Blogging has definitely taught me to write faster. Although, if I wrote at this level for a client I would probably be fired.

However, feel free to call me up on my constant gratuitous grammatical errors – although note, if you try to say my argument is wrong because I’m illiterate I will get snappy 🙂

“My application of the english language is shocking”

“You’ll never guess that english is my first language”

HA! Well we commenters will endure, as ever.

Or,

“You’ll never guess that english is my first language” 😛

“My application of the english language is shocking”

Agreed – but as I mentioned just above I used the more loaded less accurate terms on purpose in order to get people going. It isn’t just the “common meaning” of a word that matters – but the implicit moral judgments that come with it.

Fundamentally, if I believed that there was no moral difference between indirect and direct discrimination then I could use xenophobia and maybe even racism accurately in this case. Now, I think that is a defendable moral stand-point, but I am willing to accept that it is a bit extreme.

Heh. Futher, word defintions (racism/nationalism) are not a matter of grammar (rules of use), more a matter of accepted meaning(s) i.e. a vocabulary issue. Anywaaay…

“It is a bias against people not from New Zealand, because they are not from New Zealand. Nationalism is probably to best term.”

You, and StephenR and Steve are completely right about this of course – it is more accurately described as Nationalism because the bias is indirect, or implicit, rather than explicit.

However, I enjoy using emotive terms in this case – and I also enjoy being corrected on the issue as it teaches me a lot about how the issue is framed and viewed.

Hi Steve,

“At the same time, the citizens and legal residents of this country should – MUST – enjoy preference over people from outside it.”

I understand that the realpolitik argument for this sort of bias is the main argument in favour of it – but ultimately I believe that any such argument is still illustrating a bias against other people, and I don’t think we can value one person over another person.

More fundamentally, I can recognise that there is some “tipping point” where migration would shake the structure of society – and as a result, any migration must be limited (in the short term). However, there is no role for actively encouraging discrimination – which is what happens when we focus on “Kiwi workers” ahead of their potential substitute.

Ultimately, I look forward to a day when both capital and labour can move freely – in such a world we can expect a lot less desperate poverty. Only once we have institutional arrangements to allow free movement of labour will we really have globalisation …