No borders/free imigration...?

[tir1944]

Do you support the idea that there should be no legal restrictions on immigration throughout the world?

[The Jay]

In the endgame, yes. Before that, I'm not sure.

[NewSocialist]

yes. Borders are a *reactionary* remnant of bourgeois society. socialism represents the liberation of humanity and that means tearing down the walls that seperate us. Any “leftist“ who supports immigration restrictions or borders is most likely either ignorant or a naz(i)bol of some kind.

[Kamos]

Of course. This thread really only has one use, fishing for reactionaries.

[eyedrop]

Capital has free movement around the globe, why shouldn't labour?

[blackandyellow]

Of course. People should be able to decide for themselves which area of the world they want to live in. Why should some government bureacrat decide if you can go and live somewhere else, or start a relationship with someone of a different nationality and live in the same country as them etc

[Princess Luna]

In the endgame, yes. Before that, I'm not sure.
What is wrong with open borders under capitalism?

[Iron Felix]

What is wrong with open borders under capitalism?
We don't seek to improve or reform capitalism, but to abolish it and replace it with a better system.

[The Jay]

The only problem I have with open borders under capitalism is that they are usually accompanied by free trade agreements.

[NewSocialist]

What is wrong with open borders under capitalism?

some socialists (maybe LiquidState?) are still concerned with pandering to this mentality brj2UkUPjCI

[The Jay]

I have no concern for the anti-immigrant population. I would only be concerned with capitalists moving their capital out of the region if there was a revolution. If their assets would be easily frozen then I would have absolutely no problem with free borders, our healthcare, and college systems would be able to handle the influx if they were socialized.

[NewSocialist]

I have no concern for the anti-immigrant population. I would only be concerned with capitalists moving their capital out of the region if there was a revolution. If their assets would be easily frozen then I would have absolutely no problem with free borders, our healthcare, and college systems would be able to handle the influx if they were socialized.

Fair enough. I know what you mean.

It just pisses me off when cryptofascists claiming to represent workers -like nazbols, socialist phailanx, blue labor and so on- use immigration under capitalism as a way to take advantage of and try to increase jingoisitic reactions from euro and amercan whites against latinos, muslims and other immigrant groups. immigration under capitalism might have downsides, but thats why workers need to *unite* with the immigrants against the system.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'm for total immigration rights. It is hypocritical that in our day and age Capital is given limitless means and ability to move between borders but not people. If there is a socialist world with overall wealth inequality there will be less incentive to immigrate, but until then there is a huge incentive for workers to cross borders, but there would be no reason to ban immigration either.

There are a *few* issues with total immigration rights which must be addressed:

(1) indigenous communities with small populations and a history of repression will not want immigrants. Most Native American Nations for instance don't let large numbers of non-tribe members move in to their territory. Because of their history of repression by hegemonic outsiders, their concerns at least should be considered and at the very least ensuring total immigration rights to those areas should be the lowest priority.

(2) Related to (1) is the problem of disease in indigenous communities. Immigrants to places like Amazonia are likely to bring disease which local people have little or no immunity to, and so where there are locals who are vulnerable to foreign infections there should be very tight regulations about immigration. The same goes for any tribe or ethnic group in places like the Amazon that choose to have no or minimal contact with the outside world

(3) Natural reserves where people in general desire to preserve a pristine environment should also be regulated or banned altogether. Everyone should have the right to move to Wyoming for instance, but nobody should have a right to build a house on top of Old Faithful.

Other than those important issues, there should be nothing stopping anyone from immigrating anywhere. This should be an important part of the Socialist struggle.



A question-how do the Dengists and Stalinists on the forum defend Chinese internal migration policies or similar policies in the USSR? Don't such policies show that neither are "Socialist" in any real sense of the term?

[#FF0000]

I have no concern for the anti-immigrant population. I would only be concerned with capitalists moving their capital out of the region if there was a revolution. If their assets would be easily frozen then I would have absolutely no problem with free borders, our healthcare, and college systems would be able to handle the influx if they were socialized.

For them, there already are no borders.

[dodger]

Do you support the idea that there should be no legal restrictions on immigration throughout the world?

