View Full Version : Immigration in General - For & Against?
Immigration is a sensitive subject for many US citizens, and in Australia it is starting to become more relevant in Australian politics because more asylum seekers are trying to come to Australia in boats but not making it due to Aus Navy. I have thought about it and I can't really see a problem with allowing these people into the country, whats wrong with an open border policy, why do people like the politicians in the liberal party so opposed to immigrants coming to Australia?
Can you please submit reasons (if any) why immigration is bad for a country like Australia & tell me why politicians don't want to let immigrants into the country?
S.O.I
12th May 2009, 13:33
the more the merrier
the two last questions are very easy: theyre racist scum playing on peoples fears and feeding it to gain power.
I am all for immigration.
Stranger Than Paradise
12th May 2009, 17:36
I don't think anyone will say anything against immigration on this board.
teenagebricks
12th May 2009, 18:20
Multiculturalism in any country can only be a good thing, it's the only reason I'm proud to be British, because of all the people of different ethnicities.
Bitter Ashes
12th May 2009, 18:47
Overall I'm in favour of open borders, as nobody has the right to demand where people can and cant settle, although there is a couple of things to consider:
- Most migrants head to imperialist countries to provide the bourgeois there with more suplus labout that's even easier to exploit.
- Language and culture barriers can make it difficult for them to intergrate into communities. Would this not stall mass class action if local communities are not able to communicate properly?
Obviously, none of this is the fault of the migrants themselves, but we should be aiming for the situation where the standard of living is high enough internationaly to make emmigration unnesicary for a decent life. I'm also confident that there are ways to get over these difficulties though.
From http://everything2.com/node/1953679
Organized labor vs. illegal immigration
While there are certainly many unions that do not discriminate when it comes to who they try to organize, this is not true of all unions.
One of the arguments sometimes used by organized labor is that the hiring of illegal immigrants drives down everyone’s wages. Because the immigrants are afraid of getting caught and have nowhere else to go, they are willing to accept much lower pay than those living here without fear. It’s hard to enforce minimum wage or work safety standards when the employees are too afraid to come forward – so the employers that hire these immigrants have an unfair advantage in the market.
My brother says, "It's not about giving a man a fish, and certainly not about teaching a man to fish... it's about letting a man fish!"
I certainly agree with this. Instead of fighting illegal immigration, organized labor should encourage the immigrants (and themselves) to simply take democratic control over their places of work, because even if they managed to send all the immigrants back to their countries of origin, their jobs will be shipped overseas anyway, in search of people willing to accept lower pay and with less rights to organize.
OneNamedNameLess
12th May 2009, 19:57
Multiculturalism in any country can only be a good thing, it's the only reason I'm proud to be British, because of all the people of different ethnicities.
I disagree completely with those who are strongly opposed to multiculturalism. I am pleased that I am not exposed to simply one variation of culture.
NecroCommie
12th May 2009, 21:21
Today our government passed the most stupendous of laws!
Immigrants may not enter, unless they can speak either finnish or swedish (our other official language). This is most nerve wrecking, since most of the populace can speak fluent english, yet only a fraction can speak fluent swedish. And have you ever tried to speak finnish?
So while integration is the original purpose of this law, it basically bans all the people seeking safe haven from 3rd world countries and conflict zones. After all, who in the need of a safe haven would have the time and resources to study obscure languages of remote countries? I know I personally am happy to speak english with immigrants. Hell! I do it daily already!
Yazman
12th May 2009, 21:25
I like places that are multicultural... there is a lot one can learn from other cultures and so many things you can experience.
It also increases our genetic diversity :)
Immigration is a good thing.
Revulero
12th May 2009, 21:35
Yeah me too thats why I love visiting big cities. Too bad I live in a small town with whites, blacks, and hispanics. Though it may seem diverse, it isn't when the whole town is culturally dominated by whites.
Is it true in the UK areas with more whites tend to be more racist? Like a area with 99% white population would be more racist then a area with 20%.
(OF course taking into account you don't poll or ask the non-white)
Dr Mindbender
12th May 2009, 21:41
Is it true in the UK areas with more whites tend to be more racist? Like a area with 99% white population would be more racist then a area with 20%.
(OF course taking into account you don't poll or ask the non-white)
hmmm no, racism is a complicated and emotive subject, that is fuelled by various factors, like poverty and deprivation, not just ethnic ratios.
Revulero
12th May 2009, 21:47
I don't know about the UK, but its like that in the US. If you go to the rural south you'll see that there are more racist because they're used to being culturally isolated, but if you go to San Fran or New York you'll see people be more tolerant towards other cultures because they've had a long history of immigration. My town is for the first time experiencing a different culture with all the hispanic people settling here and seem pretty hostile towards us.
Dr Mindbender
12th May 2009, 21:49
In my experience, racism is more prominent in poor, predominately white areas than in rich ones.
In areas where the ruling establishment have failed the people, racist ideas and politics become more palatable.
This is the proverbial ''battering ram against the workers'' that trotsky spoke of.
Demogorgon
12th May 2009, 21:56
As a precursor, I should point out I can only answer your question with bias as I am very strongly in favour of any and all immigration and believe we should move towards open borders as quickly as we can. I have very little time for anti-immigrant sentiment.
But with that in mind, I will do my best to explain. In any society, and I need hardly tell you capitalist society is particularly prone to this, there are going to be a number of social problems that those who wield power are not to keen for us to look at the causes of too closely. I don't think this needs explained further. A scapegoat is naturally required to give people something to blame, because when people see a problem they want to know who is responsible for it and how it will be addressed. By giving a false cause, pressure is taken off the real one.
Now this scapegoat can be all manner of things, but the one that has the most proven track record is the outsider, he who is perceived as difficult. Jewish people traditionally filled this role, but anti-semitism is no longer seen as acceptable mercifully, so another target is needed. Step up immigrants.
