Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Sea Shepherd against immigration

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by ungovernable, Nov 12, 2012.

  1. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,339

    70

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    Curious to see what you guys think about that.

    I've always been a fan of Sea Shepherd and have been following their actions very closely. I am a member since over 4 years and i have been donating money every months. With the tshirt shop we were about to engage ourselves donating money each month from the "animal liberation" tshirt sales... But then i have discovered that Captain Watson is strongly against immigration.

    I already knew that one of the boats is named Brigitte Bardot, a french far-right activist from Front National recognized guilty of racist, homophobic and hateful propaganda... But she's very involved into the Animal Liberation movement so i thought they just used her name because of that.

    Here's two articles about Cpt Watson's stand on immigration:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10329555

    http://candobetter.net/node/605
     

  2. AgentOrange

    AgentOrangeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    0

    0

    Sep 28, 2010
     
    Actually, I think that Paul Watson has got a point on that one.
    while thinking about immigration, just keep in mind WHY people want/have to emigrate and immigrate, and WHAT are the CONSEQUENCES out of their immigration/emigration.

    on WHY to leave a country and enter another (it's not that important if legal or illegal):

    I think that most happens due to two reasons:
    1) people want to flee their country for various reasons (repression, risk of live, health or family, hunger, natural disasters,... go on if you want), this movement usually takes place from poorer to richer countries. it's kind of forced.

    2) people want to live in another country, because they think life's better on the other side of the fence. this can for example be the rich american CEO, buying a house on some warm tropic island (or the whole island). it can also be the poor mexican youth, thinking that living in the us is better than in the slums of his homecountry. this immigration is usually at least partly (the "rich immigration") a question of free choice. one could argue that the young mexican isn't acting based on his own free will because he is ill-informed, but I think mostly it IS due to free choice. let's say this second way of immigration in based on free will. of course, the rich are able to do so legally, while the poor have to do it illegally.

    having these reasons in mind, i think it's obvious that there is a strong flow of immigration from the "less developed countries", the "Poor" countries, to the "high developed countries", the "rich" and industrialized countries. people see that the inhabitants of the "richer" countries are living in -relative- wealth, so they want to go there, illegally if they need to. due to various reasons, most conflicts happen in the "poorer" countries, so that there are usually more people fleeing from a poor country into a -compared- rich country. what happens: more people living in the "rich" countries, less in the "poor". legally or illegally.
    of course, if you would arm any "illegal" immigrant and send him back to fight for a better situation in his own country, instead of fleeing to "safety", as paul watson said, might be the better solution for there might be a better chance to solve conflicts and shitty situations. on the other hand, organizing them first and helping them to coordinate resistance would be even better ;)
    i would consider the legal emigration from the "richer" people into other countries as a minor factor, and just forget about that part of immigration in the next part.

    on WHAT are the CONSEQUENCES of these immigrations (this will be incomplete - i know):
    every illegal immigrant has no rights in this new country. whether this is worse or equal to his/her former situation is not really important. fact is, it's fucked up anyway. solution: instead of fleeing an possibly having it worse, immigrants could indeed organize and fight for a better living in their homecountry. that would strengthen resistance in the country, and they would maybe be of a better use for the whole story. on the other hand, it's more dangerous and they could as well die from the threats they would have to face.
    IF they are illegal immigrants, they will pretty sure live off the trash and garbage of the country they are now living in. because no one helps them. from a very cynic point of view, this would be good, because the rich world throws too much away, anyway. on the other hand, living conditions are often worse than before.
    IF they are legal immigrants and chose to enter a "richer" country, because of the better job or whatnot, it may as well happen that they are ripped off and exploited, for example because they had a false picture of the country (and it's different culture/lifestyle/economic system) (upton sinclair someone? "the jungle" the book is called...)

    now, what is a REALLY interesting point: food production, food sovereignty and food distribution.
    every person that leaves a "poorer" country (which -usually- means more agriculture, self-sufficiency, less industry) and enters a rich country, will make it harder to develop a fair and balanced system on these issues. close to every immigrant will increase the gap between the poor and the rich country. they are not able to produce food anymore, they are not able to live self-sufficient anymore, they will mostly adapt to the richer system, although as loosers, ofc. so what this kind of immigration means: centralization of food production and distribution, and a loss of small scale food-production, also a loss of sovereignty on food and other products of daily use. the industrial food and production machine profits from this, NOT the immigrant.


    so, i think i could go on and on about this, but these are in fact the points that interest me. the 3 food points, but maybe we could increase the range and include other goods as well, tools, cloth and so on. of course, the solution to be against immigration by supporting laws against is a very pessimistic approach to solve these issues. maybe someone can think of a better solution? one that is as effective, while more focused on humans freedom?
    I don't know, i always find it hard to think of solutions to topics as big as immigration policy and stuff...
    and pretty much the only solution I come up with is always "education" and "information"...

    so these are just my two cents and maybe another basis for a discussion. looking forward for this because i think it's an interesting question. there are many of us (i suppose) who are working on or having worked on refugee issues, but less people actually thinking about such questions, solutions. we're just start working after the damage is done, maybe... ?
     
  3. nclpw

    nclpwExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    0

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
    Its a pretty bold statement. I think he is oversimplifying the situation in Mexico and for most immigrants, and he comes off really elitist in the interview and in the article. Also, US economy isn't growing as much as it did at the time that was written.
    But just to clarify, he wants to stop immigrants that come to work? I can see how people are forced to immigrate in hope of making it better for themselves in today's society, but will closing off all borders really make anything better? We live in a globalized world, and all countries are pretty much involved in each others politics. As long as the power is centralized and as long as there is capitalism, the flow of immigrants won't stop.
    Its true that every country has resources, but not all have enough money to use them. Think about it this way, poor countries are being exploited the same way immigrants are exploited by big companies. We like to think that everyone has an opportunity to climb up a class in a capitalist system, but corporations benefit from having cheap workforce and therefore rich countries benefit from keeping poor countries poor.

