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

101–110 of 233 posts

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

#101

Post by dragonwriter »

fiftyacorn wrote: post #97
hef19898 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Spani…

The issue is were they defending the claim. To do that you needed to inhabit it according to the laws at the time

> To do that you needed to inhabit it according to the laws at the time

Aside from specific agreements between states, there wasn't really international law at the time.

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

#102

Post by pjc50 »

harry8 wrote: post #94
pjc50 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Without commenting on the policy I think you're missing the maths. I can earn $x here or $(x - y) to be in the uk. In the UK I get healthcare on the NHS. I move. I quit / am fired / co goes (creatively?) broke. And I keep the healthcare on the NHS and have time to start a family before deportation etc. Think about large values of y or indeed kickbacks. Does the firm really want /me/? Or do they just want cash which t…

> queue jumping

There is no queue.

I mean that: there is no requirement for cases to be processed in any kind of order, if at all, and nor is there a quota (except in the minds of Home Office managers).

> I get an end run around the immigration system to get healthcare

Hardly anyone does this, or at least there's no evidence of this. If you have money which you wish to trade for healthcare, there are usually better ways than bribing a firm to give you a fake job in the UK?

> Plenty are literally dying to do it.

See Afghanistan.

It was, allegedly, important enough to invade and spend billions on, as well as a number of Westerner lives; however, it is also a policy preference that these people die rather than reach the UK, which puts a rather hard upper bound on what they should have expected from us. This is being played out in real time as the UK decides how many of the people who the Taliban will execute as our collaborators it should allow to be rescued.

(asylum and the refugee system is technically separate from immigration in international law, but this is a distinction few people seem to care about. And this is also separate as nobody should realistically expect an Afghan translator for the British Army to find £650 to save their life)

I wonder how many Afghans we could safely relocate to the Falklands?

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

#103

Post by BoxOfRain »

Santosh83 wrote: post #13

If your occupied territory is far from the main seat of your remnant empire, you MUST send in as many troops as possible in the short term and then as many immigrants as possible in the long term, to consolidate your overseas hold by means of demographic claim. There is no great mystery here. What is interesting is how this behaviour from the Western nations is tacitly ignored but somehow China asserting its claim ov…

I don't think describing Britain as expansionist is accurate, in fact the remaining overseas territories were often considered a liability for the government rather than an asset. The reason Argentina invaded to begin with is because the military presence in the region had been heavily cut back and they expected Britain to settle the matter diplomatically. Nobody (including the US) believed that Britain would be successful in repelling the invaders with military force. There had even been suggestions before the war that the islands be sold to Argentina over the heads of the islanders, who didn't and still don't want to become Argentinian. You have to remember that was the moribund Britain of the early 1980s rather than the ascendent Britain of the 1880s, there was far more concern over the disasterous economic situation at home than holding onto a relatively unimportant bit of land in the South Atlantic.

Invading was a footgun of international proportions, once Argentina forcefully occupied British territory any hope of a diplomatic solution (which may well have happened) went directly down the toilet because it turned the Falklands from an inconvenience to Britain into a military matter no country could simply shy away from without an enormous loss of prestige. Nobody loses prestige by selling some neglected islands to another country, but having them forcefully taken in a war of aggression is another matter entirely and could have invited no other reponse. It also turned a place that was more or less ignored by Westminster into a place that would be very, very difficult to invade again because of the increased military presence in the region.

Nobody who's remotely literate denies the British Empire did many terrible things in its history, but in this specific case for once it actually wasn't in the wrong. The Falklands never had a native population to oppress or enslave, they simply had a small series of competing European colonists who in my 21st century eyes never seemed that committed to the place to begin with. I realise there's a lot of arguments around whose claim from the 19th century is most legitimate, but the fact of the matter is that the people who actually live there now have zero interest in becoming Argentinian and unlike the imperial powers of yore we actually tend to believe in self-determination these days.

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

#104

Post by hef19898 »

fiftyacorn wrote: post #97
hef19898 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Spani…

The issue is were they defending the claim. To do that you needed to inhabit it according to the laws at the time

And even if you do you can loose territory. Just look at all the European borders since, say, the mid 19th century.

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

#105

Post by BoxOfRain »

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.

There's no such right and even if there was, it would lead to perverse situations such as Britain getting to claim Calais which is closer to London than Paris (94 miles versus 147!).

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

#106

Post by [deleted] »

00deadbeef wrote: post #72
Huffers2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

France is closer to the UK than the Falklands are to Argentina (35km vs almost 500km). Should France belong to the UK?

[deleted]

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

#107

Post by zerr »

lmm wrote: post #21
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…

Is it bizarre? Sounds like similar rules to anywhere - no country wants to let in people who can't support themselves.

Not being an employee (for a while or forever) doesn't mean not being able to support yourself. Yes, super-rich enjoy this freedom (of movement and living where they please), but there are lots of people who are rich/sustainable enough to contribute positively to any economy but current immigration systems doesn't allow this in most countries.

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

#108

Post by Zababa »

Ichthypresbyter wrote: post #90
Zababa wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 automatica…

Thanks for the correction!

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

#109

Post by harry8 »

pjc50 wrote: post #102
harry8 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without commenting on the policy I think you're missing the maths. I can earn $x here or $(x - y) to be in the uk. In the UK I get healthcare on the NHS. I move. I quit / am fired / co goes (creatively?) broke. And I keep the healthcare on the NHS and have time to start a family before deportation etc. Think about large values of y or indeed kickbacks. Does the firm really want /me/? Or do they just want cash which t…

> queue jumping There is no queue. I mean that: there is no requirement for cases to be processed in any kind of order, if at all, and nor is there a quota (except in the minds of Home Office managers). > I get an end run around the immigration system to get healthcare Hardly anyone does this, or at least there's no evidence of this. If you have money which you wish to trade for healthcare, there are usually better w…

> There is no queue.

Any country that has a number of people who would like to immigrate of whom it will not accept all and will chose who to reject has a queue. How that queue is implemented, orderly, disorderly, corruptly, unjustly, ridiculously, incompetently or at various times all of the above. Some get in, some don't, it's a queue. It may not be a fantasy of an orderly queue where everyone is served in order in good time and without knowing about it, it does not surprise me to hear you say it is emphatically not that. Think of a priority queue if you must with priority being given by a random number generator tempered with both nonsense and corruption. You jump places in the queue by being designated higher priority. Have you jumped forward enough to be accepted and if not what can you do about it - this is the only question for those trying to get in.

Who are you taking vs who are you rejecting? That's if you're already in. You can't take everyone. The world is a nasty place and this is one of the emotional sharp edge of it. You will reject people whose stories break your heart. You don't get a choice about that.

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

#110

Post by throw0101a »

barry-cotter wrote: post #93
wodenokoto wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s called Jus Soli and while not the most common thing, it isn’t exactly special to the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

The only other country with such liberal application of jus soli is New Zealand. In no other country I'm aware of can you show up, give birth and they will definitely give the child a passport unless the mother or father is a diplomat.

> In no other country I'm aware of can you show up, give birth and they will definitely give the child a passport unless the mother or father is a diplomat.

If you are not aware, then you haven't looked very hard:

> Subsection 3(2) of the Citizenship Act states that Canadian citizenship by birth in Canada – including Canadian airspace and territorial waters – is granted to a child born in Canada even if neither parent was a Canadian citizen or permanent resident except if either parent was a diplomat, in service to a diplomat, or employed by an international agency of equal status to a diplomat. However, if neither parent was a diplomat, the nationality or immigration status of the parents do not matter.[28]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Continental_North_Ame...

Post reply on HN