Immigration does not cause unemployment and housing shortages

[Matt Houston]

Hi,

I walked passed some people from the UK Socialist party today handing out leaflets, they had a poster which read "Immigration does not cause unemployment and housing shortages".

I don't claim to know much about anything, but surely immigration does add to unemployment and a shortage of housing for local people.

Is there anybody who is happy to enlighten me on the socialist perspective?

Thanks

[ArrowLance]

Well it doesn't really, not anymore than you or I make it so. Immigration simply means that you have more productive force coming into the country.

Market economics can show how everything will calibrate through 'supply and demand'. Obviously its not perfect, but the argument is so much that increased market population leads to these things, but immigration. New natural born citizens do the same thing, so its silly to blame the immigrants.

It also should be noted that unemployment is NOT a bad thing in the market, but in fact quite a necessary one for the capitalists.

[Wolf Larson]

No immigration doesn't mean a more productive force is coming into the country it means NAFTA/CAFTA and other so called free trade agreements in South America introduced private property into South America which in turn created the capitalists new and improved super exploited service sector economy labor force. It's all about the capitalists greed/profits. A more profitable force so I guess it could be seen as more productive but all working class no matter what race or nationality can produce the same. Most Americans simply refuse to be worked to the bone for less money one can survive on.They want to both make more profit by exploiting cheap[er] labor and they also want to drive down wages in the overall service sector economy.

Mass immigration has a windfall effect on overall wages within the service sector economy [especially when workers are made illegal/they cannot unionize]. Always has always will. Mass immigration lowered wages when we had an industrial economy. It's an old formula. This is why early capitalists told the world [the myth] Americas streets are paved with gold. Also, the more unemployed people or the bigger the available labor force the less the capitalist must pay workers. This is why the US always has an unemployment rate of at least 4% [real numbers] facilitated by the Federal Reserves manipulation of interest rates. They say the intentionally created perpetual unemployment rate is to regulate inflation but that's mostly bullshit.

Outsourcing is part of the game as well. All of the industrial jobs are being outsourced to extremely exploited labor and wages in the new service sector economy [that the outsourcing creates] are regulated by the influx of cheap labor. We need to reverse the free trade agreement in Mexico and other South American nations-give the people their land back while creating a fair economy in South America and we also need to unionize the South American workers who are here in the US. We need to take the capitalists ability to exploit these people both here and in South America. The conditions which force millions of people up north are intentionally created. End result? The average American is $10,000 in debt and the so called illegal work force is living in second/third world conditions here in America. They're in debt as well and have found it harder to send money back to relatives. Debt slavery. Wage slavery. Psychological slavery [MEDIA]. Slavery. The end result is slavery.

The Effect of Immigration

The large scale employer looking at greater profitability or the way to cut costs has several options open, the easiest and laziest being to cut wages. If the workers are well-organized they can resist this so there are two options open to the major capitalist. Either take the factories to where the cheap labour is or take the cheap labour to where the factories are. The first option entails great pollution, as a rule -- not that they ever care about that -- and in some cases they have to go into areas of political instability. It is cheaper to move the cheap labour. Having thus encouraged immigration, wearing the financial hat as it were, the capitalist in the capacity of a right-wing politician, dons the political hat and denounces immigration. This has the advantage of setting worker against worker, fuelled by religious and/or racial antipathies which can persist for generations, and have the added bonus of inducing the worker to support the right wing electorally. It does the capitalist no harm to have a work force hated by those who surround them, or in fear of deportation if they step out of line. Nor does it harm the capitalist, in a political context, to have issues such as immigration replace the basic issue of the wage and monetary system. It only becomes harmful from that point of view when a fascist force such as Hitler's gains such armed might that it can ignore the wishes of the capitalists which gave them that power and strives for its own superiority. -Albert Meltzer-

[redmist]

Talking from how I see it in the UK. The problem I have with this anti-immigration bollocks is that people seem to think that, as The Sun likes to tell us, all the immigrants are "invading" and causing unemployment. But in reality, a lot of the people that come to England work their socks off and do jobs most of these right wing twits wouldn't do anyway. So it is hardly stopping them getting the jobs they want most of the time!

In manual labour and such, some employers favour the migrant workers because they can pay them disgustingly low amounts without any repercussions. But to blame a migrant worker for that is ridiculous.

As for housing, the only reason it may possibly mean there is a housing shortage (which is no doubt blown up by racist papers) is because the government aren't providing.

My 2 "pennies" anyway

[syndicat]

if it weren't for immigration, the population would be declining in most industrialized countries. a declining population isn't good for the capitalists. they need a constant level of unemployment to hold wages down. immigration sometimes occurs in skilled areas like engineering where their may be labor shortages. at the low wage end, immigrants may compete for jobs with low-wage sections of the working class, and this accounts for some hostility to Latino immigrants in US by blacks for example, altho many blacks have more education than most Latino immigrants and don't directly compete with them.

anyway, the reason for the massive influx of immigrants over the past decade or more is that the free trade pacts have allowed the big companies to dump cheap agro commodities in 3rd world countries, driving many peasants or small farmers off the land, and causing higher unemployment. About 2 million corn farmers in Mexico were driven off land by NAFTA and there have been hundreds of thousands of losses in jobs in other areas as well. Also, jobs are lost in Mexico by WTO because jobs get shipped to China. so the "free trade" regime forces workers to immigrate to avoid starvation & destitution.

it's important to focus on the big capitalists as the group pushing for the free trade pacts, and how the free trade pacts have forced immigration into the first world countries, in order to avoid the immigrants being scapegoated.

[Wolf Larson]

if it weren't for immigration, the population would be declining in most industrialized countries. a declining population isn't good for the capitalists. they need a constant level of unemployment to hold wages down. immigration sometimes occurs in skilled areas like engineering where their may be labor shortages. at the low wage end, immigrants may compete for jobs with low-wage sections of the working class, and this accounts for some hostility to Latino immigrants in US by blacks for example, altho many blacks have more education than most Latino immigrants and don't directly compete with them.

anyway, the reason for the massive influx of immigrants over the past decade or more is that the free trade pacts have allowed the big companies to dump cheap agro commodities in 3rd world countries, driving many peasants or small farmers off the land, and causing higher unemployment. About 2 million corn farmers in Mexico were driven off land by NAFTA and there have been hundreds of thousands of losses in jobs in other areas as well. Also, jobs are lost in Mexico by WTO because jobs get shipped to China. so the "free trade" regime forces workers to immigrate to avoid starvation & destitution.

it's important to focus on the big capitalists as the group pushing for the free trade pacts, and how the free trade pacts have forced immigration into the first world countries, in order to avoid the immigrants being scapegoated.