    I really don't get much from the interview or the article, its just a critique on immigration and consumerism, but no suggestions for a better solution except "Mexico needs a revolution". He should be criticizing the capitalist system and not immigration laws.
    He could have just answered "yes". I don't like this, he sounds like every banker, nationalist politician or speculator I have ever heard talking about this issue. They talk like left and right wing politicians at the same time, but the only thing they really care about is business and national interest. No solidarity, just charity. Rethorics like the ones used here are the ones that justify the fact that all the money, resources and power lie in the hands of ..not even 1% of the worlds population.
    More and more good people are buying into neo-liberal crap.

    Stopping immigration is a very short sighted solution to the real problem, which is capitalism.
     
  4. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    187

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Fuck him...plain and simple.
     
  5. crustybeckham

    crustybeckhamExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    358

    4

    13

    Jan 22, 2012
     
    Reading this, it is hardly surprising he named one of his ships after Brigitte Bardot. His stance that poor people looking for a better life in richer countries is the cause of world pollution is cynical at best.
     
  6. THEBLACKNOVA

    THEBLACKNOVAExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    965

    1

    0

    Aug 11, 2011
     Mexico
    I like this video below as it speaks of capitalism, patriotism and immigration from an anarchist perspective. If you are in a nation state and you don't have to fear one day having to pick up your belonging and leave to another country to survive, enjoy that privilege while it lasts, neo-liberalism is making its way into every nation state.

    This video comes from [email protected], an anarchist video magazine from chile on "Immigration" and "Patriotism," change the world Chile to the good old USA or whatever country you live in that you don't fear having to leave it in order to look for work and survive, and the editorial holds...

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyB7LPzSxzc[/video]

    Where i live in the southern part of the United States, aka SoCal there is migration back and form from mexico to the united states and from the united states to mexico. The mexican worker who has to cross the border (legally and illegally) looking for work to survive and the american worker who has moved to mexico cuz he/she can't afford to live in the USA on the wage slave wages he/she gets, but still works in the states and has to cross the next day into the states to work, and every night must cross into mexico to the apartment or house they rent there.

    Each cross represent a human being that died trying to get into the USA from Mexico, each cross has a name written on it, and there are thousands of crosses on the border wall between Mexico and the United States in Playas Tijuana...

    [​IMG]
     
  7. nclpw

    nclpwExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    0

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
    Exactly. And people like him promote this way of thinking. I`m sure the situation on the Mexico/US border is much harsher than in Europe but all countries here have pretty much done everything they can to stop the flow of immigrants. They even blame the financial crisis on us. They only want white, educated workforce. Here they don`t even fulfill the quota the UN has set as a minimum number of refugees every country should let in. It seems as if they just want to keep the poor as they are, reality is that you can`t climb up the social scale unless you know the right people and can afford an education. Even then its not easy to find jobs if you`re not white. We know a lot of people here that are well educated that can`t get jobs because they`re not from the ..right countries.
    Thanks for showing the video! I haven`t heard about sinapsis before.
     
  8. Spike one of many

    Spike one of manyExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,071

    4

    37

    Aug 14, 2012
     South Africa
    Wow, that wall is an imposing sight. But I think they should build it even higher with many more unnamed crosses.
     
  9. crustybeckham

    crustybeckhamExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    358

    4

    13

    Jan 22, 2012
     
    The worst part of the interview is where he explains that immigrants pollute the desert (Sonoran desert I suppose) while crossing it.

    I remember when I lived in Tucson, Arizona, just a few miles from Nogales, the authority had forbidden people to leave bottles of water, food and clothing in the desert (all crucial items when you consider the climate and the number of people who die of heat exposure or thirst during the crossing) arguing that they were polluting the land. Sick bastards.
     
  10. nclpw

    nclpwExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    0

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
    haha, as if thats of any significance. fucking snobs.
     
  11. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,339

    70

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    Sierra Club immigration stance

    After his election to the national Sierra Club Board of Directors in 2003, Watson supported an unsuccessful slate of candidates supporting strict immigration controls as an element of a population stabilization policy. This effort was denounced by another candidate in the election, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, as a "hostile takeover" attempt by "radical anti-immigrant activists."[64] Watson responded by saying that the only change he was seeking in the organization's immigration stance was to restore the position it had held before its 1996 "neutrality policy."[65] Watson left the Sierra Club board in 2006.[66]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watso ... ion_stance
     
  12. exjosh

    exjoshNew Member New Member


    1

    0

    0

    Dec 5, 2012
     
    @ungovernable. I have edited the television show Whale Wars for years. I can't tell you explicit examples but I can say that I've seen hours of Paul Watson footage taken during his actions agains the Japanese and I'm here to say, he is a phony. Paul Watson is a self serving megalomaniac.
     
  13. THEBLACKNOVA

    THEBLACKNOVAExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    965

    1

    0

    Aug 11, 2011
     Mexico
    What? A star of a TV Show is a megalomaniac? HAHA

    Paul Watson owns the seas? Like Mel Gibson owns Malibu?

    HAHA :lmao:
     
  14. davilanp

    davilanpMember New Member


    5

    0

    0

    Jan 10, 2013
     
    Pierce Brosnan will be showing up soon with slash to set things straight nova :) They have an issue over the Gibson Malibu comment
     
Loading...