Bitter Ashes
12th May 2009, 22:04
In my experience, racism is more prominent in poor, predominately white areas than in rich ones.
In areas where the ruling establishment have failed the people, racist ideas and politics become more palatable.
This is the proverbial ''battering ram against the workers'' that trotsky spoke of.
Fairly accurate unfortuantly. It'll be the people most screwed over by capitalism who'll look for answers and the BNP will prey on that and offer them the answer of it all bieng down to minorities. Blame can be reallocated to the bourgeois I'm sure if you let people think about it.
More Fire for the People
12th May 2009, 22:06
Immigration is no different than migration--it is only made different by legal systems.
MilitantAnarchist
12th May 2009, 22:10
Yea, i cant see the problem to be honest, who gives a shit and whos it hurting?
NO BORDERS all the way for me :p
Revulero
12th May 2009, 22:16
These imaginary lines is just another way for capitalist to keep us from uniting to overthrow them.
Stranger Than Paradise
12th May 2009, 23:23
Today our government passed the most stupendous of laws!
Immigrants may not enter, unless they can speak either finnish or swedish (our other official language). This is most nerve wrecking, since most of the populace can speak fluent english, yet only a fraction can speak fluent swedish. And have you ever tried to speak finnish?
So while integration is the original purpose of this law, it basically bans all the people seeking safe haven from 3rd world countries and conflict zones. After all, who in the need of a safe haven would have the time and resources to study obscure languages of remote countries? I know I personally am happy to speak english with immigrants. Hell! I do it daily already!
That sounds worringly nationalist and fascist. Scary.
gowavescene
13th May 2009, 08:02
The recent Australian experience would suggest that the majority of the population is xenophobic in the extreme. Since the infamous Tampa incident, in which a Norwegian freighter that had picked up a group of asylum seekers in Australian waters after their boat had sunk, and was then refused entry to the country by John Howard's conservative Government; it has become increasingly apparent that most Australians are genuinely terrified by the prospect of immigrants (mostly from war-ridden Middle Eastern countries) being granted refugee status and living in their suburbs. As such, all subsequent policies relating to immigration (referring specifically to boat-people here) have not given a shred of credence to the idea that granting these people asylum might be the best course of action (to, of course, ensure this nation retains something that even vaguely resembles a moral conscience). EVERY single debate around this issue between the two major political parties has concerned how best to process and deport them, or detain them. It's fucked.
Oh, yes...and I well and truly support open borders.
[/endrant/]
As an illegal immigrant living in South Texas, it if, of course, a no brainer that I, too, support the unrestricted movement of people across borders. In fact, the very idea of borders is oppressive and authoritarian. People should have the freedom to move from place to place. Who are politicians to say who can and who cannot be allowed to live on an arbitrary patch of land?
In the end, borders are social constructs with no real basis on reality, and merely serve to reinforce and perpetuate relationships of power between nations and the people who live in them. As such, we must unequivocally call for the end of borders as we know them, alongside the struggle to end capitalism and statism. It makes no sense that multinational corporations can move around the world virtually unrestricted, but people must jump through elaborate hoops just to pass through imaginary lines. It is an unjust practice that must be brought to an end.
Borders, a necessary evil..
I am against current immigration arrangements in Australia, I do support borders however and this is why, for the protection of the citizens in the geographic zone defined by our internationally recognized borders. Security (in my view) for the Australian society could be compromised by fundamental extremists (such as Islamic extremists), agents working for other states or other individuals or groups who's primary objective is detrimental to the Australian national interest.
This does not mean that immigrants should be excluded from the opportunity to work and contribute to our society, we should have facilities for people who want to move to Australia or become an Australian citizen at places like our foreign embassies so that they may simply go into one, fill out some paperwork and get on a flight to Australia (for free) where they could then be processed into an assimilation camp (not some sort of hardcore brain washing facility but an educational compound where they could learn English, Australian customs, laws and whatever else would be required of an Australian citizen without diminishing their potential cultural contribution to society) After they show that they are equipped to prosper in Australian society they're sent to live with family they may have in Australia or to a town which has a community of people from their cultural/geographic area (to make assimilation into a new culture easier), from then they could seek employment, participate in government initiatives to learn new skills or seek a higher education, they would however have to pay the government back (say probably $20 per week or something).
Anyway, I would like to envisage something more fair however in today's society i just couldn't see such progressive ideas being implemented by the assholes that idiots elect. If we were living in a world without capitalism, imperialism and religious fundamentalism then borders wouldn't be necessary but i think that it can be argued for the sake of peoples security from outside threats (which is also the same problem people face with revolutionary governments) borders are a necessary evil.
Comments, please?
Security (in my view) for the Australian society could be compromised by fundamental extremists (such as Islamic extremists)
Hey, good to see a different opinion on here, even if I almost completely disagree - ha! :lol:
Security could also be compromised by serial killers moving between towns in your nation. What are you going to do about them? The thing is, there really isn't anything you can do about them. If you already knew they were serial killers (or "religious" killers), then you would have already arrested them. Until you have reasonable evidence that they will harm others, you can't tell them apart from anybody else. Would you restrict travel between the towns of your nation just because serial killers might slip through the cracks?
agents working for other states or other individuals or groups who's primary objective is detrimental to the Australian national interest.
What exactly is the "Australian national interest"? Maybe they are there to kill all Australians - if so, then yes, that would be against Australian national interest. Maybe they are there to promote the exploitation of working Australians at the hands of international or Australian business owners. What about those people? Maybe they are there to help free working Australians from the domination of the Australian capitalist class - are they against "Australian national interest"? I would say no.
PeaderO'Donnell
13th May 2009, 21:32
hmmm no, racism is a complicated and emotive subject, that is fuelled by various factors, like poverty and deprivation, not just ethnic ratios.