Back in school did you look at other kids tests and cheat? ;)

[Matt Houston]

Thanks for the replies.

I feel like I do relate to a lot of Socialist ideas, but their position on immigration I can't agree with.

Obviously a certain level of immigration is necessary, but the way the world is moving I can't see how it can be beneficial for the current levels of immigration to continue.

There is a self-service post-office near my work, not a soul working there. It seems like more and more jobs are becoming automated and those that can't be automated are being shipped to India, so where is the sense in encouraging mass immigration.

If we really have such a massive need for labour, and companies could not hire people from outside, then they would have no choice but to raise wages, and many people who are on unemployment would start to find the rates attractive, and even be willing to relocate to where work was available.

I don't see a problem with a decreasing population, I feel that the current population levels are unsustainable anyway. Look at how Japan is dealing with a decreasing population, that is the way forward I feel.

Also I feel current levels of immigration divide society, but that is another question altogether.

[Wolf Larson]

Thanks for the replies.

I feel like I do relate to a lot of Socialist ideas, but their position on immigration I can't agree with.

Obviously a certain level of immigration is necessary, but the way the world is moving I can't see how it can be beneficial for the current levels of immigration to continue.

There is a self-service post-office near my work, not a soul working there. It seems like more and more jobs are becoming automated and those that can't be automated are being shipped to India, so where is the sense in encouraging mass immigration.

If we really have such a massive need for labour, and companies could not hire people from outside, then they would have no choice but to raise wages, and many people who are on unemployment would start to find the rates attractive, and even be willing to relocate to where work was available.

I don't see a problem with a decreasing population, I feel that the current population levels are unsustainable anyway. Look at how Japan is dealing with a decreasing population, that is the way forward I feel.

Also I feel current levels of immigration divide society, but that is another question altogether.

No no and no. Whats not necessary are borders or the concept of nationalism. Illegal immigration shouldn't exist. People are people are workers are people. We should all have equal access to the means of life no matter where we are. Capitalism creates scarcity NOT people or the various population numbers.

[Matt Houston]

I am not talking about nationalism, I am talking about a workable society, think of it as a huge kibbutz.

The idea you are advocating I can't see working, has it ever worked before, ever?

[Demogorgon]

Think of it this way, do you think there will always be a fixed level of jobs and housing in a country regardless of the size of the population? Of course not. People have this notion that there are x number of jobs and if people come from outside the country and get them then there will be fewer jobs for everyone else. But this is patently absurd. When the population rises there will naturally be more jobs available.

[Matt Houston]

I don't know where you live, but are you honestly telling me that if tomorrow the UK announced it was opening it's borders to all who where interested in comming that would be a workable situation? Seriously? If so I am.....bewildered.

[Matt Houston]

Think of it this way, do you think there will always be a fixed level of jobs and housing in a country regardless of the size of the population? Of course not. People have this notion that there are x number of jobs and if people come from outside the country and get them then there will be fewer jobs for everyone else. But this is patently absurd. When the population rises there will naturally be more jobs available.

Great, more people more jobs. How about another 20 million, that will make a lot of jobs. How about 100 million, even more jobs. Who exactly is this benefiting?

[Matt Houston]

Guys please don't think I am being antagonistic, just trying to get my head around this, and to be honest I am struggling, but thanks for trying.

[Wolf Larson]

Think of it this way, do you think there will always be a fixed level of jobs and housing in a country regardless of the size of the population? Of course not. People have this notion that there are x number of jobs and if people come from outside the country and get them then there will be fewer jobs for everyone else. But this is patently absurd. When the population rises there will naturally be more jobs available.
I don't agree. Not within capitalism. But seeing you're a senior revolutionary and I a junior I'm going to have to elaborate in lieu of just disagreeing which takes so much time I'd rather just say I don't agree and go back to picking my nose ;)


I'm underemployed right now and you're right it isn't the fault of mass immigration but more so capitalism being prone to crisis BUT I do work in construction and during boom times the labor force is generally 75% South American non citizen workers here in the Bay Area. I'm in direct competition with the capitalists and their so called illegal work force. Most white, African and Hispanic US citizen workers are pushed out of the construction labor market. The only trades in construction left for citizen workers are pluming, electrical, a small amount of carpentry and most Iron work. Mass immigration does create unemployment for working class American citizens which is why they erroneously dislike the foreign workers BUT it's not the fault of the workers it's the greedy capitalist who is exploiting as much as he can get away with.

Many people also hold a racist view and say the workers from South America do the jobs Americans won't do- they paint some picture of a bunch of peasants picking fruit in the fields. This is utter bunkum as in reality most service sector jobs are going to the worker who is willing to work for the least amount of money. It's not just fruit picking it's pretty much every service sector job that doesn't require extremely fluent English. The people who say southern workers are doing jobs Americans won't do are most always petty bourgeois white suburbanites born into privilege.

I see the southern workers as my equals and am not angry at them....more so frustrated at the situation. I've tried to unionize a few on various larger jobs in the bay area and they refuse because they know once they organize INS will be called. The capitalists have all of us by the balls so long as they can keep them illegal. In 2007-8 we started a coop and hired 2 non citizens workers [there were 8 of us all together] and everyone shared in the profits with no exploitative pay scale but we had to compete with the capitalists who did hire illegal workers so as to pay them squat. This means the capitalists can lower prices to low ball competitors and still make a profit. We had to compete with low bids from capitalists- low bids made possible by their exploitation of illegal workers so in order to compete we had to lower the bids and we ended up working in the same exploitative conditions all other people were working in. It's a conundrum and the only solution is amnesty with the goal of unionizing all workers. Even then, if everyone was made legal and unionized we would all simply be fighting to make capitalism more palatable in lieu of taking over the means of production. This is what unions have traditionally done- fought for concessions which in the long run actually saved capitalism. part of me wants the capitalist to further create second/third world conditions in America so we can actually build a revolutionary movement but then a part of me wants to fight for better labor conditions. I think the former would be a wiser stance for a revolutionary [if one can detach from emotions].

[Jimmie Higgins]

Thanks for the replies.

I feel like I do relate to a lot of Socialist ideas, but their position on immigration I can't agree with.

Obviously a certain level of immigration is necessary, but the way the world is moving I can't see how it can be beneficial for the current levels of immigration to continue.

