Uh... if someone from Argentina wanted to move to the Falklands I imagine they'd be allowed to do so. The only country that is fucking with people is Argentina. They're using their political and economic influence to convince the rest of South America to block trade to Falklander ships. There's never been a British naval force blockading the islands.
The only force is the group of colonists who arrived on the Falklands in 1833 to establish a colony.
The only imperialism here is Argentinean.
No, they can't. Just like you couldn't just decide to go and live in America without 'qualifying'.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I mean, I don't know. There could be some act of parliament keeping Argentinians out of the islands, but I'd doubt it (though I wouldn't blame it).
It's incredibly hard to immigrate into the UK at the moment and Argentina's economy is booming so there's really no reason for people to want to move to the Falklands where they do what, sheep herd? Penguin bait?
There is oil recently found, and Britain quite rightly wants to exploit it.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Uh... if someone from Argentina wanted to move to the Falklands I imagine they'd be allowed to do so. The only country that is fucking with people is Argentina. They're using their political and economic influence to convince the rest of South America to block trade to Falklander ships. There's never been a British naval force blockading the islands.
The only force is the group of colonists who arrived on the Falklands in 1833 to establish a colony.
The only imperialism here is Argentinean.
No, they can't. Just like you couldn't just decide to go and live in America without 'qualifying'.
Is what I meant, should've spelled that out I guess.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Promise people oil riches if they move to the Falklands and give them refugee boats to sail there
I mean, I don't know. There could be some act of parliament keeping Argentinians out of the islands, but I'd doubt it (though I wouldn't blame it).
It's incredibly hard to immigrate into the UK at the moment and Argentina's economy is booming so there's really no reason for people to want to move to the Falklands where they do what, sheep herd? Penguin bait?
There is oil recently found, and Britain quite rightly wants to exploit it.
The recent wave of immigration lends the islands the atmosphere of a South Seas Qatar, where foreign workers are imported to do the work that locals can't or won't (although, to the Falklands' credit, they offer a clear path to residency and British citizenship). Chileans and Saints work in restaurants and stores, Russians do marine research, an Englishman runs the tourist bureau, and the head of the local bank is from Indonesia. It's a weirdly exclusive group, given that if you want to stay, the only way to get through the British military air base at Mount Pleasant (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. With such a strict entry regime, unless you're a cruise-ship day-tripper or a birdwatcher who has flown in on holiday, the only way to be unemployed on the islands is to be a resident retiree or an unemployable, native-born drunk.
So the only way in is through a British military base, where you need to prove that you've gotten an offer of employment from someone on the island. And all the island's businesses are owned by British Citizens, most of whom are probably not to friendly to Argentinean carpetbaggers... it's not just some random coincidence that there's so few Argentinians living on islands that are right next to Argentina.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I mean, I don't know. There could be some act of parliament keeping Argentinians out of the islands, but I'd doubt it (though I wouldn't blame it).
It's incredibly hard to immigrate into the UK at the moment and Argentina's economy is booming so there's really no reason for people to want to move to the Falklands where they do what, sheep herd? Penguin bait?
There is oil recently found, and Britain quite rightly wants to exploit it.
The recent wave of immigration lends the islands the atmosphere of a South Seas Qatar, where foreign workers are imported to do the work that locals can't or won't (although, to the Falklands' credit, they offer a clear path to residency and British citizenship). Chileans and Saints work in restaurants and stores, Russians do marine research, an Englishman runs the tourist bureau, and the head of the local bank is from Indonesia. It's a weirdly exclusive group, given that if you want to stay, the only way to get through the British military air base at Mount Pleasant (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. With such a strict entry regime, unless you're a cruise-ship day-tripper or a birdwatcher who has flown in on holiday, the only way to be unemployed on the islands is to be a resident retiree or an unemployable, native-born drunk.
So the only way in is through a British military base, where you need to prove that you've gotten an offer of employment from someone on the island. And all the island's businesses are owned by British Citizens, most of whom are probably not to friendly to Argentinean carpetbaggers... it's not just some random coincidence that there's so few Argentinians living on islands that are right next to Argentina.
That's fairly par for the course for immigrating into the UK. It was a bitch just to get my student visa and I'm American.