Certainly it is an issue that must be debated thoroughly...too often swept under the carpet, by well meaning people. It then becomes a subject taken up by confused, malevolent, the race obsessed. Kamos in his post maybe thinks it is not a subject worthy of us? He would be wrong in one sense, the issue has been left to bigots and ultra left. Something like 80% think Mass Immigration in UK is a burning issue, even a trade union survey of labour activists spelled it out in capital letters. WHY IS THAT? No one in their right mind objects to political refugees, indeed all civilized countries have signed treaties to that effect. No what people need to address is the affect on those countries where people depart and where they end up.. With little help from anyone people have reached their own conclusions ..mass immigration is bad for them. They have been proved correct. It is a capitalist dream...a ready pool of labour....it cheapens our labour. It puts strain on housing social benefits, health resources. When 80% of new jobs are filled by immigrants. ...how can we be surprised that youth cannot find employment Also worthy of our deliberations is the effect on those countries where skills are often in short supply ... how are they to develop without skills.. of course the capitalist rubs his hands with glee...no training costs. The free movement of capital is also a dream come true. Thatcher made it her 1st task. If we don't exercise sovereignty....others will. It is up to us who or what comes in to our country. Capital flight from Africa along with 20,000 highly skilled workers ,every year,ensures those countries remain backward. In all modesty, maybe they should address the issue themselves......after all we are talking of people not tins of baked beans or frozen carcasses to be sent hither and tither...

[La Peur Rouge]

stuff

All the problems you bring up are issues in a capitalist society. The question is "swept under the carpet" because there is only one right answer, and that is that no human should be told where they can or can't immigrate.

[Psy]

The problem is capitalism can't utilize 100% of labor, a workers run society is a different story. In a workers run society the limitation is not jobs but infrastructure supporting the local population, where you get diminishing returns for increasing infrastructure capacity in that area and it becomes more logistical to spread population elsewhere.

For example I can see in a communist world where there are islands with frozen immigration with the logic that the islands just can't support all the people that would want to live on a developed island without destroying the aesthetics of the island.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The workers struggle has no borders/La lucha obreras no tiene fronteras.
Marxism is based in proletarian internationalism.

In the context of the US right now, the demand should be for total amnesty for all immigrants regardless of national origin and the demilitarization and deregulation of the border.


Also, he current issue of immigration, and all issues of mass immigration in the modern era, have to do with the rapid and constant mass displacement of capital around the world. Because of it, communities are uprooted and forced into migration.

[Die Neue Zeit]

some socialists (maybe LiquidState?) are still concerned with pandering to this mentality brj2UkUPjCI

This debate on open borders vs. immigration controls is too binary.

There should be a matching the transnational mobility of labour with the establishment of a transnationally entrenched bill of workers’ political and economic rights, and with the realization of a globalized and upward equal standard of living for equal work based on real purchasing power parity, thus allowing real freedom of movement through instant legalization and open borders, and thereby precluding the extreme exploitation of immigrants.

[I know, that's jam-packed.]

[dodger]

' This debate on open borders vs. immigration controls is too binary.''
Hello Zeit, Binary? Yes yes, yes....you either have a job or don't....a house or not...in a queue for medical treatment....education...et al....or not. Either way it requires intervention, some sort of planning. The ever present prospects of war, on all continents, means, we will face the issues soon enough. The cartoon says it all really and you know what Zeit...I still don't think the left are engaging. Certainly the present situation presents us with a tide of misery. Pardon me for saying but surely something has gone sorely wrong in Mexico for 1,000's to hurl themselves at an electric fence, put themselves into the clutches of criminals,often. Lead a mean shadow existence...not knowing a moments peace. Criminals, often offspring are sucked into dubious activity. Surely a symptom of US..Mexican '''Canadian..integration. No wonder there were no more takers for the kind offers. This is the fruits of EU FOLLY. People give up their sovereignty at their peril. Here (philippines) it would take 5 yrs income to pay for a flight and another 3 to pay for a visa based on a labourers wages. TO PUT A CHILD THROUGH NURSING COLLEGE...STRAINS THE BUDGET TO BREAKING POINT. Only wealthy or relatives sending money from abroad ensures courses are completed. The poor rarely get a chance to emigrate. We as a people should be able collectively to decide just who and when people or goods should pass our borders. If we do not ....who does?
UK Net immigration rose 21 per cent last year, with 239,000 more people arriving here than leaving, according to the Office for National Statistics. In 2009, the total was 198,000. These are the people taking jobs from local boys and girls.
The government’s cap on migration to Britain from outside Europe is being more than offset by a renewed rise in migration from Poland and other EU countries. Immigration from within the EU, which is not subject to the coalition’s immigration cap, rose to 39,000 in 2010, up from 5,000 in 2009.
Can we look our fellow brothers and sisters in the eye and say(straight faced) in all honesty ..Mass immigration is the best thing since sliced bread? Note question mark.
' I sent off the cartoon link to a number of people looking for work....so far only 2 replies..all unprintable. Interesting, in so far as both were children of immigrants themselves...but wholly British working class in their response.." They ARE taking our bleeding jobs!!.......".(but, but they ARE...!!?!)"

