Why Immigration Doesn't Help Poverty Anywhere

[lines]

LPjzfGChGlE

This video demonstrates that immigration into wealthy nations does nothing for anyone. The fight against capitalism needs to be on a global level, we can't save the poor people by letting them come to rich nations. They have to make their lives better where-ever they happen to be. It is the only way that we can put an end to things like racism, sexism, classism, and poverty. The only way we can make the world better is if people make things better in whatever country they happen to be born in. One world, one people, one race. No white, no black... one people.

[RGacky3]

If your a family living in desperation, the chances of an uprising to inprove your conditions are rare, if you had a chance to get into a wealthy nation you would.

What this guy is saying is that immigration does'nt fix poverty, which is true, on the macro level, it helps that family sure, as for his argument that the agents for change are the ones that immigrate is'nt based on ANYTHING, thats a bunch of shit.

People who can make it in their own country WILL make it in their own country, because people generally don't want to leave home, most people prefer to stay home.

Also the negative aspets of immigration on the first world are not really that bad at all.

Closing boarders is'nt gonna help much, no one says immigration will solve poverty, no one has every claimed that, but niether will closing boarders.


The only way we can make the world better is if people make things better in whatever country they happen to be born in. One world, one people, one race. No white, no black... one people.

Thats what your saying after arguing to end immigration and enforce boarders?

[agnixie]

This video is pushed by a group that supports Arizona immigration laws, is bullshit dog whistling, and the presenter is a mentor of Tom Tancredo.

Why don't you stick to Stormfront?

[RGacky3]

I love how his whole argument is immigration does'nt help poverty, makes the whole thing about how immigration sucks, then in the past part he says "lets help them," these are the same people that are pro-nafta, and anti-foreign aid and so on.

[Lorax]

If people were truly free to migrate anywhere in search of work, as they would be under a hypothetical global free enterprise system, I believe we would see the race to the bottom in terms of wages that Marx predicted occur much more rapidly compared to its current pace. The trade unions would eventually disintegrate. If Marx's predictions about the causes of socialist revolution are correct, then opposition to globalization and free trade only serves to delay the inevitable revolutions. I'm not suggesting any policy choices here, just thinking out loud. At the very least it would be interesting to try and get "free traders" that oppose the free movement of labor to acknowledge the contradiction inherent in their philosophy.

[Olentzero]

Do you have any backup whatsoever for these claims you make about disintegrating trade unions, Marx' 'predictions', and globalization promoting revolution? Oh no wait, sorry, missed this:
I'm not suggesting any policy choices here, just thinking out loud. Excellent weasel tactic there - you don't really believe what you're saying, so you're excused from justifying your arguments based on anything even remotely resembling facts. So you can say whatever wild-ass crap you feel like coming up with just because.

Go the hell back under the bridge you crawled out from.

[Per Levy]

The fight against capitalism needs to be on a global level

very true, sadly the parts after this wont be so true.


we can't save the poor people by letting them come to rich nations. They have to make their lives better where-ever they happen to be.

so would you say to desperatly poor people, that they should stay where they are, where they're family might cant afford medicine, enough food, housing and what not, that would be kinda cruel dont you think? and how are they supposed to make their lives better in those situations? what do you think should be done when the poor dont follow you friendly advice and stay where they are? stricter immigration laws in the richt nations?


One world, one people, one race. No white, no black... one people.

except those damn immigrants shall stay where they are[zyn], if we're really one race and one world, every human being should go where she/he wants to go out whatever reasons she(he wish to do so.

[Lorax]

Well trade unions (as opposed to broader unions) are for the most part anti-revolutionary since they tend to promote the division the working class. They tend to seek better conditions for themselves, often to the exclusion of "unskilled" laborers. Trade unions would eventually collapse in favor of broader, more revolutionary unions due to the growth of class consciousness. I wasn't aware that this was a point of contention within the revolutionary left, or at least among Marxists, sorry.

Marx predicted that the forces of capitalism, the unending pursuit of greater profits at the expense of the exploited classes, would result in lower wages over time for the working classes. These lower and lower wages would eventually be the impetus for socialist revolution. It seems to me that the globalization and free movement of labor would tend to equalize wages across national borders, thereby creating short term tension, but (hopefully) greater solidarity in the long term. How can the workers of the world unite if they're fighting each other over who has the right to work in markets with higher prices for labor?

