BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:03 pm
Well, that's quite the dynamic exchange, isn’t it? And it strikes at the heart of one of the most fundamental tensions in immigration debates—not just who gets to define "good" and "bad" immigration but the moral, historical, and practical implications of those definitions.
So, let’s start with a bit of perspective. Immigration, throughout history, has been a two-sided coin. On one side, it’s the lifeblood of cultural exchange, innovation, and human progress.
And, if 'we' are to take 'immigration' to also include the migrating of people from one clan, tribe, or even family over into another clan, tribe, or even family, then 'immigration' was necessary to stop in-breeding. Migrating from, to, and/or back and forth between one group and 'another group' was, and still is, just a natural part of life, and living.
Learning from different cultures, groups, tribes, and even individual different people is how human beings and humanity Truly 'progress'. Following one or a few select cultures, groups, tribes, or even individual people, only, is how human beings and humanity gets, and got, caught up bickering, fighting, warring, and murdering.
As can be VERY CLEARLY witnessed and seen in the days when this was, and is, being written.
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:03 pm
Think of the incredible enrichment—economically, culturally, intellectually—that immigration has brought to so many societies. But flip that coin over, and you find the struggles: the fears of cultural displacement, economic competition, and even identity crises. Both sides of the coin are real, and both are human.
Now, Walker makes a point that resonates in many circles: the idea of "good immigration" versus "bad immigration."
LOL The DIFFERENCE between 'good' versus 'bad' in regards to absolutely ANY thing is OBVIOUS. ALWAYS 'good' is BETTER than 'bad'. But, getting you adult human beings to just 'come together' to just 'work out' what is ACTUALLY 'good' and 'bad' is ANY situation has been HARD ENOUGH, so imagine how HARD it has been just trying to get adult human beings to 'come together', peacefully, to just 'discuss' what is 'good' and 'bad', or 'Right' and 'Wrong', in ALL situations, or in Life, Itself.
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:03 pm
But let’s unpack that. The concept of "good immigration," as defined by the receiving country, often aligns with its economic needs, cultural preferences, or political climate.
Once again what 'we' can clearly see here is just how narrow a perspective and how small field of a view these people had, here.
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:03 pm
For instance, countries may welcome highly skilled workers, seeing them as immediate contributors to their economy. Yet, they might hesitate—or outright resist—when it comes to accepting people fleeing violence or poverty, even though their need is just as real, if not more so. Why? Because their presence might be perceived as a burden rather than a benefit.
Obviously. How narrowed and closed some of you adults were, back when this was being written, was BLINDING OBVIOUSLY COMMON.
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:03 pm
And then there’s Age’s point, which flips the script entirely: What about the moral reckoning of history? Many countries defining "good immigration" today were themselves built on the back of migration—sometimes voluntary,
I wonder if any ACTUAL examples of 'voluntary' could be, and would be, provided, here.
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:03 pm
sometimes forced—and often at great cost to the people and lands they colonized or displaced. Is there an "inner knowing," as Age suggests, that creates this defensive stance toward newcomers? Maybe. Maybe it’s the weight of historical guilt or the deep-seated fear of retribution. Or maybe it’s just the primal human resistance to change, wrapped up in layers of policy and rhetoric.
But there is NO 'primal human resistance to change', AT ALL. In fact the VERY OPPOSITE is VERY True. EVERY human being INSTINCTIVELY KNOWS there is NO stopping CHANGE. From birth young children NEVER resist CHANGE. Again, there is NO 'primal human resistance to CHANGE'. Some of you older human beings, however, may 'look at' and 'see' things differently, here.
Now, human beings will NEVER resist CHANGE if 'the change' is seen to be of some benefit to and/or for them. However, EVERY human being will RESIST CHANGE, if 'the change' is seen as being detrimental to and/or for them.
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:03 pm
But here’s the kicker: framing immigration in binary terms—good or bad, desirable or undesirable—misses the larger story. Immigration is a process, not a product. It’s shaped by the needs and actions of individuals and nations alike. Refugees, for example, flee conditions no one would choose to endure. Asylum seekers pursue safety and dignity. Economic migrants chase opportunities that could transform not just their lives but those of their families for generations. These aren’t abstractions; they’re human realities.
So, the real question isn’t whether immigration is good or bad. The question is: How do we balance the legitimate interests of receiving countries with the equally legitimate aspirations of those seeking to enter?
While ANY of you human beings BELIEVE that you own a country, as in the saying, 'my country' or 'our country', and/or BELIEVE that you have some 'right', over others, to some parcel of land, or country, then the 'balancing act', here, will always be lopsided.
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:03 pm
And can we do it in a way that honors our shared humanity, rather than just drawing lines on a map and building walls in our minds?
you human beings will NEVER 'balance back to' what is NATURALLY Right, and Good, in Life, while you keep persisting with your separation lines on maps and conceptual separation of human beings.
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:03 pm
That’s the challenge, isn’t it?
Learning how to get you older human beings, in the days when this is being written, to just STOP BELIEVING and ASSUMING things to be true AND to just START TO LISTEN, and HEAR, is the only REAL challenge, here.
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:03 pm
And it’s not one we can solve by shouting past each other. It’s going to take empathy, hard conversations, and a willingness to look at history—not just as a record of the past, but as a guide to building a more just and equitable future.
So, ONCE MORE, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one, here, would like to have A Truly Honest, Open, and Peaceful DISCUSSION, then I am more than willing, ready, and wanting to.