There is a self-service post-office near my work, not a soul working there. It seems like more and more jobs are becoming automated and those that can't be automated are being shipped to India, so where is the sense in encouraging mass immigration.


If we really have such a massive need for labour, and companies could not hire people from outside, then they would have no choice but to raise wages, and many people who are on unemployment would start to find the rates attractive, and even be willing to relocate to where work was available.Well I'm in the US, so I know that history best and I think you can see statistically that levels of immigrant laborer do not correspond to higher or lower wages for the working class as a whole. For example immigration has been falling in the US for the past few years and wages are still falling. Immigration increased a lot in the mid-90s and yet wages stayed the same (but corporate profits and inequality went through the roof in the US). So the determining factor for wages and winning reforms for workers is our solidarity and organization, not immigration or lack of immigration.

The main problem is not the number of workers but the SEGREGATION of the labor force: 2 sets of laws applied to 2 separate groups of workers. This creates a race to the bottom where workers feel like they need to take cuts to compete with workers who have no rights. So in the US immigrant workers are easily intimidated by employers and undocumented workers are not allowed any labor rights and are often afraid of the authorities and so they are abused, shaken-down, or sometimes even raped (literally) by thugs that are hired by the major companies to control the hiring. If rights were universal to all workers, then it would be easier to create real solidarity since everyone would be on the same page and solidarity is the strongest tool for fighting back against the bosses.

The real answer is to fight for equal legal rights for anyone who works in a given country. Additionally we need to encourage true international solidarity so that labor power, not just capital can easily cross borders.

[Matt Houston]

If there is any correlation to lower wages and immigration it is due to a SEGREGATION of the labor force: 2 sets of laws applied to 2 separate groups of workers. So in the US immigrant workers are easily intimidated by employers and undocumented workers are not allowed any labor rights and are often afraid of the authorities and so they are abused, shaken-down, or sometimes even raped (literally) by thugs that are hired by the major companies to control the hiring.

Of course any reasonable person would agree with this. I guess my point is more along the lines of local people being priced out of the labour market, which you would argue is the fault of capitalists, to which I would argue that aside, Socialists seem to like mass immigration for the sake of mass immigration.

[Dr Mindbender]

Hi,

I walked passed some people from the UK Socialist party today handing out leaflets, they had a poster which read "Immigration does not cause unemployment and housing shortages".

I don't claim to know much about anything, but surely immigration does add to unemployment and a shortage of housing for local people.


The point is immigration is used as a scapegoat by those with power and influence to distract us from much larger causes of unemployment and housing shortages by the people who want us to think this way in the first place.

Jobs and houses cost money which obviously the ruling establishment does not want to provide. Socialised housing means fewer development available for expensive private developments to extract profit. Immigrants are a convienient distraction for us to blame which is why statistics on immigrants are never out of the newspapers and television.

I hope this explanation helps.



Of course any reasonable person would agree with this. I guess my point is more along the lines of local people being priced out of the labour market, which you would argue is the fault of capitalists, to which I would argue that aside, Socialists seem to like mass immigration for the sake of mass immigration.

You have to remember, that many of these people come from countries where they are used to much lower wages. I blame that fact on the behaviour of western companies abroad and the way in which they take advantage of people's misery. But the indigenous population should be agitating and fighting for higher wages anyway, rather than settling for the crumbs that the capitalists throw our way, immigrants or not.

Socialists dont like 'mass immigration for the sake of mass immigration'. We defend immigrants because 1) we believe in the liberty and freedom of movement of people 2) Immigrants represent among the most vulnerable in society and 3) we believe that we must oppose national borders which serve no other purpose than to divide and conquer the international working class.

[Matt Houston]

The point is immigration is used as a scapegoat by those with power and influence to distract us from much larger causes of unemployment and housing shortages by the people who want us to think this way in the first place.

Jobs and houses cost money which obviously the ruling establishment does not want to provide. Immigrants are a convienient distraction for us to blame which is why statistics on immigrants are never out of the newspapers and television.

I hope this explanation helps.

Interesting. So you are saying it is the role of the state to provide jobs and housing?

[Dr Mindbender]

Interesting. So you are saying it is the role of the state to provide jobs and housing?

We pay politicians wages and sustain them, i think it is their responsibility to protect us from hardship and adversity.

Moreover jobs and houses are necessary to sustain life, they shouldnt be treated as mere commodities.

[Matt Houston]

We pay politicians wages and sustain them, i think it is their responsibility to protect us from hardship and adversity.

Moreover jobs and houses are necessary to sustain life, they shouldnt be treated as mere commodities.

I am not crazy about this idea, I have visions of the government creating thousands of social networking site usage instructor roles to keep people in employment.

Maybe I can agree on the housing, but then the picture I have, and one you guys no doubt welcome, is millions of people pouring into the country and taking them up on the offer at the tax payers expense. Oh wait, that's already happening. Only joking ; )

[Dr Mindbender]

I am not crazy about this idea, I have visions of the government creating thousands of social networking site usage instructor roles to keep people in employment.

Maybe I can agree on the housing,

The problem with current government is that average people arent involved in it so those that are become cut off and alienated from what it means to be an average person and what the needs of typical people are.

To revolutionary socialists, mere blanket nationalisation is not enough. we need to change the nature of the government so that it is not just some sort of pen pushing faceless bureaucratic machine run by rich bastards in multi million pound houses in the plush leafy suburbs of London.




then the picture I have, and one you guys no doubt welcome, is millions of people pouring into the country and taking them up on the offer at the tax payers expense. Oh wait, that's already happening.

Did you read my point about the establishment being responsible for most of the problems? Like i said immigrants are a mere scapegoat, it has worked with yourself it seems.

There is no 'job theft' happening. As has been said increasing population means more jobs. If immigrants are appearing to mainly be working its probably a lot to do with their coming from cultures with strong work ethics.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Of course any reasonable person would agree with this. I guess my point is more along the lines of local people being priced out of the labour market, which you would argue is the fault of capitalists, to which I would argue that aside, Socialists seem to like mass immigration for the sake of mass immigration.In general, I am totally in favor of the free movement of people and against border walls, apartheid, NAZI-made ghettos, the Berlin Wall and so on.

Specifically, I live in a state in a country that has used racism and anti-immigrant xenophobia to divide and control the working class since the 1850s. In the yellow scares of the later 1800s, newspapers whipped up hysteria about Asian immigrants (barred Chinese immigration - when a large number of immigrants had actually been kidnapped to work in California in the first place!) claiming that it would destroy working class wages and cause overpopulation - this is the late 1800s and the same arguments have been used during each new capitalist crisis since.