As for what I believe, I believe everything I said. I simply didn't want what I said to be interpreted as advocating a specific policy choice because I honestly don't know what policy choice I would make if it were up to me. By way of illustration, it's possible that social democrats are prolonging the capitalist phase by making society somewhat more comfortable for labor. This doesn't mean I think we should try to empower authoritarian capitalists in order to hasten the revolution, although the Soviets essentially adopted this tactic when they argued that fascism was the dying breath of capitalism.

[RGacky3]

Well trade unions (as opposed to broader unions) are for the most part anti-revolutionary since they tend to promote the division the working class. They tend to seek better conditions for themselves, often to the exclusion of "unskilled" laborers. Trade unions would eventually collapse in favor of broader, more revolutionary unions due to the growth of class consciousness. I wasn't aware that this was a point of contention within the revolutionary left, or at least among Marxists, sorry.

Just because they represent a speciific group doesænt mean they are against other groups, many trade unions engage in solidarity strikes or refuse to do certain services, they don't promote division at all, they organize based on trade.


It seems to me that the globalization and free movement of labor would tend to equalize wages across national borders, thereby creating short term tension, but (hopefully) greater solidarity in the long term. How can the workers of the world unite if they're fighting each other over who has the right to work in markets with higher prices for labor?


What are you talking about? When you have globalized capital but not labor THEN you have the race to the bottom, when you open up the labor barriers you give them an extra weapon, or take away a weapon from the Capitalist.

[Lorax]

True, they can and hopefully will engage in solidarity with other groups within the working class. Historically speaking I think what I said about trade unions is quite plain. I was speaking in generalities and there are exceptions. If they eventually come under the umbrella of a broader class solidarity movement that would be sufficient, so I suppose they could either integrate or disintegrate in the long run.

As for your second point, there are potential benefits for global proletarian solidarity as well as serious risks. I suppose race to the bottom is the wrong phrase, but the fact is that some workers benefit from the barriers to the free movement of labor, and the removal of such barriers will create some amount of intra working class conflict. I suspect that the free movement of labor would result in a temporary bump in the wages of some workers at the expense of others, while the poor as a whole continue to get poorer, at least in a relative sense. I support the free movement of labor in principle because it is in the interest of greater human freedom, but to suggest that such a policy could not be used by the capitalists to further divide the working classes strikes me as wishful thinking.

[lines]

When you flood a nation with unskilled labor then that results in unskilled workers being unable to engage in collective bargaining with their employers because if people go on strike there is always plenty of other people willing to work for whatever meager wages the capitalists are trying to swindle the working class with.

Also immigration increases population and this results in wild areas being intruded upon by people. A nation is not only people but it is also national parks and animals and woods.

Just look at America. America is the center of global capitalism and it has astronomically high immigration rates. 1 million legal immigrants per year. Plus rich capitalists like Bill Gates lobby the government to accept cheap tech labor into America from India disenfranchising the American working class of jobs.

This is all capitalism, this is not communism. Mass migrations of labor is not in tune with the communist spirit. The communist spirit. Just look at Soviet Union, they had an Iron Curtain. Look at migration and immigration rates with regards to Cuba.

Communism is international but that does not mean bringing the whole world into ones nation, doing so just reduces the standards of living for the working class who the communists and socialists are supposed to be helping. So thats why as a member of the communist party I oppose the free movement of labor. It is a capitalist swindle.

[Jazzratt]

The man's got a point, after all immigrants are well known for stealing jobs.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ltxCWvi_SlE/SuJECjBV4DI/AAAAAAAAAzg/E9dTLsIaqQA/s400/dailystar2.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ltxCWvi_SlE/SuJFutkdPTI/AAAAAAAAA0Q/y_tZ52eTs7Q/s400/balls.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ltxCWvi_SlE/SuJHislMZaI/AAAAAAAAA0o/9-VBffG1wGI/s400/express333.jpg
Who's brave enough to stand up for the white working class in the face of these job thieving brown people, eh? That's what I want to know.

