With this suggestion would you agree with those who say jobs for whites first. Then you can have the mix race, the Indians and so forth what is being said today about foreign labour, is what was said about blacks in the fifties,the sixties and even today. Many British companies do business employing British workers on foreign, yes there is desperation in many quarters. Yes there is people struggling to pay mortgages while labour pairs are wetting their appetites. Instead off pumping monies into banks, it could be used to drench the people appetite to clear up the peoples so called dept and once that is done the banks should be alright or they selling the people a 6 for a 9. Hostility should not be directed to foreign workers but towards the banks and the labour party. http://allinviews.blogspot.com
On Jan 30, 3:45 pm, Morpheal <[email protected]> wrote: > THE INJUSTICES OF ECONOMIC UPROOTEDNESS > > ENGLAND’S PROBLEM WITH IMMIGRANT LABOR: ENDING UPROOTEDNESS > > England's recent problems are simply a starting point and example to a > far larger problem, > which prevalent American ideology has greatly worsened in recent > decades. > > The problem of immigrant, migrant, and foreign contract labor is > relatively easily solved, but it would take significant changes in > legislation. England’s recent dispute concerning foreign workers > taking work away from local people is a case in point, illustrative of > the problem and suggesting a solution. > > There should be a law that requires an offer of opportunity to those > who are citizens and landed immigrants of the nation first. In England > it would be England first, then the UK, then the Commonwealth, then > the EU, in that order of priority. Each step would be taken only if > the offered rate is rejected, determined on the basis of all bids, and > consistent with labour laws in the contracting region where the work > is to be performed. Each contractor should be required to conform in > the same way. In fact it should be taken further so that persons > living within reasonable commute from the place of work would have to > be given first priority ahead of those living outside that geographic > range. Usually that is one to two hours maximum travel time, > regardless of the means of travel. > > Obviously that places political relations and obligations in > precedence and priority order in regard to opportunities. Immigration > of new workers would only be allowed when all other priorities are > exhausted and precedence would again be given to immigration according > to the priority sequence. > > Of course this leads to greater stability, and far less tendency to > upheaval, which is socially, psychologically, and economically > inappropriate and at least potentially damaging to those who are > otherwise forced to endure it. As is unemployment also a source of > similar damage to lives affected by it. Deliberate tendencies towards > attempting forcing of geographic upheaval of individual and family > lives, is a sadistic, unacceptably violent practice. There is a large > body of science supporting that claim, stretching across a vast period > of time, and one needs only to be cognizant of the relevant > sociological, economic and psychological research pertaining to that > subject to understand how extremely wrong and utterly socially unjust > it really is. Where it is in any way avoidable it should and must be > avoided. > > Furthermore, the sadistic practices of upheaval are in fact rooted in > religious tradition, not in scientific rational understanding. It has > long been believed by some that it is an ideological necessity and > right, within the religious framework that they function within, to > uproot, upheave, and disown, those who have settled lives, possessions > and local homes, on the basis of religious teachings that those who > hold to them argue demand impositions of loss, letting go, breaking > loose from establishing, and upheaval from rootedness. This trend is > part of what is called anti-nomianism and is prevalent in some forms > of religious fundamentalism, particularly as practiced in the United > States of America. In essence anti-nomianism in religion means a > condition of homelessness, or temporary sojourn without real home, in > the world. Of course there are those who simply profit from that > practice and support it for their own economic greed and profit, > rather than for religious motives, but the scenario is mixed, and not > unique to the USA. In anti-nomian religiosity there is a belief that > the breaking loose from homes, things, social relations, opens people > to religious ideas, as they are stripped of all other connectedness > and attachment to their social and material situatedness. So the anti- > nomian thrust becomes a violent weapon both attacking those outside > the system of beliefs with upheaval, and believing that that attack is > an effective means to facilitating conversion, both by means of fear > of that attack and by means of the effects of disconnection, > dispossession and uprooting. This has also led to the very short term > hire and terminate customary practice prevalent in some cases in > America, of foreign workers, on short term contracts, giving them > nothing more than a bus ticket back to where they disinvested and > disconnected from homes, posessions and social relations. Most often > the influences of the American fundamentalist, “religious right”, > found under the surface of such otherwise poorly or utterly > unjustified actions. > > Legitimate sciences on the subject, speak clearly against that, and > can clearly prove the damage to society, individuals and families that > comes from those types of ideas. In fact studies of work can be made > to clearly prove that quality of work, and competence, suffers from > such upheavals, and is not facilitated by the social, psychological > and economic stressors involved in them. In other words, it is not > really good for corporate, for business, and it is not at all good for > people. For those with extended family, and networks of social > interconnection, that sometimes take generations to build, it is > particularly destructive, with immense negative consequences. In fact > we can see that societies that fall into such practices suffer a > rising spiral of social violence, suicides, and personality disorders, > as well as pervasive and widespread apathy and alienation. > Community is not built quickly and in a society of anticipated > upheaval it is not really built at all. When people are taught to > expect others to routinely leave, beginnings are regularly endings in > anticipation of impending loss, based on prevalent habituated patterns > of expectation. This is extremely damaging to many forms of economic > and social enterprise, having immense negative economic impact. > Particularly in the area of fledgling, new, enterprises and > entrepreneurial innovation. > > Consider also the potentially lost investment, in material and labor > of effort, terms, when establishing a home in one place, means being > uprooted to move on to another place, without continuity of effort. > Any type of real home takes time, effort and some investment of money, > to establish. Sometimes that takes many years to achieve, on limited > and erratic incomes in a society where the economy is typically > unstable and often unpredictable. The limited span of a typical > lifetime cannot afford that type of upheaval and its costs, even apart > from the other stressors and the social, mental, and physical health > damage that potentially does occur. A good example is the many years > it takes to make, establish, and bring to maturity a good garden. It > takes effort, time and some money. It cannot be done again, and again > and again in one person’s lifetime. Twice is difficult, and three > times is perhaps impossible. Traumatizing people with loss due to > excessive change is clearly wrong, and causing them to lose their > investment in creating homes is part of that wrong. We must recognize > that lifetimes are very limited and the enjoyment of life requires a > greater degree of continuity and establishing, not upheaval. > > We might note that in the USSR (Russia), China, and other “anti > American” nations relocation required a government approval, a permit, > before it could be accomplished. It had to be justified by real need. > It was discouraged as a common and “normal” practice. It was the > exception to the rule, not allowed to become a more usual demand. Now > we see significant deterioration in societies affected by the American > model of social and economic migrancy, with all manner of social ills > increasing in nations that did not suffer some of those, and at least > not to that level of severity, prior to their Americanization. > > Robert Morpheal --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Black Focus Inc." group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Black-Focus-Inc?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