Point being, it's no harder for an Argentinean to move to the Falklands than it would be for them to move to London.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Also its not like it was eve inhabited before the Brits were there
I mean, I don't know. There could be some act of parliament keeping Argentinians out of the islands, but I'd doubt it (though I wouldn't blame it).
It's incredibly hard to immigrate into the UK at the moment and Argentina's economy is booming so there's really no reason for people to want to move to the Falklands where they do what, sheep herd? Penguin bait?
There is oil recently found, and Britain quite rightly wants to exploit it.
The recent wave of immigration lends the islands the atmosphere of a South Seas Qatar, where foreign workers are imported to do the work that locals can't or won't (although, to the Falklands' credit, they offer a clear path to residency and British citizenship). Chileans and Saints work in restaurants and stores, Russians do marine research, an Englishman runs the tourist bureau, and the head of the local bank is from Indonesia. It's a weirdly exclusive group, given that if you want to stay, the only way to get through the British military air base at Mount Pleasant (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. With such a strict entry regime, unless you're a cruise-ship day-tripper or a birdwatcher who has flown in on holiday, the only way to be unemployed on the islands is to be a resident retiree or an unemployable, native-born drunk.
So the only way in is through a British military base, where you need to prove that you've gotten an offer of employment from someone on the island. And all the island's businesses are owned by British Citizens, most of whom are probably not to friendly to Argentinean carpetbaggers... it's not just some random coincidence that there's so few Argentinians living on islands that are right next to Argentina.
That's fairly par for the course for immigrating into the UK. It was a bitch just to get my student visa and I'm American.
Point being, it's no harder for an Argentinean to move to the Falklands than it would be for them to move to London.
Exactly! So when you argue that the Falkland Islands should belong to Britain because most of the people they're are British, you're forgetting that the only reason that most people there are British is because there is a strong military that forcibly forbids most non-Brits from moving there. Which gets back to my original point that the main British claim to the islands is simple military force.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
And, why shouldn't the British protect their interest? We don't let whoever we want wander across the border and settle in the States.
Also, entry through a Naval port is not the same as a blockade.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I mean, I don't know. There could be some act of parliament keeping Argentinians out of the islands, but I'd doubt it (though I wouldn't blame it).
It's incredibly hard to immigrate into the UK at the moment and Argentina's economy is booming so there's really no reason for people to want to move to the Falklands where they do what, sheep herd? Penguin bait?
There is oil recently found, and Britain quite rightly wants to exploit it.
The recent wave of immigration lends the islands the atmosphere of a South Seas Qatar, where foreign workers are imported to do the work that locals can't or won't (although, to the Falklands' credit, they offer a clear path to residency and British citizenship). Chileans and Saints work in restaurants and stores, Russians do marine research, an Englishman runs the tourist bureau, and the head of the local bank is from Indonesia. It's a weirdly exclusive group, given that if you want to stay, the only way to get through the British military air base at Mount Pleasant (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. With such a strict entry regime, unless you're a cruise-ship day-tripper or a birdwatcher who has flown in on holiday, the only way to be unemployed on the islands is to be a resident retiree or an unemployable, native-born drunk.
So the only way in is through a British military base, where you need to prove that you've gotten an offer of employment from someone on the island. And all the island's businesses are owned by British Citizens, most of whom are probably not to friendly to Argentinean carpetbaggers... it's not just some random coincidence that there's so few Argentinians living on islands that are right next to Argentina.
That's fairly par for the course for immigrating into the UK. It was a bitch just to get my student visa and I'm American.
Point being, it's no harder for an Argentinean to move to the Falklands than it would be for them to move to London.
Exactly! So when you argue that the Falkland Islands should belong to Britain because most of the people they're are British, you're forgetting that the only reason that most people there are British is because there is a strong military that forcibly forbids most non-Brits from moving there. Which gets back to my original point that the main British claim to the islands is simple military force.
That don't make no goddamn sense! But, it's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.
By that logic, the only reason that Florida isn't owned by Cuba is because we keep Cubans from moving in. A nation has the right to defend its territory. There isn't a giant navy flotilla floating off the coast with its guns on Argentina.
Well I gotta go. I'll make a longer post later. Basically I just don't think the British have some inherent right to an island that they colonized when they were a superpower and Argentina was still fighting for independence.