It's divide and rule - the oldest ruling class trick in the book and unless all workers can defeat specific oppressions of some workers (racism/xenophobia/sexism/homophobia), then we all suffer and get taken advantage of.

In the early US labor movement, the right wing of labor used racist appeals blaming immigrants and blacks for lowering wages. like immigrants, blacks were used as an easily exploitable labor force because they could be intimidated by the law and the white supremacist society told them they should accept lower wages and just be thankful that they get a job. Blacks and Italian/Easter European immigrants were used as scabs and strikebreakers, so it's not like the animosity of the native white WASP workers came out of nowhere (also a lot of racism that came from the media and politicians - like today - influenced workers) but the point is that until workers fought against segregation and xenophobia, the labor movement remained weak, divided, and largely impotent.

[blake 3:17]

I don't know where you live, but are you honestly telling me that if tomorrow the UK announced it was opening it's borders to all who where interested in comming that would be a workable situation? Seriously? If so I am.....bewildered.


I'm opposed to immigration controls for a number of reasons. But you are right to a degree -- a simple no borders policy would be very chaotic. All of the immigrant and refugee solidarity efforts I've been involved in have been worker oriented and oppositional to national and international deals/schemes/warmongering that drive economic migration. Cancelling Third World debt, dropping IMF and WTO rules that dedevelop national industrial and productive forces (Haiti is one particular horror story -- the earthquake would have much much less murderous if the Haitians had been allowed to develop a functional national economy), the implementation of land reform/redistribution and greater sovereignty on the export of natural resources all go a long way in reducing the necessity of migration.


In the early US labor movement, the right wing of labor used racist appeals blaming immigrants and blacks for lowering wages. like immigrants, blacks were used as an easily exploitable labor force because they could be intimidated by the law and the white supremacist society told them they should accept lower wages and just be thankful that they get a job. Blacks and Italian/Easter European immigrants were used as scabs and strikebreakers, so it's not like the animosity of the native white WASP workers came out of nowhere (also a lot of racism that came from the media and politicians - like today - influenced workers) but the point is that until workers fought against segregation and xenophobia, the labor movement remained weak, divided, and largely impotent.

Not so sure on that. I think I initially misread the above. Were Black workers less entitled to work than "native" Whites? Racism within the White working class is hardly a product of Black strike breaking.

I'd love to learn more about Southern and Eastern European migrant workers in North America. I've had dreams about what could have happened if the Jewish Left had been able to make common cause with immigrant Italian workers.

[Wolf Larson]

The problem with current government is that average people arent involved in it so those that are become cut off and alienated from what it means to be an average person and what the needs of typical people are.

To revolutionary socialists, mere blanket nationalisation is not enough. we need to change the nature of the government so that it is not just some sort of pen pushing faceless bureaucratic machine run by rich bastards in multi million pound houses in the plush leafy suburbs of London.


The problem with our current government[s] is that it exists of by and for capitalism. Watch The Take by Naomi Klein and you'll see my point that the state [government] is not here to help us but is here to help the capitalist. We need to meld the workplace and governance together under direct democracy. Any state [be it socialist or capitalist] that is controlled by a minority will end up creating a tyrannical environment. When the workers in Argentina organized and took over the means of production in a few places it was outside of the state apparatus and the state, if anything, is a roadblock to worker control.

People on the left who apologize for their respective state's [governments] are doing so at their/our detriment. Case in point is Obama's organize for America campaign. These government institutions aren't anything but indoctrination centers meant to churn out loyal workers under capitalism and volunteers for the military so they can avoid a draft for future wars. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, wrote a book called The Plan; Big Ideas For America back in 2004-5. In this book he highlighted a plan to organize Americans in government institutions with the intent of adding at least 300,000 but perhaps a million people to the military in order to avoid a draft for future wars. It starts on page 58 under a chapter entitled <i> Ask Not- Universal Citizen Service. Obama's chief of staff talks about creating a capitalist labor force that can compete with China and goes into a pro war rant concerning the dire threat of evil terrorists and the need for us to build up the military without a draft. He compared our current time with the race against communism and the space race. Obama's chief of staff said today is our Sputnik moment where we need organize a capitalist work/war force to out compete China and stamp out terror. Dick Cheney would have ben proud of Rahm's imperialist rant. Obama was, why do you think Rahm is the chief of staff [other than the fact he is the person who put together Obama's Wall st campaign financing]?

Obama's chief of staff says:

"<i> The world changed with 9/11 and America must change with it. It's time to ask Americans in all walks of life to give something back. Every citizen needs to understand the American bargain: Each of us has to do his part. After 9/11 both parties in Washington spent countless hours signing a law called the Patriot Act, which gave the government new powers to police terrorism. We're all for giving law enforcement the tools to do it's job; the DLC tried to do just that after domestic terrorists blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. We have no problem with spying on terrorists here or elsewhere. Our problem with the Patriot Act is simpler: it doesn't have much to do with patriotism. We want the government to be aggressive in protecting us from terrorists. But we want a government that's just as serious about challenging us as citizens. Americans role in the war on terror is not simply to be waving flags on the sidelines.

It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal citizen service for every young American. By asking Americans to serve universal service will strengthen America in three ways. First it will provide real lasting security benefits. We shouldn't kid ourselves- the war on terror won't be over anytime soon. The Cold War lasted nearly half a century; what some call this long war could go on for decades. If that's the case citizens are going to have to get tougher, smarter and stronger. The best antidote to fear is preparation. Yet, most Americans today have no idea what to do in the event of a nuclear, chemical or biological attack. Training young people in civilian defense and enlisting them to train and inform others will pay immediate practical dividends.

SECOND, universal service may be just what we need to save the volunteer army and avoid a draft. Government service will not compel anyone to serve in the military but it will increase the pool of young people willing to volunteer for military service. joining the military never crosses the minds of young people today. they may not even know anyone who is considering it. Through government service millions of young people will meet others who have serves or who plan to serve, and will no longer view their duty to their country as someone else's job."</i>


Anyone who supports Obama is counterrevolutionary. Anyone who supports our government is counterrevolutionary. This isnt to say you should dislike the state for the same reasons right wing libertarians do- WE should dislike the state because we should be aware it is a creation of and tool for capitalists to control manipulate and exploit workers. The only thing keeping us from taking over the means of production is the state. Apologizing for the state so long as capitalism exists is a grave mistake many people on the left make. It only serves to strengthen the capitalists grip on our necks. Democrats gain support for the state from the left while republicans and democrats both represent the interests of big business and war. Republicans get the white working class to hate the state only in the capacity as provider for the poor. In the end it works out perfect for capitalists because the left apologizes for the state's existence in order to supposedly help people and the right apologizes for the states existence in order to protect the nation from the bogyman [where most of our taxes go- to war]. In the end the state exists to legitimize facilitate and protect markets foreign and domestic. The state is capitalism and capitalism is the state. It's one entity.