Yet usually the middle classes are much much more racist than working class people in my experiance...they are just politer about it.
brigadista
13th May 2009, 22:54
my experience too peader
gowavescene
14th May 2009, 01:03
Racism is ubiquitous in all human societies; it's not "usually" more prevalent in any class.
gowavescene
14th May 2009, 01:10
What exactly is the "Australian national interest"? Maybe they are there to kill all Australians - if so, then yes, that would be against Australian national interest. Maybe they are there to promote the exploitation of working Australians at the hands of international or Australian business owners. What about those people? Maybe they are there to help free working Australians from the domination of the Australian capitalist class - are they against "Australian national interest"? I would say no.
Or...just MAYBE, their homelands are fucked (let's not go into the intricacies of why their countries are screwed, as that's not what we're discussing), they have little or no money, and are desperate to start new lives in a more peaceful place. I am certain that the vast majority of asylum seekers are, in seeking refuge in Australia, trying to find stability in their lives. They're not here to stir up political strife and, as much as we may wish it was the case, cast light upon the inequality of our society...they're here to give their children a better chance at getting a good education and for the safety of a country in which they won't be shot at daily. That is why I find the bullshit that goes on in the Australian Parliament reprehensible: they are playing with the lives of vulnerable, scared and royally fucked-over people.
Hey, good to see a different opinion on here, even if I almost completely disagree - ha! :lol:
Can you elaborate on what you disagree with? I disagree with borders completely but I see them necessary as reasons previously stated.
Security could also be compromised by serial killers moving between towns in your nation. What are you going to do about them? The thing is, there really isn't anything you can do about them. If you already knew they were serial killers (or "religious" killers), then you would have already arrested them. Until you have reasonable evidence that they will harm others, you can't tell them apart from anybody else. Would you restrict travel between the towns of your nation just because serial killers might slip through the cracks?
Individual security would be compromised by a security killer, of course, but they would have been born in Australia and information on them would be available to domestic law enforcement, an organized criminal cell of religious extremists on the other hand can do a lot more damage, don't have a paper trail and do not care if they die themselves.
What exactly is the "Australian national interest"? Maybe they are there to kill all Australians - if so, then yes, that would be against Australian national interest. Maybe they are there to promote the exploitation of working Australians at the hands of international or Australian business owners. What about those people? Maybe they are there to help free working Australians from the domination of the Australian capitalist class - are they against "Australian national interest"? I would say no.
What would be against the Australian national interest would be the undermining of peoples security, of democratic and liberal institutions, some of them you already named such as the exploitation of working Australians by the hands of foreign multinational corporations, this could include access to natural resources or the destruction of forest etc. (allowed through the manipulation of internal politics)
I am not here to debate whether the system of government (the Westminster system) is truly democratic in nature however, I do wish to say that the further depredation of what little rights Australian workers do have is something that the state must prevent through legislation protecting Australian from foreign interference from entities which goals would be a direct attack on Australian workers, these "entities" could be imperialistic states such as the United States (which have meddled with Australian internal politics through the CIA and it's establishment of defence facilities to further America's imperialistic ambitions) or they could be criminal cells, religious extremists (of any religion) or foreign corporations wanting a new market to exploit (natural resources, land, workers etc.).
reddevil
14th May 2009, 13:09
i am generally in favour of immigration. however, i do agree that the current system needs to be greatly reformed as exploitation of foreign and undocumented workers is common.
Pogue
14th May 2009, 13:44
Not saying this is my line but there is a left wing critique of multi-culturalism held by the IWCA amongst others which I believe has as its basis that it encourages segregation and division and emphasises difference rather than similarities. Instead they favour integration, i.e. mixing communities and getting people to live together because in reality, we are all quite similar and any cultural differences are not large enough to need us to be divided.
Communist Theory
14th May 2009, 14:24
Sounds like your government is a bunch of nationalistic, xenophobic pricks.
they would have been born in Australia and information on them would be available to domestic law enforcement
What information? The very fact that the serial killer hasn't been arrested yet means there is no information.
an organized criminal cell of religious extremists on the other hand can do a lot more damage, don't have a paper trail and do not care if they die themselves.
You also have to consider why someone wants to kill you. For serial killers, it may just be some sort of mental instability. What about political assassins or terrorists / freedom fighters? What is it about your politics that they don't like? Are you too capitalist? Too communist? Have your tax dollars been used to fund people going into their country and raping their women?
What would be against the Australian national interest would be the undermining of peoples security, of democratic and liberal institutions, some of them you already named such as the exploitation of working Australians by the hands of foreign multinational corporations, this could include access to natural resources or the destruction of forest etc. (allowed through the manipulation of internal politics)
OK, let's say you could come to some fairly conclusive decision about whether a potential immigrant will be a threat to the people currently living in your country. Maybe you even do some religious / national profiling with regards to people coming from places that your country's current regime has fucked over. Let's say they've passed all those tests. What then? Would you still refuse them entry? Would you still have a quota as to how many are allowed in? What if they come from some totally unrelated country like Mongolia or Fiji?
Il Medico
15th May 2009, 03:04
The more workers that come the merrier! More to help overthrow the bourgeois!
The reasons why people oppose immigration:
Working Class/Poor- They are uneducated racist bastards! Pardon my french.
Rich- They are afraid that they will aid in the overthrow of their tyranny.
However, ultimately immigration won't matter. After the revolution there will be no states to immigrate to and emigrate from. Viva revolution! :hammersickle:
Immigration creates diversity and enriches society by creating an amalgamation of cultures, which ultimately brings us one step closer to understanding each other and being able to work together. A Mexican immigrant, for example, has more in common with a working class American than they would even think: the root of their problem is capitalism, not their nation of origin. The sooner we realize this and begin to work as team, the better.
What information? The very fact that the serial killer hasn't been arrested yet means there is no information.