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes to fighting for open borders and equal rights for all workers under capitalism. After capitalism... what borders?

[Smyg]

No borders. No nations. No bullshit.

[tir1944]

Smyg what's the official policy on immigration of the Com.Party of Norway? What do they say about the issue?

[Smyg]

Heh, I'm afraid I have no idea, seeing as how I'm neither in Norway nor a member of a communist party, but in my experience essentially all Scandinavian leftist groups are very pro-immigration.

[Die Neue Zeit]

' This debate on open borders vs. immigration controls is too binary.''
Hello Zeit, Binary? Yes yes, yes....you either have a job or don't

What I proposed above solves the problem. If you have that, you don't have labour arbitrage. The key is real purchasing power parity, and then you base solutions off of that.

[W1N5T0N]

borders? what borders?

oh i see, you mean those illegitimately drawn imaginary lines on certain maps, which show how kings, queens and tyrants drew on a map, regularly throwing away the lives of millions over little corrections in those lines?

bah, borders. :ninja:

[cheguvera]

I support if it is not purpose of economic reasons.Economic immigration is not part of socialism as it could cause brain drain.This is not advantageous for poor countries as educated & good brains could migrate away.
I feel if this become reality half of indians/africans/south american will migrate to western countries. I mean world economies are not balanced to stop economic migration.This is only possible in world socialism.I mean when all nations become socialists.In capitalism this is a dream as it creates massive class difference as well as it creates huge difference in economies in each capitalist nations.This was possible in 300-400 ago as there was not much difference of economic in ancient countries.Capitalism has made this is impossible.Even communist russia,cuba, china did not allow economic migration.In capitalism we can witness economic migration.
I like one day we all become one nation & aethists.
my english is a mess.sorry.:lol:

[Psy]

I support if it is not purpose of economic reasons.Economic immigration is not part of socialism as it could cause brain drain.This is not advantageous for poor countries as educated & good brains could migrate away.

Yet if the the brain drain is from less developed capitalists nations to workers state that is not really a problem it is actually a boom for the workers state especially if you grow to brain drain on the large industrial capital powers.

For lets say the Comecom nations where a true block of worker controlled governments, and was able to achieve a higher standard of living then the west then what would be the problem of the Comecom encouraging workers to just migrate into the Comecom? Yhea it would be economic warfare on the capitalists by taking away their army of unemployed but isn't that a good thing from the perspective of a global workers movement.

[thefinalmarch]

We don't seek to improve or reform capitalism, but to abolish it and replace it with a better system.
"we shouldn't improve conditions for the working class under capitalism because we want to abolish it anyway".

this is probably the fucking dumbest, most ultra-leftist response that could possibly be given.

this is coming from an "ultra-leftist"

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Speaking as someone who is a multiple immigrant in that I have immigrated to more than one country (legally), I believe I should be able to move and work wherever I damn well please without having to jump through all the bureaucratic hoops that are currently in place. Granted, I realize that perhaps there might need to be some sort of procedure for immigration in a post-revolutionary society however I think the current laws and regulations are complete bullshit. Immigration is a pain in the fucking ass as it currently stands.

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

The world would rely be happier with no borders that separate us.

[Franz Fanonipants]

strategic culture-nationalism ain't a bad tool to have in the revolutionary toolbelt, but yeah i guess i'm for sure against geopolitical borders.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Speaking as someone who is a multiple immigrant in that I have immigrated to more than one country (legally), I believe I should be able to move and work wherever I damn well please without having to jump through all the bureaucratic hoops that are currently in place. Granted, I realize that perhaps there might need to be some sort of procedure for immigration in a post-revolutionary society however I think the current laws and regulations are complete bullshit. Immigration is a pain in the fucking ass as it currently stands.

What kind of procedure? Do you mean simply submitting paperwork showing you now live in a new place?

[brigadista]

seems it that those in the global south are ok to work for peanuts for western corporations their subsidiaries and their offshoots in their own countries ,but are not good enough to enter the western countries to live and work- in the UK the way immigration law operates shows how deeply colonialist and imperialistic the UK really is .... no coincidence that the largest numbers of asylum seekers in the past few years have been Iraqi, Afghan , Somali..

No Bosses No Bombs No Borders!!!!

[cheguvera]

Yet if the the brain drain is from less developed capitalists nations to workers state that is not really a problem it is actually a boom for the workers state especially if you grow to brain drain on the large industrial capital powers.