Governance isn't bad when it's a true non hierarchical decentralized democracy run of the people/workers but the founding tyrants didn't form a democracy they formed a so called democratic republic which in reality is a plutocratic republic. From the beginning and up unto this day our government exists to create and maintain concentrated wealth in a minorities hands and to maintain this minorities rule over mankind. Supporting this current government in nay way is akin to shooting yourself in the foot.

[Matt Houston]

You have to remember, that many of these people come from countries where they are used to much lower wages. I blame that fact on the behaviour of western companies abroad and the way in which they take advantage of people's misery. But the indigenous population should be agitating and fighting for higher wages anyway, rather than settling for the crumbs that the capitalists throw our way, immigrants or not.

Socialists dont like 'mass immigration for the sake of mass immigration'. We defend immigrants because 1) we believe in the liberty and freedom of movement of people 2) Immigrants represent among the most vulnerable in society and 3) we believe that we must oppose national borders which serve no other purpose than to divide and conquer the international working class.

I missed this first time round, good stuff.

Of course I am aware these people are used to lower wages :rolleyes:. Not quite sure you can put the fact they get lower wages (back home) down to international companies though.

You are making out like borders are some kind of unnatural phenomena, don't you think that even before there were official borders people were defending their resources from others, as a matter of survival for the group? I believe resources are scarce/finite, maybe you don't. Do you really believe in some kind of utopia were people from all over the world wonder all over place singing kumbaya arm in arm together, I don't think it's human nature.

American Indian tribes spring to mind. Maybe my example is going off at a tangent but I know what I mean even if it doesn't sound like it.

[Matt Houston]

Cancelling Third World debt, dropping IMF and WTO rules that dedevelop national industrial and productive forces (Haiti is one particular horror story -- the earthquake would have much much less murderous if the Haitians had been allowed to develop a functional national economy), the implementation of land reform/redistribution and greater sovereignty on the export of natural resources all go a long way in reducing the necessity of migration.

Awesome, this I can relate to.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not so sure on that. I think I initially misread the above. Were Black workers less entitled to work than "native" Whites? Racism within the White working class is hardly a product of Black strike breaking.Yes, before and throughout the large migration of blacks to industrial areas, blacks were restricted to certain jobs in an informal way (this continues to today where in the south managers tend to be white and the managed tend to be black). But really it was the racist intimidation that made black workers second-class workers. In the south racism was more about preserving the white-supremacist social order whereas in the north, blacks were used more or less as a reserve labor force like modern undocumented workers and racism was used against to keep people intimidated and prevent organizing and so on.

Right, strike-breaking isn't the main reason for white racism in this period, but employers did play groups off each-other all the time during this period and blacks were usually at the loosing (and scapegoated) end. I didn't mean to make it sound like this is the main reason, I just mentioned it because the same logic about "black workers taking white jobs" is used today against (primarily Latino and Asian) immigrants - but if you show how that same argument was used by racists against blacks, the inherent racism of the modern parallels becomes a little more apparent.

[Matt Houston]

I missed this first time round, good stuff.

Of course I am aware these people are used to lower wages :rolleyes:. Not quite sure you can put the fact they get lower wages (back home) down to international companies though.

You are making out like borders are some kind of unnatural phenomena, don't you think that even before there were official borders people were defending their resources from others, as a matter of survival for the group? I believe resources are scarce/finite, maybe you don't. Do you really believe in some kind of utopia were people from all over the world wonder all over place singing kumbaya arm in arm together, I don't think it's human nature.

American Indian tribes spring to mind. Maybe my example is going off at a tangent but I know what I mean even if it doesn't sound like it.

And further more, and this is where the Capitalist in me probably comes out, I believe some groups inevitably squander their resources and while it would nice for them to be helped out by more prudent groups they should not be allowed to drag everyone else down with them.

You guys must be looking at eachother thinking this guy can talk a load of shit, why doesn't he put down the laptop and read some Das Capital. I had it on audiobook you know.

[Arlekino]

The Sun, Mirror, Daily Mail there are all evils and distribution of stupid misinformation. I wish one day we could block those newspapers shall we do some good campaign anybody agree with me?

[Matt Houston]

The Sun, Mirror, Daily Mail there are all evils and distribution of stupid misinformation. I wish one day we could block those newspapers shall we do some good campaign anybody agree with me?

Jesus, Socialists not really big on freedom of speech then.

[Matt Houston]

OK that's enough, I am talking to myself now, that's how hard it is to find an intelligent conversation round here (that's a joke).

Thanks peeps, it's been enlightening, I might be back one day.

[Matt Houston]

Did you read my point about the establishment being responsible for most of the problems? Like i said immigrants are a mere scapegoat, it has worked with yourself it seems.

Why don't you just come out and call me racist/nazi or whatever else you refer to people who don't agree with you.


There is no 'job theft' happening. As has been said increasing population means more jobs. If immigrants are appearing to mainly be working its probably a lot to do with their coming from cultures with strong work ethics.

I was talking about housing, as for the jobs, I disagree, I think you guys need to move on from Marx, it's 2010 now and the world is a different place.

Couldn't resist.

[Dr Mindbender]

Why don't you just come out and call me racist/nazi or whatever else you refer to people who don't agree with you.

I dont think you're a racist or nazi on the merit of what you typed despite your general billigerence so far, the likliehood is you're just another one of the attypical indigenous white british people that have swallowed the bullshit peddled by the Sun and daily male.



I was talking about housing, as for the jobs, I disagree,.
Jobs and housing are both necessary to happy human existance.



I think you guys need to move on from Marx, it's 2010 now
And Marx's works are as pertinent as they ever were.

The divide between rich and poor is widening and the living standards of working class people is generally stagnant.

[CartCollector]

Think of it this way, do you think there will always be a fixed level of jobs and housing in a country regardless of the size of the population? Of course not. People have this notion that there are x number of jobs and if people come from outside the country and get them then there will be fewer jobs for everyone else. But this is patently absurd. When the population rises there will naturally be more jobs available.