[Kotze]

kid: *knocks on door*

lines: Who are you? What do you want?

kid: Excuse me sir. May I please use your toilet? Please?

lines: Coming to my house does nothing for anyone. The fight against capitalism needs to be on a global level, we can't help the poor people by letting them come to my house. They have to make their lives better where-ever they happen to be. The only way we can make the world better! One world, one people, one race. No white, no black... one people.

kid: *craps in lines' garden*

[Lord Testicles]

I don't think that anyone is arguing that immigration helps in the fight against capitalism, but I don't think it's about that anyway, it's about peoples freedom of movement.

[Che a chara]

Prevailing social and economic conditions contributes the need for migrants to labour and live elsewhere. Why should their desperation be denied ? Morally and socially it's unacceptable. And hell, if immigration breaks or helps bankrupt and smash the current system and annoys the fuck out of right-wing cretins then that should be enough to support any migrant/worker who wants to have the freedom to move to another country to live.

Domesticating capitalism strengthens class structures and prevents having a proletariat base to gain support and help develop class consciousness. also, having such anti-immigrant laws and polices in place enforces racial profiling, intolerance and incites anti-immigrant sentiment.

[ZeroNowhere]

Isn't that against your Party's line, though? I mean, the Democratic Party's?

[Revolution starts with U]

I would crap in his garden too :D

Look, I think there is truth to the claim that mass immigration provides cheap illegal labor for the capitalists to drive down wages. And there is truth in saying we need to come together and uplift the countries they are immigrating out of.
But I really don't see how you can be a socialist and against the free movment of labor. It also sniffs of blaming it on the victim, instead of the capitalists where the blame belongs.
Also the "One people, one race... but keep your race on the other side of the fence" is some massive doublethink, bro.

[Kotze]

http://i56.tinypic.com/2ujqjiw.png

[RedSunRising]

WOW and he was accusing other people of being evil nationalists for not wanting their nation dominated by an Imperialist power....Seems like you have bought into a white nationalist "victim narrative". Also pretty weird given your views on the settler caste in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

[Ele'ill]

This video demonstrates that

I'm not a big fan of responding to videos posted to solely represent a personal position as I question the understanding the poster has of their position. I will, however, respond again to your comments.


immigration into wealthy nations does nothing for anyone

Wealthy nations immigrate all the time- undemocratically, violently- they're a fire on the earth and the majority of the people living in these 'relocation areas' have very few options.

There are areas all over the US where US citizens relocate to in order to get jobs- because the jobs are there- they take the jobs. That doesn't mean they're 'stealing work', 'robbing us blind', 'not allowed to be here'. Break down those borders- the issue is not enough jobs paying livable wages.



we can't save the poor people by letting them come to rich nations

This is not a talking point.


They have to make their lives better where-ever they happen to be.

You realize the reason so many people outside of the Global North are far below the 'poverty line' is because they're being actively attacked You may be able to file a complaint with a 'labor institution' where you're at- where as a lot of people get taken to the dump in a rug for even the slightest provocation. There is no battle ground for many to stand on- no platform at all.



The only way we can make the world better is if people make things better in whatever country they happen to be born in.

The jobless/unemployment rates aren't because of immigration. If you notice, companies are cutting staff, overworking those still employed there while beating projected earnings- during a recession.

[Jazzratt]

You know what else isn't helping poverty? Mass reproduction. It's a capitalist plot to bring new workers into the system thus increasing the the competition for jobs, substantially lowering wages. Now, I'm not saying people shouldn't reproduce but doing it en masse like this is ruining everything for the working class. I think if anyone wants to reproduce they should fill out endless forms proving that their progeny will benefit the local economy as part of a larger, ingeniously humiliating, application process. At the end of this process their case should be presented to a bored official whose basic human empathy long since atrophied due to the nature of their job and whose job it is to make a final, largely arbitrary, decision on whether this person has any reproductive rights - based on a quota system. Combined with racist tight immigration controls these measures should see us to a kinder, gentler capitalism within two generations.

[RGacky3]

When you flood a nation with unskilled labor then that results in unskilled workers being unable to engage in collective bargaining with their employers because if people go on strike there is always plenty of other people willing to work for whatever meager wages the capitalists are trying to swindle the working class with.