0
Options
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
Exactly! So when you argue that the Falkland Islands should belong to Britain because most of the people they're are British, you're forgetting that the only reason that most people there are British is because there is a strong military that forcibly forbids most non-Brits from moving there. Which gets back to my original point that the main British claim to the islands is simple military force.
Oh fuck off.
Argentina invaded... of course there's a fucking task force there you disingenuous goose.
World's best janitor
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well I gotta go. I'll make a longer post later. Basically I just don't think the British have some inherent right to an island that they colonized when they were a superpower and Argentina was still fighting for independence.
So I guess we'll be pulling all our stuff out of the Sonora, Texas, and California and giving it back to Mexico then.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Well I gotta go. I'll make a longer post later. Basically I just don't think the British have some inherent right to an island that they colonized when they were a superpower and Argentina was still fighting for independence.
No nation has any inherent right to land, do they? People have a right to not be shot and killed and invaded and smallpoxed to extinction and so on. The people who were born and live on the Falklands have a right to not be forcibly expatriated (or, in the 80s, murdered by fascists).
Uh... if someone from Argentina wanted to move to the Falklands I imagine they'd be allowed to do so. The only country that is fucking with people is Argentina. They're using their political and economic influence to convince the rest of South America to block trade to Falklander ships. There's never been a British naval force blockading the islands.
The only force is the group of colonists who arrived on the Falklands in 1833 to establish a colony.
The only imperialism here is Argentinean.
No, they can't. Just like you couldn't just decide to go and live in America without 'qualifying'.
Yes you must actually go through red tape to immigrate to another country. This is not a new thing.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Uh... if someone from Argentina wanted to move to the Falklands I imagine they'd be allowed to do so. The only country that is fucking with people is Argentina. They're using their political and economic influence to convince the rest of South America to block trade to Falklander ships. There's never been a British naval force blockading the islands.
The only force is the group of colonists who arrived on the Falklands in 1833 to establish a colony.
The only imperialism here is Argentinean.
No, they can't. Just like you couldn't just decide to go and live in America without 'qualifying'.
Yes you must actually go through red tape to immigrate to another country. This is not a new thing.
I didn't know there were still places where you needed a contract to immigrate. In the US, we learn that that's what companies used before the discovery of slavery and during the early Ellis Island era.
Well I gotta go. I'll make a longer post later. Basically I just don't think the British have some inherent right to an island that they colonized when they were a superpower and Argentina was still fighting for independence.
So I guess we'll be pulling all our stuff out of the Sonora, Texas, and California and giving it back to Mexico then.
Let's skip the middleman and had it all right back to the Native Americans.
Quid on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I didn't know there were still places where you needed a contract to immigrate. In the US, we learn that that's what companies used before the discovery of slavery and during the early Ellis Island era.
You need a job offer to get in, proof you aren't going to be a drain on society, you don't get to just show up at the border and enjoy your new life. This isn't a new thing.
Well I gotta go. I'll make a longer post later. Basically I just don't think the British have some inherent right to an island that they colonized when they were a superpower and Argentina was still fighting for independence.
So I guess we'll be pulling all our stuff out of the Sonora, Texas, and California and giving it back to Mexico then.
Let's skip the middleman and had it all right back to the Native Americans.
Do we get casino's and crippling addiction to drugs and alcohol in trade?
Uh... if someone from Argentina wanted to move to the Falklands I imagine they'd be allowed to do so. The only country that is fucking with people is Argentina. They're using their political and economic influence to convince the rest of South America to block trade to Falklander ships. There's never been a British naval force blockading the islands.
The only force is the group of colonists who arrived on the Falklands in 1833 to establish a colony.
The only imperialism here is Argentinean.
No, they can't. Just like you couldn't just decide to go and live in America without 'qualifying'.
Yes you must actually go through red tape to immigrate to another country. This is not a new thing.
Well I gotta go. I'll make a longer post later. Basically I just don't think the British have some inherent right to an island that they colonized when they were a superpower and Argentina was still fighting for independence.
So I guess we'll be pulling all our stuff out of the Sonora, Texas, and California and giving it back to Mexico then.
Let's skip the middleman and had it all right back to the Native Americans.
