 'migration' in this age.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

(Lasīt komentārus) -

Navigate: