What do the Bourgeoisie actually stand to gain from tough immigration policies?

[AK]

All I can think of is that the immigrants might expect a higher wage in their new country - presumably first world - and that it could raise patriotism or racism to an extent where the working class would continue to support the imperialist wars. Have I missed anything?

[BAM]

New immigrants = lower wages, or at least a supply of labour for the lower-paid jobs. If someone is coming from a less developed country to a more developed one, the average wages will be higher in the latter than the former, but new immigrants will generally be working for minimum/below average wage in their new country.

I don't have figures to hand to back this up, but I am sure it is the case.

[manic expression]

First, having tougher immigration policies forces undocumented workers even further underground. They are far, far less likely to try to unionize or win concessions with more draconian measures in place. Basically, with the Arizona Apartheid legislation, undocumented workers are told to shut their mouths and work...or else. Second, the bourgeoisie is able to win more reactionary right-wing support, which is crucial given the relationship between fascists and the bourgeois state. Third, it heightens the attention on the "scapegoat"; the bourgeoisie seeks to convince people that immigrants are a threat and an enemy by portraying them as criminals.

On edit, on trying to prevent immigrants from entering the country, it's similar. The state has to show chauvinists that they're on their side, so a big show is needed. The bourgeoisie knows they can't prevent everyone from getting in, the bourgeoisie knows that most coyotes are paid to smuggle a "customer" in again and again and again until successful, they just can't make it obvious that they like the flow of cheap labor...hence the show.

[AK]

New immigrants = lower wages, or at least a supply of labour for the lower-paid jobs. If someone is coming from a less developed country to a more developed one, the average wages will be higher in the latter than the former, but new immigrants will generally be working for minimum/below average wage in their new country.

I don't have figures to hand to back this up, but I am sure it is the case.
Either you don't understand what I meant, or you just plain confused me.
What I mean is, why do the Bourgeoisie try hard to restrict poor immigrants from entering their presumably First-World countries?

[BAM]

Either you don't understand what I meant, or you just plain confused me.
What I mean is, why do the Bourgeoisie try hard to restrict poor immigrants from entering their presumably First-World countries?

oh, I seem to have mis-read your question. I thought you were asking what capitalists stand to gain from immigration itself, as opposed to being tough on immigration.

Still, not all capitalists and their representatives do oppose tough immigration controls - for the very reasons I gave.

Where they do support tight restrictions I think it is to divide workers - or exploit already existing divisions within the working class based on "race" and ethnicity - and because some parties represent a certain ideology of the nation state, culture, tradition, etc.

[Aesop]

1) To keep a global division of labour. I.e capitalism still requires people in the developing countries to be paid wages which are barely fit enough for subsistence to produce goods or extract the resources.
2) The growing nature of capitalism requires specialisation and high level of education, prior jobs which did not require a high level of formal education, have been shift around the world into the periphery countries around the world. This means you probably have to be a graduate in order to emigrate from your region, however, how much opportunity do you have to be a graduate for example in Botswana.
3) Helps to reinforce ideology, in which it divides workers by the ethos of “them and us”.

[AK]

Most times, the bourgeoisie symbolically protest the laws for restriction of immigration, in the knowledge that such laws will never actually restrict the flow of cheap labor from immigrants, but it will give them the opportunity to exploit the immigrant laborers even more (immigrant laborers always tend to be the most exploited section of the working class).
Wow. You sure know how to confuse me.


So, basically the anti-immigrant vs pro-immigrant debates among the members of the bourgeois government are just for the consumption of ignorant working and middle classes.
Middle class, did I hear you say? Since when did Marxists believe in a middle class?

[manic expression]

Middle class, did I hear you say? Since when did Marxists believe in a middle class?
I'm not endorsing the argument you're responding to, but "middle class" is usually just shorthand for better-paid workers, small business owners and small farmers. At least that's my understanding of it.

[ComradeOm]

All I can think of is that the immigrants might expect a higher wage in their new country - presumably first world - and that it could raise patriotism or racism to an extent where the working class would continue to support the imperialist wars. Have I missed anything?Some reasons have been mentioned above but a key element is that immigration, which does have the potential to create a two-tier wage system, is often unpopular with the working class. By supporting restrictions on immigration bourgeois politicians reinforce their legitimacy in the eyes of the broader population and thus held to buttress the bourgeois state

The same applies for any policy that can be considered contrary to bourgeois interests, though not critically so, but still sees significant political and popular support


Middle class, did I hear you say? Since when did Marxists believe in a middle class? Don't be an eejit. "Middle class" is a perfectly acceptable shorthand term that has been used by prominent Marxists since the days of Marx himself

[Zanthorus]

Middle class, did I hear you say? Since when did Marxists believe in a middle class?

