Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 233 posts

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#81

Post by bruce511 »

Huffers2 wrote: post #68
hef19898 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never mind already back in the 80s and 90s the British population of the Falklands preferred to remain a part of the UK. Nevermind Argentina invaded the Falklands and was ultimately repulsed. No idea where the idea that the Falklands belong to Argentina comes from. The only meaningful population of the islands ever was and is British. Which makes the comparison to HK and Taiwan somewhat pointless, nevermind that Taiw…

Falklands is much closer to Argentina though - they should belong to Argentina by right of proximity.

I feel like the current residents of the Channel Islands might have an issue with your definition of "right of proximity".

And where does it end? New Zealand belongs to Australia? Hawaii belongs to Mexico?

In short "proximity" is not how island ownership works.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#82

Post by mellosouls »

zingar wrote: post #17

"...(the only access to the islands) is to have a pre-arranged job contract with a company that has signed a form of bond taking responsibility for you" That sounds like all British immigration rules. My employer had to apply for my visa and had to pay all my healthcare contributions for a year up front before I could move for a job in London. If I lose my job I have a few weeks to find a new employer (who will have…

It sounds perfectly reasonable.

Barring exceptional circumstances, presumably the employer takes the decision to recruit externally for cost-cutting reasons; it's important then that the hidden costs of healthcare etc are not passed on to the tax payer.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#83

Post by Zababa »

MomoXenosaga wrote: post #74
meowtimemania wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m from in the US and am naïve, but what is bizarre about that system?

The US is actually bizarre, anyone born in the US automatically gets US nationality. This leads to amusing birth tourism. Iirc it is the only country that does this.

I think it's the same in France, we call it the "droit du sol".

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#84

Post by Ensorceled »

Huffers2 wrote: post #68
hef19898 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never mind already back in the 80s and 90s the British population of the Falklands preferred to remain a part of the UK. Nevermind Argentina invaded the Falklands and was ultimately repulsed. No idea where the idea that the Falklands belong to Argentina comes from. The only meaningful population of the islands ever was and is British. Which makes the comparison to HK and Taiwan somewhat pointless, nevermind that Taiw…

Falklands is much closer to Argentina though - they should belong to Argentina by right of proximity.

> they should belong to Argentina by right of proximity.

How does that work? Is it some kind of algorithm? Does the USA have the right to own Canada?

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#85

Post by hef19898 »

fiftyacorn wrote: post #76
carnitine wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can islands with no native population, which have never been ruled by Argentina, possibly be ‘occupied territory’? Argentina’s claim is basically that they are heir to the Spanish empire, despite the wishes of 99% of the residents.

As I understand it the claim is whether or not Falklands was populated when UK claimed it. Argentina says yes, uk says no

Well, the French settled forst and handed over the islands to the Spanish in 1776 based on the Spanish/Portuguese colonial agreement from the 15th century. For most of the time since the 19th the islands were under British control.

That would be like basing territorial claims everywhere based on borders from 200 years ago. Or worse, picking the borders from a period that suits best. And we are talking about the Spanish Empire here, not modern day independent Argentina.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#86

Post by [deleted] »

aww_dang wrote: post #64
DoreenMichele wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I felt like the detail that mattered there was that it is the only way to get through the British military air base at Mount Pleasant (the only access to the islands) . If you don't have to pass through a military base to get somewhere, there is a bit of wiggle room. You are supposed to do X, Y or Z but there end up being some exceptions. In this case, the military base has a stranglehold on entry so you aren't likel…

I believe cruise ships provide access. There maybe access via other ships as well.

[deleted]

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#87

Post by hef19898 »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #62
wwtrv wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the islands were uninhabited when they settled, the people currently living there are the native population of the Falklands.

It seems the first people settling there, "native population" were French and the current people living there are English colonialists. But I'm not an expert in Falkland island history.

They were unsettled for a quite a while in between. There never was a true native population like native Americans or the various African peoples. The Falklands are a bunch of rocks being settled by various European powers and claimed by as many, they are since the 19th century a British territory aimed by Argentina. In a sense the British there are natives.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#88

Post by pjc50 »

mellosouls wrote: post #82
zingar wrote: post #17

"...(the only access to the islands) is to have a pre-arranged job contract with a company that has signed a form of bond taking responsibility for you" That sounds like all British immigration rules. My employer had to apply for my visa and had to pay all my healthcare contributions for a year up front before I could move for a job in London. If I lose my job I have a few weeks to find a new employer (who will have…

It sounds perfectly reasonable. Barring exceptional circumstances, presumably the employer takes the decision to recruit externally for cost-cutting reasons; it's important then that the hidden costs of healthcare etc are not passed on to the tax payer.

But both the employer and employee are tax payers! There's nothing uniquely expensive about taxpaying employees that happen to be born overseas.

I'm guessing the prepaid contribution refers to the "NHS surcharge": https://www.freemovement.org.uk/what-is-the-immigration-heal...

(while Americans are probably going "hey that looks cheap at £624 a year compared to my insurance", note that it's not insurance and you still have to pay it if you have private cover)

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#89

Post by chronolitus »

emmanueloga_ wrote: post #61
AlbertCory wrote: post #3

I had the misfortune to have my first visit to London during the Falklands War. I'd always wanted to visit Parliament during Question Time, which is usually easy because it's so boring. But this was when Margaret Thatcher was having her memorable confrontations with Labour over the war, and there was a long line to get in. Never saw it. But Wellington, NZ has an accurate copy of the House of Commons for its own Parli…

907 were killed, 1,188 Argentine and 777 British injured or wounded ... but if it wasn't for the war, you could have seen the Parliament. Such misfortune.

In real life, would you also respond to a trivial personal anecdote with moral chastising? Does the discussion have to take a form of geopolitical virtue signalling anytimes it grazes a big 'bad' event like a war? Is it ok to talk about mundane things, even in the shadow of the colossal international storms that surround us, without having to make a performance of fighting their shadows at all times?

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#90

Post by Ichthypresbyter »

Zababa wrote: post #83
MomoXenosaga wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is actually bizarre, anyone born in the US automatically gets US nationality. This leads to amusing birth tourism. Iirc it is the only country that does this.

I think it's the same in France, we call it the "droit du sol".

Not quite.

Children born in France only get French citizenship from birth if at least one parent either is a French citizen or was born in France. Otherwise, there are various processes for them to acquire citizenship later in life if they spend enough of their childhood in France.

In contrast, almost any child born in the US, regardless of the nationality or immigration status of the parents, is a citizen automatically from birth. The only exceptions are children of foreign diplomats and (hypothetically) children of members of an invading army. Even if the parents are visiting as tourists and the child leaves two weeks after birth and never returns, it's still a citizen.

British law is somewhere in between the two- a child born in the UK is a citizen if at least one parent has "settled status" (in other words is a citizen, permanent resident, or otherwise has an unrestricted right to live in the UK).

Post reply on HN