New Polish Migration Policy Seen Enshrining Xenophobia

According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, “invasion” can also describe:

an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way:

i.e. the annual invasion of foreign tourists

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/invasion

The notion that invasion only describes a military occupation is rather recent (like within the last 2 weeks).

Why should they? Do you think “invasion” is a naughty word?

1 Like

The word can still apply, invasion

an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.

My house is invaded by ants every summer, literally. I’ve also found that appropriate barriers make a good deterrence.

3 Likes

The word can still apply, invasion

Of course, but people are clearly using it to draw a parallel between the Reconquista or settler colonialism or whatever other historical trope they want to invoke to stir up national sentiment and racial divisions. You yourself did this earlier in the thread, you’re only conceding now because you know that it’s a totally untenable position to genuinely take.

Why should they? Do you think “invasion” is a naughty word?

I think it’s deliberately trying to depict immigration as a hostile, aggressive, “alien” force. It clearly invokes an image of an attacking foreign army. This is hardly what is happening. The partition of the world that capital has created drives people towards western countries and into the mercy of the states that administrate those countries. It’s hardly an invasion when you’re at the mercy of the state you’re residing under, a state that’s backed with the force of arms and its law.

1 Like

Some “pre-capitalist” states had those qualities and some post-capitalist states don’t.

Capitalist states are definitely marked by all of those things, and where they don’t exist their absence is notable, and normally means a state of civil/political unrest.

Do you really think states like Iraq have “…a sense of national identity…”? Clearly that society, like many others, is tribal, not national.

They have a government and a parliamentary body, a national anthem, a Prime Minister, and are a member of the UN, a supranational body aimed at uniting nation states. As far as I can see they have all the markings of a nation-state that a feudal state wouldn’t. They aren’t a loose federation of tribes like the Mongol Empire or a territory organised through a system of vassals or anything.

And neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan have “clearly defined borders”.

Border disputes are very much a product of modern nation-states, which attempt to clearly define their borders. Feudal and Classical era states often didn’t have clearly defined or well guarded borders, there would be nothing clearly marking where one state ends and another begins, and no border guard stopping you passing between those two lines.

In some of the north African states, borders are just lines on a map, having no other reality.

This would have been common place throughout much of history. This only becomes a problem when the modern nation-state arises because such states demand clear borders.

And I would say a state that beheads women for adultery and forces “female circumcision” is definitely “culturally backward”.

I didn’t say otherwise, but I’m not sure that stops them from being modern nation-states. Nazi Germany was undoubtedly an effectively organized modern administration, and it committed atrocities.

I’m afraid I would have to differ about this. It was exactly because the U.S. was able to enlist the tribal leaders in Iraq that the “Awakening Council” to fight Al Quaeda was possible. It was an aggregate of tribes. And the reason why the tribal leaders have power is because of the number of close supporting relatives and the fact that they demand and receive benefits from the government in exchange for their support, which benefits they distribute among the tribal members. It’s 21st Century feudalism.

Afghanistan is a theoretical country which actually consists of several ethnic/tribal states. The Kurds in Iraq and Syria are independent in all but name. Turkey defends Turkoman independence in Iraq. Those stories are repeated all over the globe. Now and then a piece breaks off, like South Sudan or East Timor. Singapore is not part of Malaysia anymore because it’s ethnically Chinese, not Malay. Remember the carnage in Africa between the Hutu and Tutsi? There was no nation of Rwanda there, just tribes.

1 Like

I don’t agree with your assessment of Iraq, and I think you’re confusing the existence of a certain form of administration that you consider culturally backward with the lack of a nation-state. To wind the conversation back a bit, what’s your point? Why does this mean we should restrict immigration from any of these places? if you think they’re bad, shouldn’t people be able to escape them? Generally most people concede that refugees from unstable countries are the kind of immigrants that are welcome. It’s the “economic migrants” that are feared.