The petit-bourgeoisie might give you a hint...

Or how about "The New Middle Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1909/new-middle-class.htm)".

[KC]

Importing low-wage workers is very similar to exporting the production facilities to them (i.e. "outsourcing"). The effects, from the capitalist point of view, are the same. So there is a legitimate bourgeois interest in enforcing tough immigration laws, and it's not just a "show" which would be patently absurd if that was the only reason for this issue to be so prominent.

Also, most American workers are not as affected by immigration as is being portrayed here; most unionized workers are higher skill workers, while those who are lower skill don't have much of a political voice. Obviously the lower skill workers will be affected most by immigration because those coming from Mexico mostly end up in low skill jobs.

[AK]

The petit-bourgeoisie might give you a hint...

Or how about "The New Middle Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1909/new-middle-class.htm)".

The members of the new middle class are not self-supporting, independent industrial units; they are in the service of others, those who possess the capital necessary to the undertaking of enterprises. Economically considered, the old middle class consisted of capitalists (1), even if they were small capitalists; the new consists of proletarians, even if they are highly paid proletarians. (2) The old middle class lived by virtue of its possession of the means of production; the new makes its livelihood through the sale of its labor power. (3) The economic character of the latter class is not at all modified by the fact that this labor power is of a highly developed quality; that, therefore, it receives comparatively high wages; no more is it modified by the fact that this labor power is chiefly of an intellectual sort, that it depends more on the brain than on the muscles. In modern industry the chemist and the engineer are dealt with as mere wage-workers; their intellectual powers are worked to the limit of exhaustion just like the physical powers of the common laborer. (4)
(1) What is this "old middle class" he speaks of? The Petit-Bourgeoisie still exist, don't they? Did I miss the memo?
(2) Last I checked, the Proletariat was a separate class. Managers, bosses, etc. are nothing but class traitors lured into their positions with the promise of wealth.
(3) Sounds like the Proletariat, doesn't it?
(4) So the new middle class have the same relation to property as the Proletariat and perform wage labour - like the Proletariat. Could they be... Proletarians?


The new intellectual middle class has one thing in common with the rest of the proletariat: it consists of the propertyless, of those who sell their labor power, and therefore has no interest in the maintenance of capitalism. (5) It has, moreover, in common with the workers, the fact that it is modern and progressive, that through the operation of the actual social forces it grows constantly stronger, more numerous, more important. It is, therefore, not a reactionary class, as was the old small bourgeoisie; it does not yearn for the good old pre-capitalistic days. It looks forward, not backward.


But this does not mean that the intellectuals are to be placed side by side with the wage-workers in every respect, that like the industrial proletariat they are predisposed to become recruits of Socialism. To be sure, in the economic sense of the term, they are proletarians; (6) but they form a very special group of wage-workers, a group that is socially so sharply divided from the real proletarians that they form a special class with a special position in the class-struggle. (7)


(5) Ah, Pannekoek, you've come to your senses.
(6) If they're Proletarians, I still fail to see how they constitute a different class.
(7) So they're Proletarian catalysts for revolution? They certainly don't constitute a class.

And as a general rule for socialists of all kind; I think we should refrain from using the term "middle class"; it's ambiguous as fuck and has about 50 different definitions.

And something to finish off with:

The bourgeois has stripped of its halo of every occupation herefore honored and looked upon with reverent awe. It has converted the position of the physician, lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.Where's your intellectual class now?

[jake williams]

Almost exactly the same thread from the same day? http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-attacks-illegal-t134945/index.html


It's sort of a mix of factors and a covergence of interests. A HUGE part of it though is that the more "illegal" illegal immigration is, the more terrified illegal immigrants are going to be, especially to organize - and they're going to be there anyway. In fact it's not well known but there are a lot of ambiguous-status immigrants in Canada, including a massive part of Ontario's agricultural labour. Deportation threats are the main weapon against labour organizing, and since that's the big fear, that's really useful.

There's lots else going on too though. It's partly being used just to scapegoat - you're not losing your job because of capitalism, you're losing it because of Mexicans. I know in Canada there are migrant worker programs set up which are a lot uglier for workers in some cases even than working here illegally, there are probably people who are trying to funnel workers into that. Another thing which isn't discussed enough is how much money "security companies", for example Blackwater, are trying to make with militarizing the US-Mexico border. And then a lot of it is even sincere security concern on the part of the ruling class.

But it is complex. I don't know if human traffickers make enough money to be pushing to keep it illegal, but it's conceivable. And then on the other hand I'm sure there are lots of businessmen who do want liberalized US-Mexico immigration.


There's something else that needs to be kept in mind. Capitalism, as is pretty well understood, depends on a "reserve army of the unemployed", of poor disenfranchised people without many options and willing to work for very low wages, tragically and violently forced to betray their class allies. NAFTA virtually destroyed the Mexican agricultural economy, and it's pretty clear that the resultant Mexican labour surplus forms a large part of this "reserve army" (as does, for example, black prison labour).

However, this is only up to a point. So many people can only suffer so much. To play their role they have to lay at a difficult balance. Such a population can quite easily become pretty dangerous to capitalism, especially if it can become organized, even though capitalism depends on it for its own existence.

[Jimmie Higgins]

First, having tougher immigration policies forces undocumented workers even further underground. They are far, far less likely to try to unionize or win concessions with more draconian measures in place. Basically, with the Arizona Apartheid legislation, undocumented workers are told to shut their mouths and work...or else. Second, the bourgeoisie is able to win more reactionary right-wing support, which is crucial given the relationship between fascists and the bourgeois state. Third, it heightens the attention on the "scapegoat"; the bourgeoisie seeks to convince people that immigrants are a threat and an enemy by portraying them as criminals.

On edit, on trying to prevent immigrants from entering the country, it's similar. The state has to show chauvinists that they're on their side, so a big show is needed. The bourgeoisie knows they can't prevent everyone from getting in, the bourgeoisie knows that most coyotes are paid to smuggle a "customer" in again and again and again until successful, they just can't make it obvious that they like the flow of cheap labor...hence the show.

Well said comrade. I would just add to your scapegoat comment that during economic busts, immigrants are blamed for economic problems. This has particularly been the case in California where politicians, after cutting education, social spending, and social programs for 30 years, now claim that the budget shortfall is because of "immigrants coming here to steal all our generous services". This is totally ridiculous - especially since California already restricted immigrant access to services over a decade ago and undocumented immigration waves have no correlation to ups and downs in the budget or economy and undocumented immigration has been DECLINING in California in the past few years because of the economic recession and housing bust. But that's the nature of scapegoating: ridiculous & totally illogical blame.

The ruling class has no interest in STOPPING immigration and this is what confuses and frustrates the bigots who don't understand why right-wingers like Bush never actually take measures to really stop immigration. The ruling class does have a strong interest in RESTRICTING worker's rights and driving down wages. So a lot of their legal efforts have been to make it hard for immigrants to get homes and maintain regular jobs - as people said the effect of this is to end up criminalizing a section of workers and driving them under the radar and into the hands of crooked contractors and the like who can easily exploit them and call ICE if workers try and stand up for their rights.

This is what employers want labor to be like: a shakedown line like on the docks or other industries before industrial unionization. This kind of thing keeps people fearful and easy to manipulate and makes workers directly compete with each-other. If you have no job protection and can't go to the authorities for fear of deportation, then you will do whatever the boss asks, snitch on other workers to get favor of the boss, bribe contractors to get scarce positions, and keep your mouth shut when they ask you to do dangerous or illegal tasks.

[Animal Farm Pig]

It's good to read the analysis here. I would like mention the effects in Mexico and central American countries of anti-immigrant legislation. By making it harder to be an immigrant worker in the USA, I can see two major effects in Mexico et al.:

1. Decreasing remittances from the USA. Money sent from immigrant workers in the USA to their families helps to protect those families from the abuses of global capitalism. That money is helping to keep kids in school instead of in the streets selling Coca-Cola and phone cards. That money allows women to start their own production instead of being exploited in textile factories.

2. Increasing exploitation in the maquiladoras and agricultural production. Those families who were receiving support from relatives in the USA now are at the mercy of the land owners and capitalists. Those workers who are kicked out from the USA or who decide never to come just add to the labor pool for exploitation in their home countries.


To be sure, there has been some outcry from Mexico on the anti-immigrant measures. You can read this as Mexican bourgeoisie who are making money selling domestically concerned about declining incomes domestically. Nonetheless, I would not be at all surprised to hear about Latin American bourgeoisie happy for this present from their class allies in the USA.

[ArrowLance]

I think a lot of it is just plain bigotry. Economically businesses would likely benefit from further immigration. They would be able to grow faster and have a better bid in the labour market with the increase in labour. But bigotry gets in the way. I think mostly it is common bigots as opposed to corporate bigots that keep this issue up.

That said although I understand that a divided work force is beneficial to the bourgeoisie I have a hard time seeing this as a conspiracy on their part.

Although perhaps the bigotry stems from the success of the divided work force. As corporations feel the benefits of it, it reinforces discriminatory policies, in a less direct way.