For lets say the Comecom nations where a true block of worker controlled governments, and was able to achieve a higher standard of living then the west then what would be the problem of the Comecom encouraging workers to just migrate into the Comecom? Yhea it would be economic warfare on the capitalists by taking away their army of unemployed but isn't that a good thing from the perspective of a global workers movement.
we have to identify borders which separate us from each other.They are mainly ethnicity, religions, languages, cutural attitudes, economic inequality, class indifferences etc.There are so many others.These are the real borders that make borders of countries. one nation , one common language & no religion will help us to suppress borders to greater extent.
I feel still this is a dream as we have lot of divisions among us.Arabs, middleeast will not allow christian influx of migration to their lands.Hindus, christians may not allow high influx of muslim migration in to them.
Europe has become a borderless land due to EU union.Still they do not have hindu or islam country among them.They left turkey out of EU.
I feel EU is not aspirations of the people.Therefore they dont hold referendums.EU is an aspiration of capitalism.Rich men get cheap labour & extended market for their businesses.
Eu was created for capitalist rich elite.We are too early to predict its outcome on commons.Honestly I like EU as they have removed borders.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

What kind of procedure? Do you mean simply submitting paperwork showing you now live in a new place?

If you are refering to a post-revolutionary society then yes, something like that, something designed for pratical purposes.

[dodger]

seems it that those in the global south are ok to work for peanuts for western corporations their subsidiaries and their offshoots in their own countries ,but are not good enough to enter the western countries to live and work- in the UK the way immigration law operates shows how deeply colonialist and imperialistic the UK really is .... no coincidence that the largest numbers of asylum seekers in the past few years have been Iraqi, Afghan , Somali..

No Bosses No Bombs No Borders!!!!

Dear brigadista...no bosses...no bombs I think we can all agree on. The bosses want borders removed....drones, capital and mass migration must not be impeded by borders. Our youth are not to be trained or given employment while immigrants come to our shores. IT is very ok for global interests to exploit and drive out local people. turn them into economic migrants...with only one aspiration ...leave. 21st century slavery. Indeed as you point out no surprise where asylum seekers originate. War and imperialist penetration of countries and whole regions set off the flood of misery. Barriers have a purpose, they keep things in and keep things out. do we all see how that might work? hoho,,,How a world riven by class might look at this afresh. How peoples aspiration , needs and interests might be pushed to the fore. First things first take a long hard realistic look at what capitalists want and need for their survival, continuation of their hegemony. Most of what we need to know is then available. Where and what to fight...what to oppose. Who are our friends...

"I feel EU is not aspirations of the people.Therefore they dont hold referendums.EU is an aspiration of capitalism.Rich men get cheap labour & extended market for their businesses.
Eu was created for capitalist rich elite.We are too early to predict its outcome on commons.Honestly I like EU as they have removed borders." CHEGUVERA, Expresses what the majority of people feel and of course I part company on the question of control and sovereignty that comes with secure borders. At least at this stage it's paramount. Can we really hand on heart trust put up a sign saying "NO BORDER"....and expect Bush, Brown Blair, Cameron or Sarkosi not to start salivering. To say nothing of NATO generals and pilots, heroes at 30,000ft. Gods teeth,,,even Norway joined in the bombing frenzy. City bankers, carpetbaggers....never ones to lag behind were already at the starting blocks...in short lets not be tempted to want what they want...ever. Better to do as CHEGUVERA has taken the trouble to do ...clearly state what the aspirations of people are. In doing so he has set out in bold relief exactly what the other crowd's game is...thanks.

After 26,000 sorties, an African head of state humiliated and put to death with hideous cruelty...an assortment of mercenaries, both foreign and home grown 'plied their trade from 4x4's and have turned parts of Libya into moonscape and feudal caliphate. No surprises there then . True to form. Certainly women will pay the biggest price. A flagrant example of International law flouted...it's a pointer...a marker of where we have been and more importantly where we might be going.

The Greeks express it well.......as do others around the globe, beset.

" Let’s overthrow the puppet government and throw the troika out of Greece!

- Greece will not become a protectorate!

- No consensus without Democracy and Independence!"

[brigadista]

hey dodger I agree with you . I was referring to the UK situation which is specific taking into account the UK history of imperialism. I was also referring to the current UK immigration system in the UK which discriminates against non white immigrants with respect to entry to the UK and the borders being an excuse to keep non white people out.