Afghanistan is a theoretical country which actually consists of several ethnic/tribal states…

I don’t understand your point here. Afghanistan is not a “theoretical” country, no more than Spain or any other country. It has a government that tries to enforce its borders. The fact that it has ethnic disputes means nothing, no more than the Catalonians wanting to secede from Spain means Spain is “theoretical.” All nation-states are conceptually abstract and do not exist in nature, they only exist in so far as the government can enforce their existence. The kind of ethnic tensions you mention are common for nation-states, and they just help to mark the fact that the nation-state is not a transhistorical thing, not a permanent or necessary thing, and that the existence of nation-states in most of the world was a product of the partitioning of the world by European powers.

“Theoretical” or, as I think is more inaccurate, unstable or divided nation-states have existed even in Europe. Look at Yugoslavia. Belgium didn’t exist until the 19th century. The nation-state is not a transhistorical thing, it’s a bourgeois creation and it deserves to die out with bourgeois society, and the examples you cite only prove that.

Remember the carnage in Africa between the Hutu and Tutsi? There was no nation of Rwanda there, just tribes.

Hutu and Tusi are ethnic groups. There was and is a nation-state of Rwanda. They are different things.

The only point I was making is that immigrants are generally powerless or “normal” people, people subject to capital and the nation-state as anyone else is, moving geographically for personal gain. They are not an invading army.

You make it sound like loving your country and wanting to preserve its unique culture and history is a bad thing.

3 Likes

I don’t know if most people concede that. I certainly don’t, since you can’t know who you’re dealing with in most of those places. Furthermore, many such places are unstable because of the culture; something we really don’t want to import.

The government of Spain controls Catalonia. The government of Afghanistan controls little outside the city of Kabul.

We are aware that various Marxist societies have clothed imperialism with a fig leaf they call “internationalism”.

1 Like

Conquest.

Then, I suppose there are no “native” humnas outside of Africa. Now what?

This is not a new complaint about immigrants. History falsifies it.

Oh good. Equivocation. :roll_eyes:

On the contrary, the a unique feature of the culture and history of America is the way it forged its greatness through its openness to immigrants from around the world.

“Openness” to immigration was driven by a need for labor in a rapidly growing and industrializing country, not because we wanted to import their rich cultural heritage.

1 Like

I’m glad we’re talking about a country that matters, and not boring old Poland.

1 Like

Our actual “openess” was lumpy. But its has been part of our national mythos. Hate to see up go back to know-nothing thinking.

Or, we could have a US immigration policy that focuses on the needs of American citizens rather than one that focuses on a “national myth”.

This, of course, is a false binary and if we opted for your perspective, we would have to abandon all that shining city on a hill stuff. America has flourished as it sought to be a beacon of light. Dad to give this up, especially at a time when the world really needs it

Bravo Poland.

Yeah, really! You’d think Poland was just one of the states in the US!

Or perhaps we’re talking about Poland, Indiana (there is such a place, apparently).

1 Like

Oh, of course! That explains it :smiley:

Also to farm undeveloped lands. One recalls that every other section (640 acres) along a railroad right of way was given to the railroad companies by the government. Railroad companies actively recruited in Europe to get settlers to buy that land cheaply. The real point was to get them to produce grain, livestock, other goods, to ship on the railroads, and to ship manufactured goods out to those farms and communities. Clever.

But the idea really was to get the most able-bodied and knowledgeable. That’s one of the reasons so much of the best farm land in the U.S. is owned by the descendants of German immigrants. Germans were good farmers, and still are.

Also, of course, during the Civil War era, part of the object was to get able-bodied young men here in order to put them in uniform. In my state, there were entire units of German immigrants that were settled in St. Louis. One of those fought right here at Wilson’s Creek under Gen. Franz Siegel, a Prussian officer. He is not always thought well of because the Union lost to the Confederate Missouri Home Guard at Wilson’s Creek. But he was able to save his part of the army twice by employing artillery in a way similar to that used by “storm troopers” in WWI and Panzers in WWII.

He and his German recruits, many of whom had served in European armies, were actually very good soldiers.

Open borders and universal welfare for immigrants is a pretty radical interpretation for “Shining city on a hill” or “Beacon of Light”, but one Democrats seem eager to embrace. How that works out for them remains to be seen.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.