A serial killer would have a paper trail, records etc. someone who has illegally infiltrated a country wouldn't and would be a greater risk to security.
You also have to consider why someone wants to kill you. For serial killers, it may just be some sort of mental instability. What about political assassins or terrorists / freedom fighters? What is it about your politics that they don't like? Are you too capitalist? Too communist? Have your tax dollars been used to fund people going into their country and raping their women?
I wouldn't want you to misinterpret what I've said, religious terrorists of any nature undermines the democratic nature of the state. What religious fundamentalists despise is secularism, tolerance of other religions or states which policies or practices (such as democracy) do not conform with their own. I support the eradication of any religious terrorists, whether they be christian or Islamic, whilst i support people's liberal rights to have their own religious beliefs, if their practices infringe on the liberty, security or freedom of people (be they Australian or not) i am against it.
OK, let's say you could come to some fairly conclusive decision about whether a potential immigrant will be a threat to the people currently living in your country. Maybe you even do some religious / national profiling with regards to people coming from places that your country's current regime has fucked over. Let's say they've passed all those tests. What then? Would you still refuse them entry? Would you still have a quota as to how many are allowed in? What if they come from some totally unrelated country like Mongolia or Fiji?
Of course not, as i stated earlier, they would be allowed to live in Australia, personally I would be in favour of some sort of "quota" as to how many are allowed, such a system is already in place, I would however encourage foreigners from other states to be allowed the same opportunity to immigrate to Australia and for the state to encourage immigration to balance the ethnic groups. Of course Australia should not be expected to unilaterally take all these immigrants and if there are a lot then something must be done to make living conditions in the countries that are "fucked over" better, this would have to be done multilaterally through organizations such as the UN and Australia would have to promote this internationally.
Of course we cannot really expect the xenophobic "liberal" bureaucrats who run the country to take such progressive measures. /sigh
A serial killer would have a paper trail, records etc. someone who has illegally infiltrated a country wouldn't and would be a greater risk to security.
He has a paper trail, but you still don't know he's a serial killer - just like an immigrant without a paper trail - you still don't know he's a serial killer. What's the difference?
What religious fundamentalists despise is secularism, tolerance of other religions or states which policies or practices (such as democracy) do not conform with their own.
How do you know this is what motivates Islamic terrorists / freedom fighters? How do you know you haven't fallen for the propaganda put out by your own government? What if the reason they are fighting you is simply because your current regime is doing nasty things to their country? Do you simply rule out that possibility because it's too hard to believe? Why is it hard to believe?
personally I would be in favour of some sort of "quota" as to how many are allowed
Why is a quota good? Why not allow all (non-dangerous) people freedom of movement?
Of course Australia should not be expected to unilaterally take all these immigrants
Why not? Because Thomas Malthus says so? The biggest problems caused by population growth would be eliminated if the gardeners working on golf courses for the rich were instead delivering food to the poor.
if there are a lot then something must be done to make living conditions in the countries that are "fucked over" better, this would have to be done multilaterally through organizations such as the UN and Australia would have to promote this internationally.
The first step would be getting your own government to stop fucking them over. The next, if you could stomach it, would be to protect them from others who want to fuck them over.
Rosa Provokateur
15th May 2009, 21:07
For. No green-cards, no amnesty, whoever wants in is allowed in my book.
Sam_b
15th May 2009, 21:17
In my experience, racism is more prominent in poor, predominately white areas than in rich ones.
In areas where the ruling establishment have failed the people, racist ideas and politics become more palatable.
This is the proverbial ''battering ram against the workers'' that trotsky spoke of.
For once I agree with you, Ulster: but we should remember that most of the gains made by the BNP in the last elections came in the more affluent southern areas of England, and the BNP in recent years have been expanding to try and gain the middle-class vote, eg the slogan 'Tory supporters like you voting British National Party'.
If we were living in a world without capitalism, imperialism and religious fundamentalism then borders wouldn't be necessary but i think that it can be argued for the sake of peoples security from outside threats (which is also the same problem people face with revolutionary governments) borders are a necessary evil.
Aside from your ridiculous 'Islamic fundamentalist' scaremongering, you'd probably face less 'security threats' (not that Australia really does anyway) if your government stopped giving support for wars aimed at killing Muslim people and causing the rise of Islamophobia.
The free movement of people is entirely vital, of course under the current system borders are used exclusively by the ruling classes to keep control.
redarmyfaction38
15th May 2009, 22:46
Immigration is a sensitive subject for many US citizens, and in Australia it is starting to become more relevant in Australian politics because more asylum seekers are trying to come to Australia in boats but not making it due to Aus Navy. I have thought about it and I can't really see a problem with allowing these people into the country, whats wrong with an open border policy, why do people like the politicians in the liberal party so opposed to immigrants coming to Australia?
Can you please submit reasons (if any) why immigration is bad for a country like Australia & tell me why politicians don't want to let immigrants into the country?
immigration is caused by the different levels of exploitation the international capitaLIST companies in different countries, the differing effects such exploitation has in "underdeveloped" nations compared to "industrialised" nations.
"immigration" is not really a problem to the developed nations until it begins to cause them problems with the organised working class, then, and only then, they play the immigrant card, pretending it is the immigrant that is undermining "native" workers employment conditions rather than the greedy ambitions of the capitalist companies to cut "costs" and improve their profits by employing, not just cheap immigrant, non unionised labour but "illegal" immigrant labour.
workers have moved across the world since the beginning of recorded history and beyond, it is only the capitalist system that seeks to exploit this natural movement of populations in order to cover its own inadequacies when faced with the failure of its economic and political ideology.
hence the rise of nazism etc.
hence capitalisms determination to destroy the russian revolution i n its own blood when a civil war would not have been possible without the western armies of intervention and so on and so on.
out lived my welcome on this post, i think.
brigadista
16th May 2009, 01:45
in the next brit election the spin will focus ONLY on immigration to take the focus off the recession
He has a paper trail, but you still don't know he's a serial killer - just like an immigrant without a paper trail - you still don't know he's a serial killer. What's the difference?
