Migration Nightmares Hitting Europe

#176
#176
therealUT said:
You know that this does not support the position that is, "Having a tolerant migration policy led to the fall of Rome", right?
Click to expand...

I didn't state that migration led to the fall of Rome. Wrong poster.

But economic policy and military expansion is in the list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#183
#183
hog88 said:
I would suggest you tell the WHOLE story. There were 4(?) classes of Roman citizenship each granting certain rights. So until the 3rd or 4th generation a freedman or Latini had almost zero political sway.
Click to expand...

The classes developed and were codified and made rigid over time. They did not begin as codified and rigid. They began as very much a wealth and leisure assessment. Only those with enough wealth and enough leisure to understand political goings-ons could politically participate. Migrants were not in any way excluded at this junction, though most migrants did not have the wealth and leisure to participate.

Rome thrives and grows during this time period. Some farmers, originally excluded due to the fact that farming was labor intensive, eventually become less 'farmers' and more farm owners due to slowly built up wealth and slave labor (which, again, comes later in the Roman Empire). These 'farmers' are still technically farmers and want political voice; they are also upset that 'non-Romans' have more voice than they have.

This is the impetus for having codified classes of citizenship and the tier system. Rome wasn't built upon this codification. Neither was Athens. Neither was Persia. Yet, once such things are codified, other 'nationalistic' and 'protectionist' policies usually follow; progress slows, persons are less content, and the polity weakens until finally it is overtaken.

Tolerant immigration policy, however, is never the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#184
#184
BearCat204 said:
He was pretty clear that immigration was a key factor
Click to expand...

Negative. Migrants are a key factor, but largely because at the time they are treated with incredible cruelty where earlier Rome was incredibly tolerant and inclusive.

Let's not forget those minor details.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#185
#185
therealUT said:
The classes developed and were codified and made rigid over time. They did not begin as codified and rigid. They began as very much a wealth and leisure assessment. Only those with enough wealth and enough leisure to understand political goings-ons could politically participate. Migrants were not in any way excluded at this junction, though most migrants did not have the wealth and leisure to participate.

Rome thrives and grows during this time period. Some farmers, originally excluded due to the fact that farming was labor intensive, eventually become less 'farmers' and more farm owners due to slowly built up wealth and slave labor (which, again, comes later in the Roman Empire). These 'farmers' are still technically farmers and want political voice; they are also upset that 'non-Romans' have more voice than they have.

This is the impetus for having codified classes of citizenship and the tier system. Rome wasn't built upon this codification. Neither was Athens. Neither was Persia. Yet, once such things are codified, other 'nationalistic' and 'protectionist' policies usually follow; progress slows, persons are less content, and the polity weakens until finally it is overtaken.

Tolerant immigration policy, however, is never the problem.
Click to expand...

Tolerant is wholly different than unfettered and unregulated.

I'm for a tolerant and speedier immigration policy that is well regulated and violators are severely punished.
 
#186
#186
therealUT said:
Negative. Migrants are a key factor, but largely because at the time they are treated with incredible cruelty where earlier Rome was incredibly tolerant and inclusive.

Let's not forget those minor details.
Click to expand...

Yes when the "empire" consisted of the boot and not much further.
 
#187
#187
hog88 said:
Tolerant is wholly different than unfettered and unregulated.

I'm for a tolerant and speedier immigration policy that is well regulated and violators are severely punished.
Click to expand...

Who is proposing that? I say no quotas (let the market determine it) and screen them through a streamlined documentation process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#188
#188
hog88 said:
Tolerant is wholly different than unfettered and unregulated.

I'm for a tolerant and speedier immigration policy that is well regulated and violators are severely punished.
Click to expand...

I've said unrestricted, not unfettered. Allow everyone, yet have them register.

This is what great civilizations have done during their respective rises; is what they cease to do during their falls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#190
#190
hog88 said:
Yes when the "empire" consisted of the boot and not much further.
Click to expand...

When it grew and flourished without having to use violent coercion. Exactly. And, I'd say the boot, the Hellenic province, and the rest of the north coast of the Med.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#192
#192
therealUT said:
You're right, I don't put systems and organizations above persons. Fascists do that. True story.
Click to expand...
So do socialists. You pay for them. I'll opt out thank you very much; I pay plenty in taxes.

Look, I get your perspective. You were in Afghanistan or Iraq, and you saw the good along with the bad. I did as well in the Philippines. But the fact is that the third world is not going to change no matter how much love or money is thrown at it. Their governments are only slightly more corrupt than ours, and will always shiite on the common folk. People are always going to be destitute, and we cannot save them all. I'm tired of having the government take MY money and throw it down a rat hole. You will too someday.
 
#194
#194
therealUT said:
This was stated in an edict by Emperor Claudius in 48 AD. You should get a refund for your Western Civ course.

Roman citizenship was not a birth-right, it was earned. Many migrants not only earned citizenship but went on to be political officials in the Roman Empire, through the Pax Romana. Towards the end of the third century, start of the fourth century, Rome became much more exclusive and much less tolerant.
Click to expand...
So where is the tolerance for those that want to keep what they have earned?
 
#198
#198
therealUT said:
When it grew and flourished without having to use violent coercion. Exactly. And, I'd say the boot, the Hellenic province, and the rest of the north coast of the Med.
Click to expand...

The empire grew because of violent coercion. And let's not act like these "migrants" were coming into the empire of their own volition. Majority of these migrants were from conquered lands whether they were conquered violently or not.
 
#199
#199
SpaceCoastVol said:
So do socialists. You pay for them. I'll opt out thank you very much; I pay plenty in taxes.

Look, I get your perspective. You were in Afghanistan or Iraq, and you saw the good along with the bad. I did as well in the Philippines. But the fact is that the third world is not going to change no matter how much love or money is thrown at it. Their governments are only slightly more corrupt than ours, and will always shiite on the common folk. People are always going to be destitute, and we cannot save them all. I'm tired of having the government take MY money and throw it down a rat hole. You will too someday.
Click to expand...

Where have I advocated socialism or throwing money at these persons? Oh, right, I haven't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top