@ Lorenzo Panichi
rettifico: pianificato no, ma appoggiato allegramente la xenofobia di una certa parte della maggioranza, quello si.
Dici che si cacano sotto?
Con quelle facce di tolla che si ritrovano?
Si, dei pulcinella travestiti da nazi, ma non per questo poco pericolosi.

angia ha scritto:

Questo è il risultato di un clima di odio che il governo ha ben pianificato.

magari.. a meno che spingere e pianificare abbiano per te il medesimo significato, no, il fenomeno è fuori controllo, continuano a cavalcarlo ma si cacano sotto, i più

pardon, era la dirigente scolastica!
ancora peggio.

@ max:
Dopo aver letto quell’articolo di Repubblica viene da dire che gli italiani sono stati “brava gente” solo fino a quando non hanno avuto immigrati in “casa loro”.
Questo è il risultato di un clima di odio che il governo ha ben pianificato.
Non che alcuni si siano fatti trovare impreparati…quella prof, per me, sarebbe da licenziare in tronco.

this is so wrong in so many ways I can’t even know where to begin from…

http://genova.repubblica.it/dettaglio/studenti-clandestini:-i-nomi-sulla-lavagna/1635753

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_maggio_19/flavia_fiorentino_noi_multietnici_makiguchi_al_posto_di_pisacane_75f95720-443b-11de-a9a2-00144f02aabc.shtml

@ max:
oh, max, vai a leggerti la storia del film e poi capirai perchè l’ho lincato ;-)

come on, we all know that if e.t. aliens existed for real they would be mention in the Bible, the only true and infallible source of human wisdom. they aren’t, so they don’t exist…if they existed then they would like just like us, otherwise the creation story (or actually, one of the many) would be bullshit…that can’t be!

isn’t that how you guys think?

e se succedesse questo?
http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/05/06/new-look-at-the-district-9-trailer-with-subtitles-and-no-blur/
chi sono i nemici?
;-)

1. the supply-side economic argument is simply “You cannot have both open borders and a welfare system”, …either, or. because otherwise you quickly go bankrupt. literally. so that would not be useful to anybody on either side of the border. in many respects it’s a practical matter of limited resources and unlimited needs.

so, I’m all for the libertarian argument, but one must be consequential. do we, in the West, want a society without welfare? if you answer yes, as most libertarian (in the US sense) would say, then you must be for open borders.

2. the sociological argument is that free movement of people changes a societies in many more dramatic ways than free movement of goods. and while we may be ready to accept the latter because it maximizes our marginal utility of our incomes, we may not accept those changes brought by the former as useful (e.g. a massive fundamentalist “islamization” of Europe would be against Europe fundamental adherence to human rights). societies with different degrees of political and/or economical development would experience higher risks. so free movement between north America and Europe would make sense (but because of #1 the EU would be on the losing end!), free movement between Malaysia or Afghanistan and England may not. etc.

3. that said, war and political refugees must (and usually do) make exceptions. that’s my cause of grievance with what Italy did recently: you cannot possibly evaluate one person claim as a refugee with a 2 min interview aboard a ship bound for Libia. that’s just ridiculous.