The difference is that the security of society is compromised more, firstly there is always a paper trail if you are born in Australia you have education records, health records, photo identification and a lot more. With someone who has infiltrated the state, they could have bought with them nerve gas, rpg's, sniper rifles, hell even a suitcase nuke, this could be for the purpose of supporting operations against the state, against the people, terrorist attacks, assassinations, anything and they do not have to be from the middle east, they could be CIA, fascists, christian radicals who want to blow up a stem cell research clinic. The point is, it doesn't matter who and from where, illegal immigration posses a greater security risk.
How do you know this is what motivates Islamic terrorists / freedom fighters? How do you know you haven't fallen for the propaganda put out by your own government? What if the reason they are fighting you is simply because your current regime is doing nasty things to their country? Do you simply rule out that possibility because it's too hard to believe? Why is it hard to believe?
I'm not talking about Islamic terrorists, I am the government, the current regime is fucked and everyone knows that, whilst i support the elimination of religious extremists of any nature which halt the progress of society
I don't support what this war has degenerated into. I believe
Why is a quota good? Why not allow all (non-dangerous) people freedom of movement?
To balance ethnic representation in the country so that one group of people who may be Christians do not implement laws (through democratic proceedings bought on by a representation of the majority) that affect adversely minority groups like Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. Of course religion has no real correlation to ethnic groups but that was just an example to help you understand where I was coming from.
Why not? Because Thomas Malthus says so? The biggest problems caused by population growth would be eliminated if the gardeners working on golf courses for the rich were instead delivering food to the poor.
Why not? Because the fact is Australia alone cannot solve this problem unilaterally, it would be inappropriate and careless to allow immigrants to come to Australia without addressing the reasons why they need to leave in the first place.
The first step would be getting your own government to stop fucking them over. The next, if you could stomach it, would be to protect them from others who want to fuck them over.
I believe immigrants should have the right to come to Australia, as previously stated, I do not support Australian participation in this conflict which is not only considered illegitimate but also undermines international law and the authority of the United Nations.
you'd probably face less 'security threats' (not that Australia really does anyway) if your government stopped giving support for wars aimed at killing Muslim people and causing the rise of Islamophobia.
I'll correct you by suggesting you change Muslim and replace it with Islamic extremist. The rest of what you said was spot on. Well done.
We're discussing immigration, not conflicts that Australia may be involved in.
Why not? Because the fact is Australia alone cannot solve this problem unilaterally, it would be inappropriate and careless to allow immigrants to come to Australia without addressing the reasons why they need to leave in the first place.
What's that supposed to mean? No immigrants "need to leave".
I believe immigrants should have the right to come to Australia, as previously stated, I do not support Australian participation in this conflict which is not only considered illegitimate but also undermines international law and the authority of the United Nations.
Sorry to cross-quote from a thread but as CJ said in your other one:
Imperialists dont give a shit about international law.
What's that supposed to mean? No immigrants "need to leave".
Well they may need to leave because they're being bombed by US planes, cannot find work, starving, sure they could stay there and die, or starve but most that value self-preservation would generally leave.
Sorry to cross-quote from a thread but as CJ said in your other one:
Not all countries are imperialistic and you're 100% right in quoting that libsoc, that is something that needs to be addressed.
Guerrilla22
16th May 2009, 14:54
Why would anyone be against immigration? People aren't cattle, you can't dictate were they can and cannot go by drawing up artificial political boundaries.
Rebel_Serigan
16th May 2009, 20:19
Xenophobia is a very dangerous topic in this world. While no-one but the Japanese will admit to open Xenophobia all countries are victims of it. The US is especialy Xenophobic, but tries like hell to cover it up by making things more culturely plural. However, I see the problem with cultural pluralism. One might say "Oh, having a great number of cultures is great" and you'd be right, but is letting each of those cultures remain completely seperate and culturaly intact? I do not think so. If multipul cultures are to exist in one state then we should strive to encorperate all people into a untited single culture, the true melting pot. The only way people will get over Xenophobia is to make it so we are no different then anyone else. Unti we can look across a group of people and stop seeing white, black, hispanic, asian or whatever and start just seeing humans. Culture makes us unique but we will all be unique on a world scale if we allow cultures to become one.
With someone who has infiltrated the state, they could have bought with them nerve gas, rpg's, sniper rifles, hell even a suitcase nuke, this could be for the purpose of supporting operations against the state, against the people, terrorist attacks, assassinations, anything
Sure, all of these things can happen, however, why not combine this statement with what you yourself added later on: "it would be inappropriate and careless to allow immigrants to come to Australia without addressing the reasons why they need to leave in the first place."
Are you going to address why they would want to attack all Australians (or certain Australians) in the first place?
Or maybe you want to do both - that is, both try to prevent killers from coming in, while at the same time, stop Australians from killing their people. The next question is: which is more important? Do you spend 50% of your time and resources on both? Or 99% on one and 1% on the other?
To balance ethnic representation in the country so that one group of people who may be Christians do not implement laws (through democratic proceedings bought on by a representation of the majority) that affect adversely minority groups like Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, etc.
Since I'm an anarchist, this statement makes no difference to me. The world itself already has an "imbalance" of various representations. Would you support trying to "balance out" the world somehow? To the anarchist, if two different groups of people want to do things in different ways, then they just set up their own communities (or "nations" if you want to call them that) to do what they want. It is only when one group tries to harm others when anarchists will encourage everyone to protect people's right to self-determination.
the fact is Australia alone cannot solve this problem unilaterally
First you have to realize that the entire world does NOT want to go to Australia - it is only a small fraction that actually wants to risk starting over in a culture they probably don't understand. The fact that right-wingers try to convince Australians that you are faced with an immigrant threat is just part of their scare-mongering in order to get more followers.
