Mass overstaying of study visas exploded as myth

While Theresa May was Home Secretary the Home office put out a statistic that claimed that 100,000 foreign students a year stayed on illegally after their visas expired.  This “fact” was used by the Brexiteers in their campaign as proof of uncontrolled immigration. But new data from the Office of National Statistics says there were only 4,600 last year. proving that foreign students constitute a much smaller risk of overstaying their visas than the government has contended.  “We spent five years trying to persuade the Home Office that the figures they were using as evidence were bogus,” said the Lib Dem leader, Vince Cable, who was part of the coalition under David Cameron. “But they persisted nonetheless on the basis of these phoney numbers.”

The data from the ONS also shows net migration has fallen to its lowest level for three years, partly driven by a “Brexodus” of EU workers. Departure of EU citizens increased by 33,000 year on year to 122,000 – the highest outflow for nearly a decade. The latest yearly migration figure stands at 246,000, which is 81,000 lower than the 327,000 recorded up to March 2016.  (The Guardian, August 25th).

British universities have expanded so much that their business priority is to now recruit as many students as possible, from home and overseas, for economic reasons.  We see the same process in the UK as in the US. –  large sums are spent on dorms, social and sporting facilities to attract students, but teaching quality doesn’t necessarily improve, only the income of the top administrators.  Then anecdotally,  large numbers of , say Chinese, students may improve the economics, but the larger the number the more they socialise together, don’t speak English, and return home none the wiser, except they have probably irritated other students with their clannishness.  Good for the balance of payments, but do these foreign students learn much about Britain, do they learn much at all?  Is their English good?  Is their any point? Mmmmmh.  The bursting of the higher education bubble, long expected, might be nigh.

Moderating the growth in population

From Moira Macdonald, Exeter, Devon, UK

Daniel Cossins asks whether “we” should impose population controls (8 July, p 34). But it has been obvious since effective contraception and safe abortion became available that it is men worldwide who are at the controls.

Evidence exists that, given affordable access to the means of regulating their fertility, women do their best to avoid having more babies than they anticipate being able to raise successfully. That there are so many of us on the planet is because men maintain social structures in which safe abortion is restricted, banned or unavailable and where access to contraception costs too much, is forbidden or is still unavailable – China excepted.

Birth control is indeed a massive human rights issue – the problem is the denial of women’s human rights. The solution is not to start, but to stop imposing the current controls. Free each woman to be the sole decision-maker over her own body. Give her access to safe, affordable means to regulate her fertility, to get an abortion if and as soon as she needs one. Then watch the global birth rate plummet.(New Scientist)

As a male myself I cannot understand why men insist on running everything. Interfering with the right of women to decide on the number of babies, if any,  they have is a good example.  (the Christian Right in America, Hindus in India, Moslems everywhere, all dominated by men, please especially  note).

Personally, I find all the women I know are smarter than me. This being the case, I would like to retire to bed with a large box of dark chocolates and let them get on with running the world.   May Ms. Moira Macdonald, who wrote the above letter and is clearly of good, practical Scottish ancestry, be one of the first candidates, along with my wife and nearly all our female friends. Carry on, ladies.  Us guys seem to have messed up.

Don’t kid yourself – the American civil war was about slavery!

A member of the Society of the Friends of Epicurus has the following to say about the Robert E. Lee monument that served as a lightning rod for recent Charlottesville violence:

“To everyone who is claiming that the secession and Civil War wasn’t about slavery, the following speech was given by the VP of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, who served under President Jefferson Davis of Mississippi from February 18, 1861 to May 11, 1865. The speech was delivered three weeks after Lincoln was elected and three weeks before the first shots of the war:

“The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away…

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

For some mentally embattled people things never do change.  Epicurus, on the other hand, believed in treating everyone equally.  So do all decent, fair-minded people today.

Illegal plunder : moving towards a police State

America’s civil asset forfeiture laws, another product of law enforcement’s failed war on drugs, were originally designed to deprive suspected drug dealers of the spoils of their illicit trade — houses, cars, boats.  The law now regularly deprives people unconnected to the war on drugs of their property without due process of law and in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Not surprisingly, corruption follows.

Federal and state police can keep property seized or sell it and retain a portion of the revenue generated. Some of this, in turn, can be repurposed and distributed as bonuses in police and other law enforcement departments. The only way the dispossessed stand a chance of getting such “forfeited” property back is if they are willing to take on the authorities in a process where the deck is stacked against them.  In such cases, for instance, property owners have no right to an attorney to defend themselves,  which means that they must either find additional cash for a lawyer or contest the seizure themselves in court. “It is an upside-down world where,” says the libertarian Institute for Justice, “the government holds all the cards and has the financial incentive to play them to the hilt.” (Note from editor: this is typical right-wing anti-government rhetoric. It isn’t the ” government” pocketing the cash, but rogue policemen!)

Civil asset forfeiture has mutated into what’s now called “for-profit policing” in which police departments and state and federal law enforcement agencies indiscriminately seize the property of citizens who aren’t drug kingpins. Sometimes, for instance, distinctly ordinary citizens suspected of driving drunk or soliciting prostitutes get their cars confiscated. Sometimes they simply get cash taken from them on suspicion of low-level drug dealing.

All this is justified by telling the public that the police are giving the proceeds of sales to schools , old people’s homes and charities.  Unfortunately, the police are in general reluctant to specify what they have given and to whom. Militarised, and with a laager mentality, they are unaccountable in most jurisdictions and have become so reliant on civil asset forfeiture to pad their budgets and acquire “little goodies” that reforming, much less repealing, such laws  is a tough sell.

