Immigration Arguments

[dernier combat]

I often get myself into informal debates with friends about immigration. There are a couple of points that I get stuck on, and can't refute/debunk/counter. One of the points that anti-immigration types always make an effort to mention is that of "overpopulation". I can never really make any sort of counter-argument to this, as I lack any resources on the subject.

The second is probably more specific to Australia, as it is a great big fucking island with no land borders to speak of. In summary, people (and lately, the news) oppose illegal immigration because they claim that these "boat people" are brought here by people smugglers, and that these people smugglers are more often than not greedy assholes. This is probably true. Their view is that, by legalising "illegal" immigration (which is confusing phrasing, sorry) we are only encouraging people smuggling profiteering by said people smugglers. This hits close to home, as by being a communist, I'm obliged to oppose these especially unethical forms of profiteering. How do I counter this argument?

[Summerspeaker]

Global revolution and solidarity always answers complaints about immigration. Improving standards of living and smashing the fucking patriarchy best address overpopulation. I know too little about Australia to say much more. Here in the U.S. immigration policy employs terror tactics to create a group of easily exploited laborers and divide the working class. Xenophobia, white supremacy, and classim form the basis for nativism. I have so little sympathy for nativists that it's difficult for me to calmly argue the subject.

[Landsharks eat metal]

I could be taking this completely wrong, but if "illegal" immigration were legalized, would there be a need for smuggling people anymore?

[TheCommonGood]

What we need to realize is that there shouldn't be any countries to begin with. Everyone has stolen someone else's land to end up living where they are. So in order to rectify that we simply need to dissolve borders and unify globally. We can actually use the resources of giant countries like the US to help the rest of the starving world. (Africa for example.)

The middle class, and even those who make 20k a year in the US are still very rich compared to the rest of us. We should distribute that out to the rest of the world so we can bring it out of the dark age that its in.

We should probably start by cutting off things such as TV shows, movies, and most entertainment, as thats really only accessible to the rich and profits them the most. (By rich I mean most of the US for example.) Taking away cars would good idea too. The initial job upheavals that would occur would be unfortunate, but sacrifices must be made so that the rest of the world can receive what it is owed.

[dernier combat]

I could be taking this completely wrong, but if "illegal" immigration were legalized, would there be a need for smuggling people anymore?
Whilst "illegal" immigration might be legalised in the country recieving the asylum seekers, that alone wouldn't do anything to the stop the problem of the smuggling itself (which is based in the asylum seekers' country of origin). It is many asylum seekers' only way to reach Australia, as they can't afford to travel by plane or it is unsafe to attempt to.

[dernier combat]

The middle class, and even those who make 20k a year in the US are still very rich compared to the rest of us. We should distribute that out to the rest of the world so we can bring it out of the dark age that its in.
Why the hell would you do that? The "middle class" you speak of (and, whilst there actually is a middle class in Marxist class analysis - the petit-bourgeoisie - I assume you are not talking about them, judging by your almost complete lack of a proper class analysis) is just as proletarian as workers in the "rest of the world". People are defined as a certain class according to their relation to the means of production (and definitely not wealth alone). In the case of the working class (or proletariat, as it is otherwise called), it's relationship rests in the fact that it sells its labour power to their bosses (the capitalist class, or bourgeoisie) so that they can profit.

Besides, the expropriated wealth of the capitalist class would be more than enough to sufficiently develop the "rest of the world", without having to reach in to the pockets of workers in the US.

Of course, this is all assuming you believe there will be money in a communist society. Which is by all means incorrect.


We should probably start by cutting off things such as TV shows, movies, and most entertainment, as thats really only accessible to the rich and profits them the most. (By rich I mean most of the US for example.) Taking away cars would good idea too. The initial job upheavals that would occur would be unfortunate, but sacrifices must be made so that the rest of the world can receive what it is owed.
Entertainment is accessible by the vast majority of US workers, and I am very far from calling them rich. It doesn't profit workers at all, either. It does, however, profit the capitalist class, as it makes its profits from the labour of the workers. This is why we describe the workers as being 'exploited' - a very large portion of what value the worker produces is taken as profit by capitalists, who do not perform any labour themselves.

[MarxSchmarx]

The second is probably more specific to Australia, as it is a great big fucking island with no land borders to speak of. In summary, people (and lately, the news) oppose illegal immigration because they claim that these "boat people" are brought here by people smugglers, and that these people smugglers are more often than not greedy assholes. This is probably true. Their view is that, by legalising "illegal" immigration (which is confusing phrasing, sorry) we are only encouraging people smuggling profiteering by said people smugglers. This hits close to home, as by being a communist, I'm obliged to oppose these especially unethical forms of profiteering. How do I counter this argument?

That is a bizarre argument. These smugglers exist and profit precisely because of immigration restrictions in the first place :confused:

[dernier combat]

That is a bizarre argument. These smugglers exist and profit precisely because of immigration restrictions in the first place :confused:
But then how would poor refugees who can't board a plane for various reasons get to Australia? I doubt that by lifting immigration restrictions, these smugglers would disappear and a more legitimate body would take its place.

[MarxSchmarx]

But then how would poor refugees who can't board a plane for various reasons get to Australia? I doubt that by lifting immigration restrictions, these smugglers would disappear and a more legitimate body would take its place.

Well without immigration restrictions, how are these "smugglers" any different from "airlines" or "ferry operators"? If there is sufficient demand to get people from point A to point B, then somebody will always profit off of it. But the reason "smugglers" make huge amounts of money and get away with such abusive exploitation of their "clientele" is that the difficulty of getting from point A (say, Burma) to point B (Australia) is artificially inflated enormously by immigration laws.

[Jose Gracchus]

The answer is that there is no such thing as an "immigration" problem. There's a problem of importing labor that the bourgeoisie would like to treat as subhuman when it suits their purposes. It is a question of international labor. Don't get boxed into the "special interest" division-of-politics pushed by the bourgeois mainstream.