Also immigration increases population and this results in wild areas being intruded upon by people. A nation is not only people but it is also national parks and animals and woods.

Just look at America. America is the center of global capitalism and it has astronomically high immigration rates. 1 million legal immigrants per year. Plus rich capitalists like Bill Gates lobby the government to accept cheap tech labor into America from India disenfranchising the American working class of jobs.

This is all capitalism, this is not communism. Mass migrations of labor is not in tune with the communist spirit. The communist spirit. Just look at Soviet Union, they had an Iron Curtain. Look at migration and immigration rates with regards to Cuba.

Communism is international but that does not mean bringing the whole world into ones nation, doing so just reduces the standards of living for the working class who the communists and socialists are supposed to be helping. So thats why as a member of the communist party I oppose the free movement of labor. It is a capitalist swindle.


Migration is the effect of naftalike policies, these are people trying to feed their families because American free trade policies ruined their local economies.

The crash of Unions in the US had nothing to do with immigration, which has been happening for decades, it was due to Reagans assault on them, there is no corrolation between immigration and union busting, if that did'nt happen chances are immigrants would join unions immediately and join in so they could send more money back home.

As for wild areas being intruded apon, I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with Mexicans and Chineese people moving in, I'm pretty sure thats something else (industry).

Rich Capitalists OUTSOURCE LABOR!!!!, that has nothing to do with immigration.

If you want to fight against something, fight against the trade policies that create the need for immigration, not the effect of those trade policies (specifically the desperate reaction of the poor).

Look I don't think your racist, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say your just ignorant and/or not intelligent.

[lines]

The ultimate losers in instances where mass immigration occurs is the working class. I demonstrated that clearly in one of my posts in this thread and no one has come up with a coherent argument refuting what I stated. Socialists should oppose mass immigration because it harms of the interests of the working class where people are mass immigrating too. Furthermore it does not even put a dent in any foreign nations poverty. I'm still waiting for a coherent refutation to this statement I made in a previous post:


When you flood a nation with unskilled labor then that results in unskilled workers being unable to engage in collective bargaining with their employers because if people go on strike there is always plenty of other people willing to work for whatever meager wages the capitalists are trying to swindle the working class with.

[Olentzero]

You demonstrated nothing; you merely made a couple of claims with nothing to back them up.

Immigrants being unable to engage in collective bargaining is not a result of immigration but a result of the ruling class actively smashing unions and their ability to organize. Strong unions - with a fighting leadership, I should add - would make efforts to incorporate immigrant workers, thereby reducing the reserve army of labor (as Marx put it) that could be used to break strikes.

I hope that merely mentioning the Taft-Hartley Act and the EFCA 'card check' debacle from a couple of years ago should sufficiently demonstrate the attitude of the American ruling class towards unions. They're the ones using cheap immigrant labor as a means to stifle working class organization. This faux-radical veneer of concern for American workers at the expense of immigrant workers is completely abhorrent. Stand with all workers regardless of their country of origin.

[Kotze]

[Immigration] does not even put a dent in any foreign nations poverty.That claim reminds me of when conservatives speak in favour of giving more weight to people's votes in sparsely populated (and usually more conservative) areas, so that a region isn't "discriminated against" for having few inhabitants. Who cares about being "fair" to a region, a region isn't a person.

You might as well say that moving to cities does nothing for anyone and we can't allow people not needed anymore in agriculture due to technological changes to come to cities where the jobs are, and that they have to stay where they were born and try to improve their lot there. If you think that it's okay for people to move regionally after the main employer in their old town shut down or after a flood or whatever, why say that moving to another country isn't okay? It strikes me as an arbitrary distinction.

It shows how incoherent conservative slogans are (not to say you are 100% conservative): One would think that folks who truly uphold the notion that you know and care more than some distant government bureaucrat when it comes to decisions important to how you live your life understand that people who wish to move probably have a good reason.

