So is every job interview.
Ableism is a feature of capitalism. Solidarity cuts into profit margins. We can’t have that.
I have to admit that I never thought about that part of the argument. That’s such a great point! There are no safe, protected, disabled friendly routes to take to even get in the position to claim asylum
Even not considering asylum. Many countries make harder, or impossible, for folks with certain medical conditions to immigrate through traditional/legal means under the rationale that they might be a drain on the public medical system.
This is one of the things I feel like I can’t stand against.
Governments, by origin, were supposed to be for the citizens that they govern and not for anyone else. And ideally a government needs to first and foremost, justify the birthright citizens that are made to pledge fealty to the state.
In this case, immigration is something a government would use as a tool to meet their human resource demands. In turn providing temporary or permanent citizenship to the immigrant and maybe their dependants (family).
Any immigration accepted before knowing that said human resource is required, would essentially be charity.
Now of course, the above is based upon the assumption that the Government has the right to assert its borders. But undoing that would require changing the definition of a country, which will end up causing a lot more changes than just this one, which then need to be resolved in a proper way and only after we get to the complete final result, can we know if it is desirable.
This feels like it would make a nice thought experiment:
- gather points for problems caused by borders
- gather points for government efficiencies/facilities enabled by borders
- create a governance model without borders that removes maximum border-caused problems while finding alternative resolutions for problems cause by not having the right to land.
That could be the case without colonialism, pollution, foreign interventions, war or expansionism. Your argument is for the single country to do everything to enhance it’s own citizens but that has never been a defensive measure. “Protecting the borders” now is a way to completely ignore any past actions that state has done to the world.
People don’t choose where they’re born. People don’t choose what their ancestors have done. To deny the Western World has stolen wealth and caused pollution is madness though. Even now, we introduce environmental restrictions locally but want to buy cheap goods from Asia, so we have and continue to outsource our problems.
When they become uninhabitable, due to the historic wealth extraction, push to industrialise and us throwing money at them to do the things we don’t want to do but still keeping the profit and high standard of living, is it any wonder people want to come here?!?
And considering govts are no longer really going by their original reason of existence and really only trying to extract value from citizens, while amassing power, the ideal scenario can’t really be played out any more.
Still though, I don’t see how accepting immigrants one cannot value, is going to do any good. The birthplace govts should be the ones making their place better for said citizens. It’s not like they don’t know what standards their people expect.
For those that are making the other countries worse, just accepting immigrants is hardly an acceptable answer. The mindless profiteering needs to be fixed in the first place. A duct tape measure to look charitable, won’t really fix the underlying problem.
the problem with this is the assumption that disabled people are net drains on society that is buried in your argument.
From a purely government monetary income and cost perspective there are definitely disabled people who would be a net negative. But yeah sure it does depend on the type of disability and their ability to find work that is compatible.
that misunderstands economics, specifically money flow, and government though. which makes sense why a lot of people would oppose it. give new immigrants to your community some money and where are they most likely to spend it? in your community. give aid to someone who is disadvantaged (not necessarily disabled) and you (1) earn loyalty and (2) get money into your local economy. give aid to someone who doesn’t need it and you build resentment. fortunately, right now pretty much 95% of people need help so you don’t have to be picky.
Isn’t it more that, govts have enough income (immigration) of disadvantaged people with high political value, that they don’t really need those low political value immigrants?
For the ideal case: Let’s say you have 2 people and only want 1 (you are not low in population). Which would you prefer?
- Give money to Person. Person increases money circulation in community.
- Person gives you work. Created value gets you
xmoney. You pay Personx-ymoney. Person increases money circulation in community.
For the real case:
- govts get loyalty by control, not by benevolence
- govts would rather take some resentment from powerless and pay those already powerful. Because govts are made out of people too and would rather not get murdered
- it’s easier for people to understand benevolence from a person than from a large organisation like a govt.
My assumption is that immigrants are an additional cost to a country (one with an ideal government). The govts also need to worry about spies and political destabilisers sent from outside, which would increase the overhead, per immigrant. So it makes sense to expect a potential immigrant to be part of the workforce.
Whether they are disabled (from a workforce perspective) or not, would depend upon what type of work they do vs their specific disability. Ideally (because I don’t know which country you are taking as a basis for your arguments) if someone has an ability specific to their occupation, that makes them a higher value human resource than the cost of offsetting their disability and puts them higher than the govt’s expected bar, that would be a good enough reason to accept said immigrant.