The next thing to look at is the population density of your nation. How high is it really? Is it already the highest in the world? I doubt it. Certainly not higher than Singapore, of course - but if you don't want to be like Singapore, the rest is just a matter of how you develop your economy.
undermines international law and the authority of the United Nations
As you might have guessed, anarchists laugh at "international law" and the "authority" of the UN as mere playthings of the wealthy. Anarchists (assuming they actually had the power and resources) would be, for example, sending in people to Colombia to protect union members and investigate their murders, regardless of claims to "sovereignty" by the Colombian capitalist class.
Sure, all of these things can happen, however, why not combine this statement with what you yourself added later on: "it would be inappropriate and careless to allow immigrants to come to Australia without addressing the reasons why they need to leave in the first place."
Are you going to address why they would want to attack all Australians (or certain Australians) in the first place?
Who knows why, the point is, security is compromised by illegal immigration and measures need to be put in place to ensure that immigrants can come to Australia.
Or maybe you want to do both - that is, both try to prevent killers from coming in, while at the same time, stop Australians from killing their people. The next question is: which is more important? Do you spend 50% of your time and resources on both? Or 99% on one and 1% on the other?
I see where your coming at, not all illegal immigrants come from Afghanistan, however, i do acknowledge that due to the participation of the Australian military in that theater the risk of having "immigrants" come to Australia with malicious intent (or retaliation) has increased exponentially whereas such a threat before operations commenced in that area were extremely small. Both matters need to be addressed, that is, to prevent people from entering the state with the intent to harm people and to stop giving people reasons to want to harm Australian people.
Since I'm an anarchist, this statement makes no difference to me. The world itself already has an "imbalance" of various representations. Would you support trying to "balance out" the world somehow? To the anarchist, if two different groups of people want to do things in different ways, then they just set up their own communities (or "nations" if you want to call them that) to do what they want. It is only when one group tries to harm others when anarchists will encourage everyone to protect people's right to self-determination.
I agree with you, the world has got an imbalance of various representations and this needs to be addressed. What you said is correct and when the "community" of the United States was established almost everyone living there were Christians, the majority of US citizens today are Christians and this has created an imbalance as previously stated where the christian state is able to impose it's ideologies via foreign policy internationally. This is why a balance in a representative democracy and a culture of common values is ideal so that the state adopts positive policies, not interventionist ones..
First you have to realize that the entire world does NOT want to go to Australia - it is only a small fraction that actually wants to risk starting over in a culture they probably don't understand. The fact that right-wingers try to convince Australians that you are faced with an immigrant threat is just part of their scare-mongering in order to get more followers.
That's not the point, the point is that without addressing why the living conditions are terrible in certain countries the problem will continue to occur, if the problem is addressed then we can work multilaterally to fix it.
The next thing to look at is the population density of your nation. How high is it really? Is it already the highest in the world? I doubt it. Certainly not higher than Singapore, of course - but if you don't want to be like Singapore, the rest is just a matter of how you develop your economy.
These factors should be irrelevant when dealing with this issue.
As you might have guessed, anarchists laugh at "international law" and the "authority" of the UN as mere playthings of the wealthy. Anarchists (assuming they actually had the power and resources) would be, for example, sending in people to Colombia to protect union members and investigate their murders, regardless of claims to "sovereignty" by the Colombian capitalist class.
Of course they do, but today organizations such as the UN and international law must be upheld for the interests of the working class living in otherwise victimized countries, I see the UN only a stop-gap measure for the lack of international co-operation and respect between people ruled by the bourgeois whom compete with one another not caring collateral damage.
Both matters need to be addressed, that is, to prevent people from entering the state with the intent to harm people and to stop giving people reasons to want to harm Australian people.
Sure, I can agree with taking actions to prevent both the killing of Australians by "outsiders" and the killing of "outsiders" by Australians. But I'll pose the question again: how much time and resources to you want to devote to each? 50% on one, and 50% on the other? 99% on one, and 1% on the other?
This is why a balance in a representative democracy and a culture of common values is ideal so that the state adopts positive policies, not interventionist ones.
I don't quite know what your definitions are here. How would what you call "representative democracy" protect minorities? What are "positive policies"? And why are "interventionist" policies bad?
we can work multilaterally to fix it
I think the whole "unilateral" vs "multilateral" dichotomy is crap. If every country were run by asshole capitalists, then "multilateral" policies would be asshole policies. If only one country were not run by assholes, then that one country's unilateral policies would not be asshole policies.
Sure, I can agree with taking actions to prevent both the killing of Australians by "outsiders" and the killing of "outsiders" by Australians. But I'll pose the question again: how much time and resources to you want to devote to each? 50% on one, and 50% on the other? 99% on one, and 1% on the other?
Obviously what needs to be addressed first is the fact that foreign citizens are being killed in illegitimate conflicts that Australia is participating in. If that is done then it will make it second job easier.
I don't quite know what your definitions are here. How would what you call "representative democracy" protect minorities? What are "positive policies"? And why are "interventionist" policies bad?
The Westminster system is a classic example of "representative democracy" do you really think a person of middle eastern orientation, today, in Britain would have a lot of luck against some white guy running for a parliamentarian position? If the seat they were both competing for had a balanced mix of ethnic groups then it would make the process a lot more egalitarian. However, I believe that at it's core representative democracy is flawed and people merely elect others to misrepresent their constituency. This is why I also mentioned "a culture of common values" which could be used to define nationalism, internationalism etc. (an ideal that represents the population), but this culture of common values should embrace our international similarities and what as a society the population should strive for, whether that be more liberties or socioeconomic change etc.
I think the whole "unilateral" vs "multilateral" dichotomy is crap. If every country were run by asshole capitalists, then "multilateral" policies would be asshole policies. If only one country were not run by assholes, then that one country's unilateral policies would not be asshole policies.