[jake williams]

I think a lot of it is just plain bigotry. Economically businesses would likely benefit from further immigration. They would be able to grow faster and have a better bid in the labour market with the increase in labour. But bigotry gets in the way. I think mostly it is common bigots as opposed to corporate bigots that keep this issue up.

That said although I understand that a divided work force is beneficial to the bourgeoisie I have a hard time seeing this as a conspiracy on their part.

Although perhaps the bigotry stems from the success of the divided work force. As corporations feel the benefits of it, it reinforces discriminatory policies, in a less direct way.
That's not how society works though. Substantive policies are almost never made by capitalist states on the basis of the personal feelings of anyone in particular, and especially when such policies are against the interests of the ruling class.

Where racist policies are in the interests of the ruling class, they're enacted, as they are with immigration. When racism potentially gets in the way of profits, of the particular interests of ruling classes, as for example it sometimes is with trade agreements, the ruling class will make grand statements about their (one would have to assume quite recently acquired) anti-racism and their desire for a global peaceful world where everyone gets along. The ruling class isn't inherently that racist, it's not even especially racist on a personal-feeling level, but it uses racism routinely and ruthlessly where it serves its interests, as it often does.


ed:

And just to add, the racist segments of the working class, and even the petty bourgeoisie, in for example the Southern U.S., are not in charge of their societies and have only a limited and indirect say on what policies are actually brought in and implemented.

[KC]

Something I forgot to add in my previous post:

In classic Marxist imperialism theory the relation between state and national capital is one that is glossed over but never really discussed in detail, and so the situation regarding this is very confusing for many. In terms of immigration the state is actually to an extent in conflict with that of national capital. The internationalization of capital has led to a decline in the ability of the state to defend its own national capital, and so there is quite a curious predicament whereby the state and national capital are actually in conflict with one another for the purposes of becoming more cooperative with one another.

[Atlee]

New immigrants = lower wages, or at least a supply of labour for the lower-paid jobs. If someone is coming from a less developed country to a more developed one, the average wages will be higher in the latter than the former, but new immigrants will generally be working for minimum/below average wage in their new country.

I don't have figures to hand to back this up, but I am sure it is the case.

Most South American countries have a legal minimum weekly wage of $65 Brazil. In Mexico the minimum wage is $4.50 per day (NOT HOUR) which means the divide between rich and poor is even greater in Mexico and is driving the immigration push for dollars. Most of the Mexicans who live around me wish they could make a living and be around family in Mexico. Our dollar and their governmental corruption and drugs are terrorizing families in Mexico and pushing them apart from the firsthand comments of immigrants I know.

[Tablo]

Did not read the thread, but I do not think there would be much benefit from tough immigration policies. Due to the declining population of those born in the US it is actually a benefit to have such a great deal of immigration as the cheap labor keeps our economy afloat. We would have an economy declining in much the same fashion as in Europe and Japan if we did not have so much immigration. I can't imagine why ANY Capitalist with a basic understanding of Economics would be against immigration. Even my crazy Beck loving father agrees our economy is dependent on immigration to survive the way it has.

[Chambered Word]

I really feel the question has been answered very thoroughly by others, especially manic expression and Graccus but I wanted to comment on this:


I'm not endorsing the argument you're responding to, but "middle class" is usually just shorthand for better-paid workers, small business owners and small farmers. At least that's my understanding of it.

I don't think pay would logically make a worker petitbourgeois if the worker is still exploited for a wage and I'm not sure what you mean by small farmers; I'm guessing those who would have been called 'kulaks' i.e farm owners who hire labour?

[Atlee]

Did not read the thread, but I do not think there would be much benefit from tough immigration policies. Due to the declining population of those born in the US it is actually a benefit to have such a great deal of immigration as the cheap labor keeps our economy afloat. We would have an economy declining in much the same fashion as in Europe and Japan if we did not have so much immigration. I can't imagine why ANY Capitalist with a basic understanding of Economics would be against immigration. Even my crazy Beck loving father agrees our economy is dependent on immigration to survive the way it has.

Russia, Canada, and most European countries are overtly capitalistic societies with low birthrates and need immigration for several reasons. There seems to be a low pool and high cost associated with what each country wants. Lets take Canada for example, it cost $12,000 in hand cash and you must have a job approved visa before entering to be a resident. This provides a non-burden on those already there and generates immediately a tax for the government to pay for things like universal health-care, heat, high grade gov't construction, etc in Canada. What this comes down to is the curve of income to over supply of labor to tax loss verses gain which is important with inflation soon on the rise and cities planning bankruptcy.

If we placed immigration offices on the border and had jobs posted then we could find access and balance. There are also job migration workers from Mexico that I already know of using the government system. The problem there is under-staffing and lack of general knowledge the system even exist. We might be able to push elected representatives to address this point also.