[Viet Minh]

I'm not under the illusion that immigration is the act of a benevolent government offering asylum to the destitute and downtrodden of the World, its hard to argue that immigration = cheap labour. However the answer is not to reduce or cap immigration, the answer is to politicise and unionise immigrants, and moreover to use those links to unionise in solidarity with workers of all nations. Poverty cannot be directly influenced by immigration, or lack thereof, although I suppose its possible as you say that immigrants keep workers wages low to a certain extent and therefore make the rich even richer. I think its fair to say the majority of immigrants are poor workers, therefore in the most cynical terms they are useful to the left in the fight against social inequality. And trust me, if the immigrants weren't here leftists and even liberals would still be a scapegoat, more so if anything.

[Olentzero]

therefore in the most cynical terms [immigrants] are useful to the left in the fight against social inequality.Wait, what?

[Viet Minh]

Wait, what?

Purely in terms of demographics immigrants tend to be working class, and more likely to support the left. So even if you ignore the individual plight of refugees/ asylum seekers, even economic immigrants coming from the poorest nations, even then immigration should be supported by the left if for no other reason than weight of support.

[Tim Finnegan]

I have a much better about immigration:

5oioNZSPqRM

Among other things, it features Eugene Hütz's fabulous moustache, so that's like ten extra points right there.

[Ele'ill]

The ultimate losers in instances where mass immigration occurs is the working class. I demonstrated that clearly in one of my posts in this thread and no one has come up with a coherent argument refuting what I stated.

I did in the other thread, there is only one working class. If there are jobs in an area and people without jobs in another the people without jobs move to the jobs. This happens within geographic locations of all sizes, global, country, state, county etc.. You are viewing 'borders' as being some legitimate xenophobic barrier protecting your little bubble of a world.

[durhamleft]

I think people here need to calm down; some of you who are suggesting OP should go to stormfront or whatever need to get a grip of yourselves, just because someone isn't totally supportive of the free movement of labour doesn't make them a Nazi.

Secondly, OP has a point; however I think he misses the wider picture. The point which he does have is that immigration within capitalism has, and is used in order to exploit migrant labour, who generally are prepared to work for less. Capitalists use immigration to drive down the wages of other workers, and I can give many real world example where immigrants are brought in as scab labour.

However, where I think OP misses the point is the fact that under international socialism these problems would not exist, and thus immigration is not the problem, rather it is the exploitation of immigrant workers.

But once again, some of you need to give your heads a shake, the OP I think is somewhat misguided, however to pretend that immigration under capitalism has been a purely beneficial force completely fails to see how it has been used for the last century to undermine the domestic workforce.

Immigration isn't a problem, but the way it is used under capitalism certainly is, and that's something that's worthy for debate.

[RGacky3]

The ultimate losers in instances where mass immigration occurs is the working class. I demonstrated that clearly in one of my posts in this thread and no one has come up with a coherent argument refuting what I stated. Socialists should oppose mass immigration because it harms of the interests of the working class where people are mass immigrating too. Furthermore it does not even put a dent in any foreign nations poverty. I'm still waiting for a coherent refutation to this statement I made in a previous post:


Read my posts.

[Viet Minh]

Some nations under the guise of socialism not only closed their borders to immigrants but also prevented 'their' citizens from leaving, the Berlin wall was one such example. So if op should 'stick to Stormfront' then by rights so should all the Stalinists here. No offence I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy here.

[durhamleft]

Some nations under the guise of socialism not only closed their borders to immigrants but also prevented 'their' citizens from leaving, the Berlin wall was one such example. So if op should 'stick to Stormfront' then by rights so should all the Stalinists here. No offence I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy here.

Fucking hell man, haven't you heard?! You can be as racist, intolerant and exploitative as you like but if you wave the red flag then it's all in the name of socialism.

[Dr Mindbender]

Point 1- The guy in the video is talking shite when he says immigrants coming to the rich west doesnt help the people they leave behind. My partner is from a developing country. Her and people from her country have a cultural tendency to send money back to their relatives. By coming to the UK she was able to quadruple her salary, by which she was able to send money back so her brother could finish university and her sister could pay her bills. Had she not come to the UK neither of these would be possible.

Point 2- Its typically American for him to assume that the USA is the be all and the end all of developed nation efforts to take in immigrants- What about Canada, Europe, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Singapore, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand or Japan? Fucking hell even China for that matter is on the recieving end of economic migration.