It all depends on the nature of the state, in an ideal world it wouldn't be crap and even today it has some legitimacy in international affairs, if emphasis is placed on multipolarity and the nature of the state isn't so damn capitalistic then international conditions could really be worked on.
Sam_b
18th May 2009, 14:47
I'll correct you by suggesting you change Muslim and replace it with Islamic extremist. The rest of what you said was spot on. Well done.
I don't want to resurrect this thread but fuck it - this is messed up. It does have everything to do with wars because you are advocating some sort of control to stop more negative aspects of imperialism's war in the Middle East.
And no you won't be correcting me, because I don't see that many 'Islamic Extremists' being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan: I see far more Muslims being murdered by racist governments.
This is why I also mentioned "a culture of common values" which could be used to define nationalism, internationalism etc. (an ideal that represents the population), but this culture of common values should embrace our international similarities and what as a society the population should strive for, whether that be more liberties or socioeconomic change etc.
Sure, I guess part of the "core" would be the system of government itself, whether it's representative democracy or something else - if you can't even get people to agree on the constitutional aspects, then it's back to the drawing board.
Anyway, whether it's representative democracy or not, what other values do you believe belong in the "core"? What values do you believe do not belong in the core? Are some values "more core" than others?
I don't want to resurrect this thread but fuck it - this is messed up. It does have everything to do with wars because you are advocating some sort of control to stop more negative aspects of imperialism's war in the Middle East.
And no you won't be correcting me, because I don't see that many 'Islamic Extremists' being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan: I see far more Muslims being murdered by racist governments.
Actually, sorry you are correct. Innocents Muslims are being killed in the middle east even though they may be collateral damage in these conflicts they are still going to hate coalition forces for it and will then retaliate or side with the Islamic extremists because at least those extremists are fighting off imperialistic countries such as the US. So your comment did have some validity and I withdraw that previous comment in regard to it.
Sure, I guess part of the "core" would be the system of government itself, whether it's representative democracy or something else - if you can't even get people to agree on the constitutional aspects, then it's back to the drawing board.
Anyway, whether it's representative democracy or not, what other values do you believe belong in the "core"? What values do you believe do not belong in the core? Are some values "more core" than others?
I'm a humanist, democracy should be at the core. Democracy is a universal notion which in theory allows socioeconomic change.. Beyond democracy I suppose that would be for the population to decide..
I'm a humanist, democracy should be at the core.
What kind of democracy do you mean? Do you mean 51% of the electorate should be allowed to do whatever they want? While this is certainly better than 1% being in charge, say 51% voted to kill off 49% of the population, would that be something you'd support? If not, then you'll have to say there are "more core" values than simply majority rule, right? If so, then what are those "more core" values?
Chicano Shamrock
20th May 2009, 09:33
I don't know about the UK, but its like that in the US. If you go to the rural south you'll see that there are more racist because they're used to being culturally isolated, but if you go to San Fran or New York you'll see people be more tolerant towards other cultures because they've had a long history of immigration. My town is for the first time experiencing a different culture with all the hispanic people settling here and seem pretty hostile towards us.
There are still many racist people here in the big cities. We have the image of more tolerance but I grew up in a mostly white area and many of them were racist.
Many white people just don't get it.
Niccolò Rossi
20th May 2009, 10:31
I'm a humanist, democracy should be at the core. Democracy is a universal notion which in theory allows socioeconomic change
Read Lenin's theses on "Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/mar/comintern.htm)". 'Democracy in general' is a bourgeois notion, used conveniently to justify and mythologise bourgeois class dictatorship and tie the working class to the state. It is completely opposed to socialism and the interests of the working class, just as immigration restrictions based on the ideology 'security' and the 'protection of the citizenry' are.
What kind of democracy do you mean? Do you mean 51% of the electorate should be allowed to do whatever they want? While this is certainly better than 1% being in charge, say 51% voted to kill off 49% of the population, would that be something you'd support? If not, then you'll have to say there are "more core" values than simply majority rule, right? If so, then what are those "more core" values?
There is only one kind of democracy, how governments have distorted it and made these "systems" is distasteful, however, a real democracy will allow socioeconomic change to develop within the state apparatus. The states condition can only change when the only factor that contributes to its orientation is the will of the people, if external factors contribute to the states orientation like in capitalist states for example then the population is misrepresented and therefore democracy is not being exercised. I could only speculate upon the nature of the state and it's "democracy" but know this, true democracy will prevail.
Bilan
20th May 2009, 14:32
Immigration is a sensitive subject for many US citizens, and in Australia it is starting to become more relevant in Australian politics because more asylum seekers are trying to come to Australia in boats but not making it due to Aus Navy.
It's not becoming 'more' relevant. It's been the back bone of so many campaigns in the last 10 years, particularly under the Howard government.
It's remained about as relevant as it has for the last 10 years. There is a renewal of the focus on the issue, though.
I have thought about it and I can't really see a problem with allowing these people into the country, whats wrong with an open border policy, why do people like the politicians in the liberal party so opposed to immigrants coming to Australia?
There are many reasons - most of which circulate around the peddling of fear (i.e. xenophobia), and the inability of the existing infrastructure to cope with the influx of people (which has more to do with poor management, and even more to do with the dominance of capital over life).
The most important factor here though is fear.
Can you please submit reasons (if any) why immigration is bad for a country like Australia & tell me why politicians don't want to let immigrants into the country?
Well, I did above, but I don't believe it's bad. It's twisted to appear bad, hence the Daily Telegraph and the like peddling fears of "Importing Al Queda" and Terrorism, etc.
There's quite a good book on it: "Bin Laden in the Suburbs (http://www.federationpress.com.au/bookstore/book.asp?isbn=9780975196700)".