Hope Europe's ready for its ~700,000,000 new residents. Think the good people of Galloway and Dumfries are going to give me a nice place to live?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Uh... if someone from Argentina wanted to move to the Falklands I imagine they'd be allowed to do so. The only country that is fucking with people is Argentina. They're using their political and economic influence to convince the rest of South America to block trade to Falklander ships. There's never been a British naval force blockading the islands.
The only force is the group of colonists who arrived on the Falklands in 1833 to establish a colony.
The only imperialism here is Argentinean.
No, they can't. Just like you couldn't just decide to go and live in America without 'qualifying'.
Yes you must actually go through red tape to immigrate to another country. This is not a new thing.
Well I gotta go. I'll make a longer post later. Basically I just don't think the British have some inherent right to an island that they colonized when they were a superpower and Argentina was still fighting for independence.
So I guess we'll be pulling all our stuff out of the Sonora, Texas, and California and giving it back to Mexico then.
Let's skip the middleman and had it all right back to the Native Americans.
Hope Europe's ready for its ~700,000,000 new residents. Think the good people of Galloway and Dumfries are going to give me a nice place to live?
Presumably I will be DNA tested (Cause I sure as Hell don't know who my ancestors were) then separated in to the proportional nationalities and shipped over.
I didn't know there were still places where you needed a contract to immigrate. In the US, we learn that that's what companies used before the discovery of slavery and during the early Ellis Island era.
You need a job offer to get in, proof you aren't going to be a drain on society, you don't get to just show up at the border and enjoy your new life. This isn't a new thing.
As far as I know, the US doesn't require you to have a lengthy contract to stay, and it definitely doesn't deport you if you're fired. You have to follow a lengthy process and, usually, need a sponsor, but we definitely don't still have an institutionalized indentured servitude system.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I didn't know there were still places where you needed a contract to immigrate. In the US, we learn that that's what companies used before the discovery of slavery and during the early Ellis Island era.
You need a job offer to get in, proof you aren't going to be a drain on society, you don't get to just show up at the border and enjoy your new life. This isn't a new thing.
As far as I know, the US doesn't require you to have a lengthy contract to stay, and it definitely doesn't deport you if you're fired. You have to follow a lengthy process and, usually, need a sponsor, but we definitely don't still have an institutionalized indentured servitude system.
You have to retain gainful employment or we deport your ass.
The UKBA's even stricter. If I miss a check-in I have 90 days to GTFO.
It's hyperbole to call this indentured servitude. If things were so awful, why wouldn't they be chucking tea into the harbor?
I didn't know there were still places where you needed a contract to immigrate. In the US, we learn that that's what companies used before the discovery of slavery and during the early Ellis Island era.
You need a job offer to get in, proof you aren't going to be a drain on society, you don't get to just show up at the border and enjoy your new life. This isn't a new thing.
As far as I know, the US doesn't require you to have a lengthy contract to stay, and it definitely doesn't deport you if you're fired. You have to follow a lengthy process and, usually, need a sponsor, but we definitely don't still have an institutionalized indentured servitude system.
You have to retain gainful employment or we deport your ass.
The UKBA's even stricter. If I miss a check-in I have 90 days to GTFO.
It's hyperbole to call this indentured servitude. If things were so awful, why wouldn't they be chucking tea into the harbor?
That sounds like a perfect way to keep captive employees. Ask for a raise? Deported. Try to unionize? Deported. Complain about sexual harassment? Forced to eat English cuisine.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I didn't know there were still places where you needed a contract to immigrate. In the US, we learn that that's what companies used before the discovery of slavery and during the early Ellis Island era.
The UK did more to end slavery than any other country in existence...
Seriously, don't go down this road, the U.S. has nowhere fucking near the moral high ground in this instance.
And don't even get me started on U.S. employment law. There's no such thing as "right to work" in Britain.
Many Western or other countries have work sponsored visas that are incredibly onerous for the individual. It is almost the norm.
In the UK at present that kind of visa is pretty much the only way for a non EU, ancestry or family/spousal or student person to stay long term, since the recession started. Seems reasonable too, as economic migrants should only be able to come if there is a real prospect of work.
In an island state, with a small long term population, the impact of not having a carefully thought out immigration policy based in need/cost could be rather serious.