Point 3- He raises the point of Mexicans being an 'elite' class of impoverished immigrants. I'd invite him to look at immigration into Europe, he would see that immigrants come very much from the 4 corners of the globe. Nothing wrong with that, i'm just irked by the way this ignorant fucker makes this to be a solely 'American thing'.

[RedSunRising]

I think immigration is good culturally.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't see much value in the principle of free labour movement as such since the causes of good deal of such movements of people in global capitalism (one pattern being "global South--> "global North) have nothing to do with a consciously developed goal of enabling people to lead better lives.
In other words, I don't think that the principle is useful in concrete political debate. Though, I'd acknowledge its "source", the position that borders are fiction, historically and socially constructed.

That being said, I have little patience for "Marxists/socialists" arguing in favour of rigorous immigration control on the lines of the "reserve army of labour" argument". Again, this argument in fact holds in many cases, for example, with undocumented immigrants who are a target for the capitalists, as possible objects of even a greater degree of exploitation than the "normal", "average" one. But, there is the undeniable truth that no one should restrict a poor woman's/man's choice to migrate and seek a better life.

I would like to see social movements and organizations of the left, including unions, in campaigns against any kind of criminalization of immigrants, undocumented or not, and in favour of full rights and easily accesible documents for immigrants which currently reside in a country. I would also like to see other political activities - union work and a possible tering down of any kind of racial or ethnic divide, community work etc.

In other words, "no" to criminalization and restrictive immigration laws.

[Viet Minh]

Fucking hell man, haven't you heard?! You can be as racist, intolerant and exploitative as you like but if you wave the red flag then it's all in the name of socialism.

Unfortunately thats true, but not here hopefully, if someone says something racist or intolerant they get banned. But much as I disagree with the op's position he was not being intolerant or racist as such.


Point 1- The guy in the video is talking shite when he says immigrants coming to the rich west doesnt help the people they leave behind. My partner is from a developing country. Her and people from her country have a cultural tendency to send money back to their relatives. By coming to the UK she was able to quadruple her salary, by which she was able to send money back so her brother could finish university and her sister could pay her bills. Had she not come to the UK neither of these would be possible.

Agreed, but generally speaking those who can afford to travel here aren't the poorest class of people. I can't afford to travel abroad, let alone set up a new life there, and I am from the richer country.


Point 2- Its typically American for him to assume that the USA is the be all and the end all of developed nation efforts to take in immigrants- What about Canada, Europe, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Singapore, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand or Japan? Fucking hell even China for that matter is on the recieving end of economic migration.

Point 3- He raises the point of Mexicans being an 'elite' class of impoverished immigrants. I'd invite him to look at immigration into Europe, he would see that immigrants come very much from the 4 corners of the globe. Nothing wrong with that, i'm just irked by the way this ignorant fucker makes this to be a solely 'American thing'.


Where, I missed that part.. ? Besides this is an international forum, people can discuss issues relevant to any region or nation. I took his posts to be talking about immigration generally, and using the US (where op is from) as an example.

[durhamleft]

Unfortunately thats true, but not here hopefully, if someone says something racist or intolerant they get banned. But much as I disagree with the op's position he was not being intolerant or racist as such.



Agreed, but generally speaking those who can afford to travel here aren't the poorest class of people. I can't afford to travel abroad, let alone set up a new life there, and I am from the richer country.



Where, I missed that part.. ? Besides this is an international forum, people can discuss issues relevant to any region or nation. I took his posts to be talking about immigration generally, and using the US (where op is from) as an example.

I agree op wasn't at all racist, I was making a dig at the stalinists and supporters of nk who are allowed to post

[Left-Reasoning]

Mass immigration into the First World is the best hope for the world's poor. Were the First World Nations to enact Open Borders, and the poor be allowed to immigrate, they would see their standard of living improve dramatically.

It is certainly much more efficient than trying to build new institutions from the ground up.

[Dr Mindbender]

Agreed, but generally speaking those who can afford to travel here aren't the poorest class of people. I can't afford to travel abroad, let alone set up a new life there, and I am from the richer country.
.

My point is even the people who cant afford to travel indirectly benefit from the effects of people who can. To give you an example, my brother in law is studying to be a nurse. People in his country will now benefit from the graduation of another nurse there thanks to the sponsorship that my partner was able to send over there.