Dr Mindbender
20th May 2009, 17:47
For once I agree with you, Ulster: but we should remember that most of the gains made by the BNP in the last elections came in the more affluent southern areas of England, and the BNP in recent years have been expanding to try and gain the middle-class vote, eg the slogan 'Tory supporters like you voting British National Party'.
.
I cant talk of the south of the country, most of my anti fascist activity was in the industrial north when the BNP practically made the town of Oldham it's base of operations, inciting the race riots in the process.
The BNP are opportunist carpetbaggers preying on poor workers.
There is only one kind of democracy, how governments have distorted it and made these "systems" is distasteful... in capitalist states for example then the population is misrepresented and therefore democracy is not being exercised. I could only speculate upon the nature of the state and it's "democracy" but know this, true democracy will prevail.
That all sounds like rhetoric I can agree with, but is it just empty rhetoric? It still doesn't answer this question: would you support the results of an election in which 51% of the electorate voted to kill 49%?
Anyway, this brings me to the topic of "decentralized democracy" - which is what made me interested in anarchism. From http://everything2.com/node/1932002
There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner". See also tyranny of the majority.
There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.
If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.
If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.
If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.
There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.
Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.
It's not becoming 'more' relevant. It's been the back bone of so many campaigns in the last 10 years, particularly under the Howard government.
It's remained about as relevant as it has for the last 10 years. There is a renewal of the focus on the issue, though.
Exactly, that's what I meant..
That all sounds like rhetoric I can agree with, but is it just empty rhetoric? It still doesn't answer this question: would you support the results of an election in which 51% of the electorate voted to kill 49%?
Anyway, this brings me to the topic of "decentralized democracy" - which is what made me interested in anarchism. From http://everything2.com/node/1932002
There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner". See also tyranny of the majority.
There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.
If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.
If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.
If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.
There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.
Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.
Yes, thank you, exactly, I couldn't have put it any better myself, but just how much can we decentralize the state apparatus to implement democratic proceedings and would this be sufficient? Surely It would be a step in the right direction and I agree with you completely!
Read Lenin's theses on "Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/mar/comintern.htm)". 'Democracy in general' is a bourgeois notion, used conveniently to justify and mythologise bourgeois class dictatorship and tie the working class to the state.
Then me and comrade Lenin disagree on this subject. (Democracy in general being a bourgeois notion) - That is.
I do agree with him that in that time and even today it is used to justify and mythologise bourgeois class dictatorship and tie the working class to the state.
It is completely opposed to socialism and the interests of the working class, just as immigration restrictions based on the ideology 'security' and the 'protection of the citizenry' are.
Bourgeois democracy is opposed to the interests of the working class, I do agree with this. Immigration restrictions on the basis of the ideology 'security' and the 'protection of the citizenry' are not opposed to the interests of the working class, if we were discussing anarchist or communist ideology.. and the "immigration" of pro-capitalist agents, or enemies of the proletariat in general that would not be true.
Bilan
25th May 2009, 09:04
Then me and comrade Lenin disagree on this subject. (Democracy in general being a bourgeois notion) - That is.
I do agree with him that in that time and even today it is used to justify and mythologise bourgeois class dictatorship and tie the working class to the state.
So you disagree by disagreeing? Can you really reject an analysis without actually knowing what it says.
Bilan
25th May 2009, 09:04
Then me and comrade Lenin disagree on this subject. (Democracy in general being a bourgeois notion) - That is.
I do agree with him that in that time and even today it is used to justify and mythologise bourgeois class dictatorship and tie the working class to the state.
So you agree by disagreeing? Can you really reject an analysis without actually knowing what it says.
Yazman
25th May 2009, 09:15
Sounds like your government is a bunch of nationalistic, xenophobic pricks.
Its NOT "our" government. They don't represent us.
So you disagree by disagreeing? Can you really reject an analysis without actually knowing what it says.
No I disagree by agreeing..
I disagreed to what I quoted, which was that "democracy is a bourgeois notion" this is untrue, do you imply that a decentralized democracy (as cyu mentioned) is not democratic?
Either I did not understand what comrade Bilan said, or what he said was inexact. In any case, I understood that he too believes democracy is a bourgeois notion, if he really think so, then we have different points of view. Or I didn't read correctly. Democracy is a universal notion, it cannot be parochial as some here may believe..
Verix
25th May 2009, 16:06
i belive in 100% immigration, anybody who wants in can come in
just how much can we decentralize the state apparatus
As much as necessary for self-determination - everyone should have as much ability to decide his own life as possible. If you take it to the extreme, then you can imagine the entire world be broken up into billions of "democratic" countries, where in each country there is but one person with one vote (...plus the countries move around with each person).
would this be sufficient
...of course you'd still have to work on how various people work together to achieve common goals - like ensuring the survival of humanity. For example, simply giving every person a car isn't sufficient for everyone to get around - they also need to know how to actually drive them.
So then you discuss economic and other policies - like what we do on revleft =)
[The major problem with current discussion in "capitalist democracies" is that it is very restricted by ownership of the mass media and lines of communication. When some people are allowed to have much more money than others, then they can own and control much more than others - thus stifling real discussion and formation of ideas.]
As much as necessary for self-determination - everyone should have as much ability to decide his own life as possible. If you take it to the extreme, then you can imagine the entire world be broken up into billions of "democratic" countries, where in each country there is but one person with one vote (...plus the countries move around with each person).
...of course you'd still have to work on how various people work together to achieve common goals - like ensuring the survival of humanity. For example, simply giving every person a car isn't sufficient for everyone to get around - they also need to know how to actually drive them.
So then you discuss economic and other policies - like what we do on revleft =)
[The major problem with current discussion in "capitalist democracies" is that it is very restricted by ownership of the mass media and lines of communication. When some people are allowed to have much more money than others, then they can own and control much more than others - thus stifling real discussion and formation of ideas.]
Agreed, thanks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.