Here's one thing I don't get: why the fetish for having more jobs and labor? I can understand it in capitalism where you need a job to survive, but surely this isn't desirable to have everyone want to work more and more. If people as a whole want to consume less (that is to say in economist terms that Aggregate Demand goes down) then you would think people would be happy because that means they would have to work less to produce what people want. But no, people start buying less and all of the sudden millions of people are being laid off and the economy goes straight to hell. In other words, thrift creates catastrophe.

[Matt Houston]

I dont think you're a racist or nazi on the merit of what you typed despite your general billigerence so far, the likliehood is you're just another one of the attypical indigenous white british people that have swallowed the bullshit peddled by the Sun and daily male.

Atypical, I would say my views are very typical maybe you are the one who is out of touch. Billigerence...whatevs, there is really no need to be condescending. This may come a shock to you but I don't read either of those fine publications, in fact I don't read newspapers but if it makes you more comfortable to think that way go for it. My opinions are based on what I notice day to day around me, I know it may be hard for you to fathom a indigenous white british person coming to their own conclusion that mass immigration may not be such a great idea without the aid of the media, but that appears to be what has happened. Most times I read a paper it's some rubbish about how "immigrants add £5 billion to the economy".


And Marx's works are as pertinent as they ever were.

The divide between rich and poor is widening and the living standards of working class people is generally stagnant.

And the way to resolve this is through "freedom of movement of labour", look there's unemployment, you know what will fix that, half a billion immigrants, immigration creates jobs you know, and if the indigenous population are struggling to adapt that's their problem, we have our socialist ideals to think of. Thank god people are buying the sun and not this nonsense.

We are not living in feudal Russia here, this economy is modernizing, jobs are being automated and jobs are being shipped overseas. I guess time will tell, I forsee that instead of adapting to the times like Japan, the UK will continue on it's current course and become a giant slum, and that's even without your theory of the government dishing out jobs and houses.

[Demogorgon]

I don't know where you live, but are you honestly telling me that if tomorrow the UK announced it was opening it's borders to all who where interested in comming that would be a workable situation? Seriously? If so I am.....bewildered.
95% of all cross border movement in Britain is within the EU (or countries like Norway and Switzerland with treaties giving similar status) and there are open borders within the EU. So effectively speaking we already have it and I fail to see the disaster. All I ask for is the other 5% to be treated the same way. Tabloid hysteria notwithstanding that is not a dramtic change.

Think of it this way though. Do you think people from Birmingham should be restricted from moving to London? Or people from Edinburgh prevented from moving to Glasgow? Or you should have to get a Visa to go from the South of the country to the North of the country? Would that be economically beneficial? If not, why does it become beneficial doing it on a larger scale?

The natural consequence of free movement is people moving from areas where there are too many people to areas where there are not enough people. All the Scapegoating in the world won't change that.

[Matt Houston]

There is a difference between travel and immigration, which you are obviously aware of. Most Swiss and norwegians are simply passing through.

Most immigrants I come into contact with seem happy, their lives are better than in their place of origin. I am pretty sure immigrants in Europe are treated better than in most places in the world.

If you can't see a difference between immigration from Birmingham and Bangladesh then I am not sure we are, or will ever be on the same wavelength.

Thanks for the response, given me lots to think about.

[Matt Houston]

And for those who believe this is the reserve of atypical sun Reading White Brits look at how south Africans reacted to the millions of zimbabweans in their country. You still think immigrants have it bad in Europe? Havn't seen anybody get set on fire here in ages.

[Demogorgon]

There is a difference between travel and immigration, which you are obviously aware of. Most Swiss and norwegians are simply passing through.

Most immigrants I come into contact with seem happy, their lives are better than in their place of origin. I am pretty sure immigrants in Europe are treated better than in most places in the world.

If you can't see a difference between immigration from Birmingham and Bangladesh then I am not sure we are, or will ever be on the same wavelength.

Thanks for the response, given me lots to think about.
Swiss and Norwegian people may tend to be traveling, but citizens of the EU plus Swiss and Norwegian citizens have the right to come here and work. That's why lots of people from Eastern Europe work here for instance. This is accounting for the vast majority of immigration to Britain. What I ask is that it be opened up to the entire world.

The reason I ask if you think movement should be restricted within Britain is because you seemed to think the economy benefits from restricting movement on a worldwide basis. If it works like that, then it would obviously be beneficial to restrict it within borders as well. Yet that blatantly does not help anyone.

If most of the immigrants you have met seemed happy, then I am pleased to hear it, but perhaps you should wonder why you think there should be less of them? What is the real reason you think that? The economic reasons are nonsense of course, so the question is what causes these views. I don't think it is racism, rather I think you have simply internalised some of the rubbish that comes from certain sections of the media. Tell a lie often enough and people start to believe it and take it as common sense.

[Dr Mindbender]

Atypical, I would say my views are very typical maybe you are the one who is out of touch. Billigerence...whatevs, there is really no need to be condescending. This may come a shock to you but I don't read either of those fine publications, in fact I don't read newspapers but if it makes you more comfortable to think that way go for it. My opinions are based on what I notice day to day around me, I know it may be hard for you to fathom a indigenous white british person coming to their own conclusion that mass immigration may not be such a great idea without the aid of the media, but that appears to be what has happened. Most times I read a paper it's some rubbish about how "immigrants add £5 billion to the economy".
Your ideas seem to be carbon copies of what is espoused by the gutter press and the right wing political parties. Perhaps it would be easier to believe your views were your own if they didnt resonate so much with the murdochian media machine and the tin hat brigade.




And the way to resolve this is through "freedom of movement of labour", look there's unemployment, you know what will fix that, half a billion immigrants, immigration creates jobs you know, and if the indigenous population are struggling to adapt that's their problem, we have our socialist ideals to think of. Thank god people are buying the sun and not this nonsense.
What will fix the problem is the redistribution of work, education, goods and wealth.

The bigger picture is that there is a much larger pool of sustinance available and the establishment wants us to fight and jossle with immigrants for the tiny margin that they are prepared to let us have. Papers like the Sun are part of the problem because they are mantaining this deceit.


We are not living in feudal Russia here, this economy is modernizing, jobs are being automated

As a technocrat i am a supporter of automation. In fact all jobs that can be automated should be.