The previous posting (by Owen Bell) has a comment by me about the deep divisions among American citizens. This, above, simply outlines one of the problems – police unaccountability and the quiet support of it by most Republican politicians, who dominate most State legislatures –  another brickfalling out of the wall.

Epicurus and the Alt-Right

This post marks the return of my  Modern Philosophy series, in which I talk about the most prominent ideas facing the modern world from an Epicurean perspective. After this post, I have at least three more Modern Philosophies to cover, which I’ll be writing on weekly instead of fortnightly, so look out for that! 

After World War 2, it was assumed that far right ideology and its racist underpinnings had lost all credibility. The Holocaust had exposed the horrific consequences of such thinking. The philosophical roots of Nazism- anti-Semitism, social Darwinism and extreme nationalism- had all lost any merit in the eyes of the world. While authoritarian regimes continued to exist, such as Francoist Spain, they became increasingly isolated. The world became divided between the liberal capitalist West and the Communist countries. Following the fall of the Berlin wall, the latter too had lost respectability, leading to the liberal international order we see today.

However, there is a radical movement in the United States that regrets the dominance of liberal internationalism worldwide. Like Plato, they believe democracy is inherently flawed because it leads to mob rule. In Platonic terms, they want government by autocratic philosopher-kings. They draw inspiration from the writings of Nietzsche in their rejection of our society’s norms of morality and their embrace of post-modernism. For the most part, they reject Christian teachings of altruism and the believe in the equality of all men before God. But they defend Christianity insofar as they see it as a key component of Western civilisation, which they contrast with the inferior cultures of the non-Western world, particularly the Islamic world. They also reject Jewish culture for being non-Western. In terms of policy, they want the creation of an ethno-state, with an almost exclusively non-Hispanic white population. This movement has come to be known as the Alt-Right- a loose coalition of Trump supporters, internet trolls, neo-Confederates, neo-Nazis and KKK members. As ideologically diverse as they may seem, they are all united in their rejection of mainstream conservatism for capitulating to the notion of America as a diverse and pluralistic nation.

A week ago in Charlottesville, Virginia, Alt-Right protestors gathered to demonstrate against the removal of statutes of generals who had fought for the Confederacy. In theory, this should have been uncontroversial. A plurality of Americans support keeping Confederate-era statues as part of remembering the past. But the Alt-Right used the occasion not only to demonstrate the removal of their statues, but to publicise themselves and their radical beliefs.  Confederate flags, swastikas and KKK-style white hoods were on full display. Phrases like ‘Jews will not replace us’ and ‘white lives matter’ were chanted. The protest soon became violent due to clashes with counter-demonstrators. A car drove into the counter-demonstrators, killing one person and injuring at least 19 others. At first, Trump’s response was equivocal, condemning violence on both sides, but he later condemned the far-right extremists explicitly. Nevertheless, his response was praised by the Alt Right, including outspoken Klansman David Duke.

It goes without saying that the Alt-Right’s values are totally incompatible with Epicurean notions of equality and justice. But it would be a grave mistake to condemn the Alt-Right as if it exists in isolation. The truth is that although ultimate responsibility for the Alt-Right’s existence lies with its members, mainstream America has made choices that have contributed to the rise of right wing extremism in what is meant to be a post-fascist world order.

Republicans have been far too tolerant of right wing extremism, even if they aren’t extremists themselves. Conspiracy theories like Obama not being American have been allowed to fester. Anti immigration rhetoric hasn’t been rebuked sharply enough in conservative circles.  Too many conservatives believe that ethnic minorities are responsible for their own problems. They don’t accept there are actions the government and society can take to improve things for them. It’s this kind of neglect, along with the underlying belief that racism isn’t much of a problem anymore, that has contributed to the rise of the Alt-Right. Many conservatives believe that white people are just as discriminated against as blacks. The route from white victimhood to overt racism is a short one.

Democrats are nowhere near as much to blame for the Alt-Right as Republicans, but they aren’t guiltless either. By creating a culture of political correctness, and by not making the case for liberal values properly, the Left has created a demand for a reactionary anti-liberalism. If you create a taboo, some people will inevitably want to break it. At some universities, discussing any potential drawback of immigration and/or multiculturalism is viewed as racist. Social conservatives, feeling alienated from mainstream society, may become radicalised online. As a society we should debate matters more openly, instead of shutting people down all the time.

The socialist belief in the Alt-Right as a byproduct of capitalism’s failings is a very shaky one in my view. Members of the Alt-Right are no more likely to be poor than anyone else; in fact because they are white, they are more likely to be rich. They are no more likely to be unemployed or face any other hardships. The Alt-Right are not the result of capitalism or neoliberalism. Rather, their appeals primarily comes from a disillusionment with the broadly liberal consensus that has dominated politics across the developed world since World War 2. Having said that, it’s vital that we do not compromise on our values in order to appease the Alt-Right, in the hope that by becoming slightly less liberal, they will go away. If we give them an inch, they will take a foot. The Alt-Right will only be defeated by making the strongest possible case for a free society. We have to defend our record, not run away from it.

To end on a positive note, the Alt-Right may be frightening, but they only command the support of a tiny minority of Americans. Casual prejudice is all too common in the world, America included. But very few Americans want an ethno-state, believe that whites ought to have de jure superiority over non-whites, or view Nazism with anything other than total disgust. Thankfully, anti-Semitism is increasingly rare.  Just like with Islamic terrorists, the Alt-Right will only win if we lose our nerve. Epicurus may have advised not participating in politics, but a defence of basic human rights is needed now more than ever.