Matthew Vickery, President of the Parliament of Man;
Ferune of Mistwood, First Marchwarden of the Lauran System;
Liaw of The Tarns, Wyvan of the High Khruath.
These four beings, two orthohumans and two Ythrians, are the highest ranking political and military leaders on Avalon although the Ythrians have no government and the functions of human government are dwindling under Ythrian influence. The planet is thinly settled and will win a war to prevent unlimited immigration from the Terran Empire. Avalonian eccentrics are free to fly to the Oronesian archipelago, there to establish single households of hunters and fishers. What's not to like?
I am for freedom of movement of human beings on Earth, when people need to seek work or to flee from persecution or war, but what would be the best way to operate on an interstellar scale with FTL? I would value both freedom of movement within the Empire and the right of the Avalonians to preserve their distinctive way of life. I dislike choth law with duels, Oherran and honorable suicide but maybe a like-minded group of "birds" and ornithoids would be able to build a new kind of grouping with a different ethos?
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Here, however, I have to dissent. I agree that if Avalon was annexed by the Empire, it could not prohibit immigration by persons of various races, albeit most of them will be humans. But, to do so would have inevitably ended the experiment in a planet settled jointly by humans and Ythrians (and the unique "mixed" culture begotten by that experiment). So I do understand why the Avalonians fought so hard to remain within the Domain.
And I don't agree that just anyone has the right, here and now, to just up and leave and plant himself in any other country, with no regard to what that country might want. IF a nation is to be TRULY sovereign then it has every right to set the terms and conditions by which foreigners may enter and settle there.
Sean
Sean,
Basic disagreements. My arguments are:
capital is free to move around the world in search of cheaper labor so living labor should be free to move around the world in search of work;
we should welcome those who flee from war and persecution;
we should not wage wars and should also oppose the attitudes that lead to persecution;
immigrants enrich society and contribute to the economy.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Very basic disagreements, I fear! For one thing, as a, I hope, reasonable "nationalist," I believe in the SOVEREIGNTY of independent nations. I have to insist on their right to setting the terms and conditions by which immigrants may enter a country. I cannot compromises on that basic principle.
And I don't believe immigrants will always enrich a society. Not if those immigrants have beliefs, customs, ideas, ideals, religions, etc., contradictory to those of the "host" country. Bluntly, I don't believe letting in massive numbers of Muslims will lead to anything but the undermining of the best ideas and ideals of the West. Because I hold Islam (not all MUSLIMS) to be a quasi totalitarian ideology intolerant of all who refuse to knuckle under to it. The Muslim Brotherhood, the chief ideologists of modern day Jihadism, deliberately uses "immigration" as a means of subverting the West (as detailed by Andrew McCarthy in his book THE GRAND JIHAD).
I too believe in the free flow of capital, but that does not necessarily mean believing in the rightness of unlimited, unrestrained immigration.
As for persecution, a LOT of that, these days, even most of it, comes from fanatical Muslims persecuting Christians, Jews, and other non Muslims. Do I really need to list far too many examples you must know of?
Sean
Post a Comment