Anyway, prior to the invasion, Argentina had a ckose economic relationship with the Falklands and there were a few Argentine residents. After the invasion that all had to end. Many commentators have noted that if Argentina had patience, their economic dominance would have extended and political settlement may have too
I didn't know there were still places where you needed a contract to immigrate. In the US, we learn that that's what companies used before the discovery of slavery and during the early Ellis Island era.
The UK did more to end slavery than any other country in existence...
Seriously, don't go down this road, the U.S. has nowhere fucking near the moral high ground in this instance.
And don't even get me started on U.S. employment law. There's no such thing as "right to work" in Britain.
Of course it did, it had colonies in Africa. That's also why Belgium was a huge critic of Portugal's slavery record.
If you need to stay with your employer to not be deported, he has total power over your life. You can't threaten to quit, because he knows that you can't. Similarly, there's no way to call his bluff if he threatens to fire you if you refuse to do something.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I didn't know there were still places where you needed a contract to immigrate. In the US, we learn that that's what companies used before the discovery of slavery and during the early Ellis Island era.
The UK did more to end slavery than any other country in existence...
Seriously, don't go down this road, the U.S. has nowhere fucking near the moral high ground in this instance.
And don't even get me started on U.S. employment law. There's no such thing as "right to work" in Britain.
Of course it did, it had colonies in Africa. That's also why Belgium was a huge critic of Portugal's slavery record.
If you need to stay with your employer to not be deported, he has total power over your life. You can't threaten to quit, because he knows that you can't. Similarly, there's no way to call his bluff if he threatens to fire you if you refuse to do something.
Do you have some evidence as to the plight of the Falklander immigrants aside from your xenophobic assumptions?
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Considering even Americans can't unionize our own people I don't see why we would point fingers at others.
I think we would need to see figures before assuming the Falklands employers are a bunch of jerks who wilfully abuse foreign employees due to power to deport. Just because it cout end up that way does not mean it does.
Besides, Falklands use a similar a similar legal system to the UK, so there will be some recourse via the courts in immigration, contract and employment law issues. That can be a hollow right I concede, if one is now deported say back to the homeland, but it is still an option all the same
I didn't know there were still places where you needed a contract to immigrate. In the US, we learn that that's what companies used before the discovery of slavery and during the early Ellis Island era.
The UK did more to end slavery than any other country in existence...
Seriously, don't go down this road, the U.S. has nowhere fucking near the moral high ground in this instance.
And don't even get me started on U.S. employment law. There's no such thing as "right to work" in Britain.
Of course it did, it had colonies in Africa. That's also why Belgium was a huge critic of Portugal's slavery record.
If you need to stay with your employer to not be deported, he has total power over your life. You can't threaten to quit, because he knows that you can't. Similarly, there's no way to call his bluff if he threatens to fire you if you refuse to do something.
Do you have some evidence as to the plight of the Falklander immigrants aside from your xenophobic assumptions?
I was actually just reacting to a system that seemed really fucked up and given to abuse.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I didn't know there were still places where you needed a contract to immigrate. In the US, we learn that that's what companies used before the discovery of slavery and during the early Ellis Island era.
The UK did more to end slavery than any other country in existence...
Seriously, don't go down this road, the U.S. has nowhere fucking near the moral high ground in this instance.
And don't even get me started on U.S. employment law. There's no such thing as "right to work" in Britain.
Of course it did, it had colonies in Africa. That's also why Belgium was a huge critic of Portugal's slavery record.
If you need to stay with your employer to not be deported, he has total power over your life. You can't threaten to quit, because he knows that you can't. Similarly, there's no way to call his bluff if he threatens to fire you if you refuse to do something.
Do you have some evidence as to the plight of the Falklander immigrants aside from your xenophobic assumptions?
I was actually just reacting to a system that seemed really fucked up and given to abuse.
Not any more so than our system, and as far as I'm aware they've a good record.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I'm pretty sure the uk is a bit more worker friendly than the us
Posts
No, they can't. Just like you couldn't just decide to go and live in America without 'qualifying'.
It's incredibly hard to immigrate into the UK at the moment and Argentina's economy is booming so there's really no reason for people to want to move to the Falklands where they do what, sheep herd? Penguin bait?
There is oil recently found, and Britain quite rightly wants to exploit it.
Is what I meant, should've spelled that out I guess.