Now unless the govt is classifying something that is not a real disability, as a disability, then placing the wrong cost onto it, there is no way I will be calling them wrong. And this very much depends upon the state of technology of the civilisation.
- In a time where glass would be a luxury, bad eyesight would be a significant disability
- when prosthetics are a luxury (which for some damned reason, they still are), lack of limbs would be a significant disability
- if being neurotypical is very important for a govt (honestly why do you want to migrate to such a backward country?), then neurodivergence would be a significant disability. And this part is big BS, because the only reason being neurotypical is important for a govt is if they want to be able to involuntarily control your actions.
the natural world is ableist by design
Since when were borders natural?
Borders don’t magically make terrain impassable
Yeah, sure. But once you’re in, not owning the arbitrarily mandated pieces of paper makes you live under the constant threat of deportation.
And citizens are under constant threat of jail
States gonna state
Natural borders: oceans, lakes, hills, mountains, cliffs, deserts, swamps, jungles.
Yes, and as beings with consciousness we know and can do better for each other.
Abolishing borders would mean one world government, right?
Fuck that noise. You think it’s bad now? Wait until those in power have no competition whatsoever. Imagine having no alternative, not even the possibility of moving to a better country.
Keep borders but form unions.
In an anarchist case, it would mean no government.
We did that before. It doesnt scale and turns into fiefdoms and kingships
Fuck man, what do you think immigration laws are if not preventing the possibility of moving to a better country?
Imagine 8 billion people on general strike.
Fuck that noise. You think it’s bad now? Wait until those in power have no competition whatsoever.
I think if governments do participate in any kind of competition it’s destructive competition. I can’t really think of a competition of governments that is beneficial for its citizens as a whole.
Imagine having no alternative, not even the possibility of moving to a better country.
Soo basic reality for the vast majority of the human population? Only like 3% of the global population lives in a country they weren’t born in
I had never heard of the word ableist before in my life. It sounds like the word “ablador” in Spanish which is to basically make up lies.
Oh okay, I’m gonna go search the definition of this word because I’ve had some posts removed for that reason and I got no clue what it means…brb.
Oh I see:
AI Overview +8 Ableist describes beliefs, behaviors, or systems that favor non-disabled people and discriminate against those with physical, intellectual, or psychiatric disabilities, viewing them as inferior or less valuable, often assuming they need to be “fixed”. It’s about unfair treatment, prejudice, and societal barriers that treat non-disabled experiences as the standard and exclude disabled individuals, showing up in individual actions (like harmful language) and systemic structures (like inaccessible buildings).
So I do tend to say “that’s F-in retrded" a lot. But I’m no ableist as defined here. That’s like calling a dog an ableist because he barks something that sounds like "readded”. The dog doesn’t know any better! He’s a “f-ing” dog! You guys who are younger go ahead and be better than we older people. One day we too will die off and some nincompoop is going to ban you for saying pee pee because that’s sexual assault via text. Back in my day sexual assault was three guys waiting for you after school with a hockey stick to see how far it went. But sure peepee. I’ll wait up in hell for the first one of you sexual harassers who assault people by writing pee pee on the internet.
Anyway. Darn!
So I do tend to say “that’s F-in retrded” a lot. But I’m no ableist as defined here.
That’s like saying “I say things I don’t like are gay” or calling people a “faggot” as an insult “but I’m not homophobic”. Like sure you might not be intentionally hostile, but you’re contributing to the problem of homophobia or able-ism or whatever other-ism slur you use.
It’s one thing to be ignorant of the issues of using these words like such, that is reinforcing negative stereotypes about the minority who get called those slurs by associating the word with bad things, but once you’re aware it’s a straight up dick move to continue to do it.
So the question is, now that you’ve learnt what ableism is, will you continue to use those slurs?
But what I’m saying is that in my world it really meant nothing of the sort. It was an insult towards someone who did something without thinking of the consequences.
Somehow somewhere now those terms that I grew up with are bad. So I’m telling you that I was 15 once and my parents did the same thing and we corrected them. And your kids will do the same to you.
Meanwhile the real activities of the political figures who speak properly result in jails filled with innocent kids. I would like to reroute some of the energy focused on people who say re*ard to people who support *rump.
This isn’t about you, it’s about the people who live with with the consequences of the slurs.
Ah yes this is the big issue of our time…
Clearly the issue is that immigration takes the stairs…
Making this point clearly moves the needle… like saying the Hindenburg had too many steps…
The issue is that immigration actively selects against disabled peoples. It’s not so much about physical access as it is about systematic discrimination.
Oh wait you’re that troll from earlier, yeah nah fuck off entirely.