I want to see all humans out of menial labour and into either a skilled profession or education and training.



and jobs are being shipped overseas. I guess time will tell, I forsee that instead of adapting to the times like Japan, the UK will continue on it's current course and become a giant slum, and that's even without your theory of the government dishing out jobs and houses.
I very much doubt its all sunshine, peaches and cream in Japan either. Especially not if you're working class in Japan.

[Sogdian]

I've quite mixed thoughts on immigration and probably can't elaborate them in Marxist lines...anyway, is UK self-sufficient in food, clothing, or natural resources etc... Can it prosper or live as it does without the poor of the world? No. UK imports probably most of the things it consumes. And who produces those products? Immigrants abroad... who create wealth and capital for you lot (new form of slaves!)
And what you are saying is, let's keep them (the much disliked immigrants!) over there - abroad ... in their miserable factories blah blah.. no capitalist wants to share the wealth after all! You say you have sympathies with socialist ideas etc. but what you are saying about immigration is basically sounds like Nazism, that is National Socialism.

In fact the working class of the UK has more in common with the immigrants or factory workers in East Asia or Latin America or Africa than your capitalists in the City or the Oxbridge educated bourgeoisie politicians in the Westminster.

Marx's could see this so long ago,

"Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE. "

[Matt Houston]

We are going round in circles here. Don't even know what the last poster is on about.

I was almost offended by all the brainwashed by the right wing press stuff, but then I realised this is propbably bog standard response to. anybody he dares to question the common sense in mass immigration, which you guys have convinced yourself is somehow essential.

I am not convinced that the are no negative economic effects, and if your theory of immigration creating jobs is true I still just don't see the purpose, sounds like immigration for immigrations sake, just because to have it any other way would be racist.

I think if poeple are starting to feel like strangers in their own countries that is a valid concern, and I think it is crazy to be standing around outside tube stations with signs telling people their concerns are nonesense and are fueled by nazi's just to push some socialist ideal.

I am starting to wonder who is more crazy, the 'right wing press' blaming immigrants for everything or you guys blaming the 'right wing press' for everything, maybe you are two sides of the same coin. The Sun...is this a joke, you are telling me those boneheads running the Sun have some agenda turning people against immigrants to keep Capitalism in place...pretty far fetched of you ask me.

[Demogorgon]

We are going round in circles here. Don't even know what the last poster is on about.

I was almost offended by all the brainwashed by the right wing press stuff, but then I realised this is propbably bog standard response to. anybody he dares to question the common sense in mass immigration, which you guys have convinced yourself is somehow essential.

I am not convinced that the are no negative economic effects, and if your theory of immigration creating jobs is true I still just don't see the purpose, sounds like immigration for immigrations sake, just because to have it any other way would be racist.

I think if poeple are starting to feel like strangers in their own countries that is a valid concern, and I think it is crazy to be standing around outside tube stations with signs telling people their concerns are nonesense and are fueled by nazi's just to push some socialist ideal.

I am starting to wonder who is more crazy, the 'right wing press' blaming immigrants for everything or you guys blaming the 'right wing press' for everything, maybe you are two sides of the same coin. The Sun...is this a joke, you are telling me those boneheads running the Sun have some agenda turning people against immigrants to keep Capitalism in place...pretty far fetched of you ask me.
It isn't exactly far fetched to say that the Sun has an agenda. The agenda plain and simple is Murdoch's business interests. Murdoch's business interests require favourable Government policies. Favourable Government policies require an electorate not loudly demanding different policies. A pliant electorate requires finding a way to convince them that the problems in the world are not being caused by the sort of policies that favour Murdoch's business interests. That requires a Scapegoat. See where this is going?

The real question is why you think Governments should have such an enormous power as to restrict the free movement of people. A power of such magnitude takes some justification. What is the reason for you wanting it to exist?

[Matt Houston]

The real question is why you think Governments should have such an enormous power as to restrict the free movement of people. A power of such magnitude takes some justification. What is the reason for you wanting it to exist?

I think it's human nature for people to stick together and look after their own, restricting movement into a country protects the interests of that countries citizens. Funnily enough quite a few people think borders are a good idea, and not all of them read the Sun, some of them aren't even white British. I also think the population of the UK, and most other places for that matter, is already big enough, something you will no doubt disagree with.

Anyways, enough about that we're not getting anywhere with this and it's taking up time and energy. Thanks for all your posts, you have got my attention I have been thinking about this all day and will be reading some of the info provided in the learning section, so I have been taking some of this in. Thanks for not being condescending and insinuating I am a BNP member like some others on the forum (won't mention any names), I guess it makes them feel comfortable to put people in boxes, same as racists do ironically.

I am unsubscribing from the thread because I know I won't be able to resist responding to any new posts. Peace out homie.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think it's human nature for people to stick together and look after their own, restricting movement into a country protects the interests of that countries citizens.So in the US the insurance industries have the same interests regarding healthcare as I do while living paycheck to paycheck and haven't seen a doctor in a decade? I mean obviously I am the same as them since I was born within 3,000 miles of where their headquarters are. But the undocumented day-laborers in my neighborhood... they have different interest then me? I feel I am "looking after my own" when I stand in solidarity against the Minutemen, cops, and politicians. They have the EXACT same interests as me... stable income, fair housing, some health benefits, free-time to spend with my family.

So how's your buddy Prince Charles doing... do you talk regularly, does he give up his seat for you when you see him on public transportation. I mean you guys are tight right? What about Richard Branson (sp?) has he given you any free rides on his airline lately? And for the Australians in the house, how's Rupert Murdoch doing... bought a round of drinks for his boys at the pub lately.


I also think the population of the UK, and most other places for that matter, is already big enough, something you will no doubt disagree with.So you favor mandatory sterilization of all Brits?

[Matt Houston]

So in the US the insurance industries have the same interests regarding healthcare as I do while living paycheck to paycheck and haven't seen a doctor in a decade? I mean obviously I am the same as them since I was born within 3,000 miles of where their headquarters are. But the undocumented day-laborers in my neighborhood... they have different interest then me? I feel I am "looking after my own" when I stand in solidarity against the Minutemen, cops, and politicians. They have the EXACT same interests as me... stable income, fair housing, some health benefits, free-time to spend with my family.

So how's your buddy Prince Charles doing... do you talk regularly, does he give up his seat for you when you see him on public transportation. I mean you guys are tight right? What about Richard Brandt (sp?) has he given you any free rides on his airline lately? And for the Australians in the house, how's Rupert Murdoch doing... bought a round of drinks for his boys at the pub lately.