So the only way in is through a British military base, where you need to prove that you've gotten an offer of employment from someone on the island. And all the island's businesses are owned by British Citizens, most of whom are probably not to friendly to Argentinean carpetbaggers... it's not just some random coincidence that there's so few Argentinians living on islands that are right next to Argentina.
That's fairly par for the course for immigrating into the UK. It was a bitch just to get my student visa and I'm American.
Point being, it's no harder for an Argentinean to move to the Falklands than it would be for them to move to London.
Exactly! So when you argue that the Falkland Islands should belong to Britain because most of the people they're are British, you're forgetting that the only reason that most people there are British is because there is a strong military that forcibly forbids most non-Brits from moving there. Which gets back to my original point that the main British claim to the islands is simple military force.
Also, entry through a Naval port is not the same as a blockade.
That don't make no goddamn sense! But, it's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.
By that logic, the only reason that Florida isn't owned by Cuba is because we keep Cubans from moving in. A nation has the right to defend its territory. There isn't a giant navy flotilla floating off the coast with its guns on Argentina.
Argentina invaded... of course there's a fucking task force there you disingenuous goose.
So I guess we'll be pulling all our stuff out of the Sonora, Texas, and California and giving it back to Mexico then.
No nation has any inherent right to land, do they? People have a right to not be shot and killed and invaded and smallpoxed to extinction and so on. The people who were born and live on the Falklands have a right to not be forcibly expatriated (or, in the 80s, murdered by fascists).
Yes you must actually go through red tape to immigrate to another country. This is not a new thing.
Let's skip the middleman and had it all right back to the Native Americans.
You need a job offer to get in, proof you aren't going to be a drain on society, you don't get to just show up at the border and enjoy your new life. This isn't a new thing.
Do we get casino's and crippling addiction to drugs and alcohol in trade?
You aren't the only one who can point out flawed arguments! :P
Hope Europe's ready for its ~700,000,000 new residents. Think the good people of Galloway and Dumfries are going to give me a nice place to live?
Sorry! Wasn't trying to tread your toes, just repeating what I said in case it got lost in this buggy new system.
Presumably I will be DNA tested (Cause I sure as Hell don't know who my ancestors were) then separated in to the proportional nationalities and shipped over.
As far as I know, the US doesn't require you to have a lengthy contract to stay, and it definitely doesn't deport you if you're fired. You have to follow a lengthy process and, usually, need a sponsor, but we definitely don't still have an institutionalized indentured servitude system.
You have to retain gainful employment or we deport your ass.
The UKBA's even stricter. If I miss a check-in I have 90 days to GTFO.
It's hyperbole to call this indentured servitude. If things were so awful, why wouldn't they be chucking tea into the harbor?
That sounds like a perfect way to keep captive employees. Ask for a raise? Deported. Try to unionize? Deported. Complain about sexual harassment? Forced to eat English cuisine.
You know, eye for an eye.
Seriously, don't go down this road, the U.S. has nowhere fucking near the moral high ground in this instance.
And don't even get me started on U.S. employment law. There's no such thing as "right to work" in Britain.
In the UK at present that kind of visa is pretty much the only way for a non EU, ancestry or family/spousal or student person to stay long term, since the recession started. Seems reasonable too, as economic migrants should only be able to come if there is a real prospect of work.
In an island state, with a small long term population, the impact of not having a carefully thought out immigration policy based in need/cost could be rather serious.
Anyway, prior to the invasion, Argentina had a ckose economic relationship with the Falklands and there were a few Argentine residents. After the invasion that all had to end. Many commentators have noted that if Argentina had patience, their economic dominance would have extended and political settlement may have too
Of course it did, it had colonies in Africa. That's also why Belgium was a huge critic of Portugal's slavery record.
If you need to stay with your employer to not be deported, he has total power over your life. You can't threaten to quit, because he knows that you can't. Similarly, there's no way to call his bluff if he threatens to fire you if you refuse to do something.
Do you have some evidence as to the plight of the Falklander immigrants aside from your xenophobic assumptions?
Besides, Falklands use a similar a similar legal system to the UK, so there will be some recourse via the courts in immigration, contract and employment law issues. That can be a hollow right I concede, if one is now deported say back to the homeland, but it is still an option all the same
I was actually just reacting to a system that seemed really fucked up and given to abuse.
Not any more so than our system, and as far as I'm aware they've a good record.