You knew I just couldn't resist. You have clearly put some thought and effort into your post, I am flattered. I take your point, in your experience you have found you have more in common with immigrant working class people than others in your own society, fair enough, I can't argue with that, and it seems like a recurring theme in this thread. And for record, I don't agree with huge income inequality either.


So you favor mandatory sterilization of all Brits?

No, do you? This is a joke right? Will all your socialist friends get it, because I don't. Actually I find the decreasing birth rates just arn't working as fast as I hoped so I'm thinking more along the lines of death squads randomly picking people off in the streets, because obviously the only solution to overpopulation is ensuring people don't reproduce whatsoever.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I take your point, in your experience you have found you have more in common with immigrant working class people than others in your own society, fair enough, I can't argue with that, and it seems like a recurring theme in this thread.immigrants are part of my society and always have been - people move, that's what we do and have done before there were such things as borders or nation-states. Creating a segregated situation where some workers have some rights while others don't is simply a way to divide the working class and therefore attack everyone. Workers, native and immigrant need to stick together and fight alongside each-other because we're both on the shake-down line together. The people who create policies, the ones who own our homes and can turn us out if we momentarily fall on hard times (or if they simply decide it's more profitable to sell the place to make condos) are the real "Aliens" who have different interests and make us all suffer for their gain.

[Demogorgon]

I also think the population of the UK, and most other places for that matter, is already big enough, something you will no doubt disagree with.

There is some pretty faulty logic here. See there are parts of the world that over-populated, but that is because of population imbalance, that is to say there are too many people in some parts of the world and not enough in other parts. If you open up borders then people will naturally move from the overpopulated areas (where they can't get jobs and housing, or there isn't enough food or whatever) to less populated areas (where they can).

As to the question of whether Britain is overpopulated, well it isn't. To be sure London probably has enough people in it, but other parts of the country do need more people. Scotland for instance always needs more and indeed it was in pretty dire straits until a few years ago when an increase in immigration eased the problem. You may say though that you don't want the population to get too much higher than it is now though. But the thing is the world's population is going to increase by around two billion over the next forty years. Do you think Britain can opt out from that? Moreover if there isn't reasonably free movement the population growth could be ecologically catastrophic because if it is concentrated in underdeveloped areas where birth rates are naturally higher, first of all there won't be enough resources to cope with it and secondly the world's population will increase at a faster rate than technology can advance to accommodate it. Rather it is imperative that a fair bit of growth is moved to highly developed areas (where birth rates are naturally quite low) so as the world can cope.

[Matt Houston]

OK maybe Britain is not overpopulated, I would like to keep it that way.

Of course I am aware the world population is set to increase by billions, hence my concern, please give me a bit of credit here.

I was in Egypt last year, you have 80 million people living on about 10% of the land, a thin fertile strip. The is a shortage of jobs, there is overcrowding, wages are low, people are building all over what little arable land there is, yet people continue to have huge families there. Being brought up the way I was I see this as short-sighted and irresponsible, the same way I think when I see people in London living off the state but continuing to have loads of kids. But far be it from me to tell the Egyptians how to live their lives, I wish them all the best, I just don't want to see the same happening here, which I believe it would if we had open borders. I think a lot of people feel the same and I am not sure if it is religious beliefs or the culture which are responsible for the difference in attitude but the difference definitely exists.

Bit more right wing propaganda there for you.

[brigadista]

And for those who believe this is the reserve of atypical sun Reading White Brits look at how south Africans reacted to the millions of zimbabweans in their country. You still think immigrants have it bad in Europe? Havn't seen anybody get set on fire here in ages.


really? look at this
http://www.irr.org.uk/2010/march/ha000028.html

[Matt Houston]

really? look at this

That's tragic that they killed themselves, yes I can see how that is exactly the same as over 60 people being hacked and burned to death in the streets within a few days.

Don't waste my time.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think it's human nature for people to stick together and look after their own.

If you want to argue that we should stick together on the basis of cultural oneness, then i posit to you that theres greater cultural similarity and common interests between the international working class than there is between the local working class and the indigenous bourgeoisie. I have more in common with an african refugee than i do with some top hatted bastard that galavants around race courses and international business meetings quaffing 2000 quid a bottle champagne. When compared to immigrants, our common situations are undeniable. We're all skint and have a common foe. You want an argument against borders? There it is.

[hammer&sickle]

OK maybe Britain is not overpopulated, I would like to keep it that way.

Bit more right wing propaganda there for you.

Have you considered that the "problem" with immigration might have something to do with the "first" world's colonial past?

In the US immigration from Mexico to the US increased 61% after NAFTA was passed. NAFTA and the US importation of cheap subsidized corn devastated the Mexican peasantry..they couldn't compete with Iowa's mechanized farmers and the increasing mechanization of Mexican agriculture and the introduction of Monsanto's patentened seed crops. The right wing in the US decries illegal immigration and the mass media takes up its cry without telling the whole story. Perhaps if US corporations hadn't fucked with Mexico's economy in the first place Mexicans wouldn't feel the need to immigrate.

I would suspect England's siituation is similar.

[#FF0000]

I think something very important to remember is that there would be homeless and unemployed even if there were no immigrants. Immigrants are scapegoated for problems that aren't their fault, but come part and parcel with the capitalist system.

[Dr Mindbender]

another thing that the anti immigrant lobby will cover up is their racist agenda. Lets be clear, when they say they are against immigrants they dont mean privileged whites from developed countries, they mean the 'dark people'; the 'scrounging coons' from the developing south.

[Jimmie Higgins]

another thing that the anti immigrant lobby will cover up is their racist agenda. Lets be clear, when they say they are against immigrants they dont mean privileged whites from developed countries, they mean the 'dark people'; the 'scrounging coons' from the developing south.Very true. In the Bay Area there is the J9 visa (or some other set of letter and number - I can't remember) where many Irish college students have the chance to work over the summer and visit California. Despite a lot of complaints about "immigrants taking our jobs" no one complains about this - you would think that summer jobs are needed by native students too, but because there is no longer anti-Irish bigotry and xenopobia in the US, none of the anti-immigrant bigots ever bring things like this up.

They are anti-latino and asian before they are anti-immigrant.


And don't get me wrong I have no problem with these students coming here, I think it's a good program, and I wish there was a similar program when I was in school so I could have gone to visit France or Greece something.

[Dr Mindbender]

^

doesnt surprise me, GD. One thing i've noticed is that since the end of apartheid the bitish isles has experienced a big influx of white south africans. Nothing against white south africans per se (apart from the apartheid romanticists) but you never hear the BNP rattling their sabres about this.