[Manic Impressive]

"we shouldn't improve conditions for the working class under capitalism because we want to abolish it anyway".

this is probably the fucking dumbest, most ultra-leftist response that could possibly be given.

this is coming from an "ultra-leftist"
I don't think that's what he meant. A socialist should not argue for reforms to capitalism but we should defend them if the capitalists try to revoke them. In other words it's not our job to tell the capitalists how to make their system work better. If you want to do that join the Labour party.

[S.Artesian]

Do you support the idea that there should be no legal restrictions on immigration throughout the world?


Yes, and immediately.

[Tomhet]

Anyone against Immigration should seriously consider even being on revleft

[S.Artesian]

Anyone against unrestricted immigration should seriously be banned from revleft.

[NewSocialist]

I said it before and I'll say it again -anyone who thinks of themself as a communist but continues to advocate on behalf of borders, culture preservation, or any expression of racism or sexism needs to join the naz(i)bols (http://www.youtube.com/user/NazBolUploads?blend=1&ob=5) or the “national communist“ freaks at the “socialist“ phailanx (http://www.socialistphalanx.com). better yet open a god damn book and learn that your views are archaic and *incompatible* with actual communism. but then maybe I'm expecting too much to think a fascist will read....

the proletariat has no country!

[tir1944]

Anyone against unrestricted immigration should seriously be banned from revleft.
Why? Just asking...

[Tomhet]

What problems do you have with immigration, tir1944? How does being anti-immigrant benefit the working class at all? why should fellow workers be separated by borders and countries?

[tir1944]

I don't have a problem with it,to be honest i never really thought about this since it's not an issue where i live.
In some countries it obviously is an issue so i'm asking questions...
I think that workers shouldn't be separated by borders.

[Искра]

Nobody wanted to emigrate to Soviet Union, so Stalin didn't wrote a text about immigration. That's why Tir1944 can know what to do with immigrants :D

[NewSocialist]

Why? Just asking...

because its fucking counterrevolutionary! honestly dude, do you know anything about communism? cause at this point I really cant tell if you're ignorant or just a troll.

[tir1944]

Nobody wanted to emigrate to Soviet Union, so Stalin didn't wrote a text about immigration. That's why Tir1944 can know what to do with immigrants :D
Thousands actually emigrated...


because its fucking counterrevolutionary!
Is it so hard to explain why?

[NewSocialist]

Is it so hard to explain why?

because it *divides* the working class and therefore benefits the bourgeoisie. as long as borders divide us true solidarity cant be achieved. again, communism is *internationalist*

[tir1944]

because it *divides* the working class and therefore benefits the bourgeoisie.
Does this mean that "pro-immigration" is revolutionary then? Sorry if i got your wrong there...


as long as borders divide us true solidarity cant be achieved.True.


again, communism is *internationalist* Sure it is.

[NewSocialist]

Does this mean that "pro-immigration" is revolutionary then? Sorry if i got your wrong there...

its not that we should be pro or anti immigration, borders just should *not* even exist. capital can already travel freely around, so should workers. its very simple. and after capitalism, if a so-called "socialist" community doesn't allow migration then we know that that community is not socialist.

[tir1944]

capital can already travel freely around, so should workers.
That's a good point...worth thinking about.

[Belleraphone]

I am not a racist or anything, (I'm an immigrant myself) but isn't open borders in a capitalist society only dangerous? It would just make it easier for the bourgeois to transcend international borders, overwhelm the somewhat democratic states, and exploit the workers to a bigger degree?

[NewSocialist]

I am not a racist or anything, (I'm an immigrant myself) but isn't open borders in a capitalist society only dangerous? It would just make it easier for the bourgeois to transcend international borders, overwhelm the somewhat democratic states, and exploit the workers to a bigger degree?

capitalists can already move there capital freely around the globe comrade. if immigrants were *legal* the capitalists would have to pay them at least the minimum wage so they would actually be exploited *less* dont buy the lies.

[Belleraphone]

I'm not talking about recognizing illegal/legal immigrants, I'm talking about the number of immigrants that are allowed to move into a country a year. I know they can move their capital around the globe effectively, but there are always ways in which the bourgeois can increase their power and further their exploitation.

[NewSocialist]

I'm talking about the number of immigrants that are allowed to move into a country a year.

there shouldnt be a limit.


I know they can move their capital around the globe effectively, but there are always ways in which the bourgeois can increase their power and further their exploitation.

thats why *all* workers must unite and fight the system!

[Belleraphone]

But the workers aren't united yet. This is why I said in a capitalist society only.

[NewSocialist]

But the workers aren't united yet. This is why I said in a capitalist society only.

I know but keeping them divided with borders isnt going to help that much is it?

[rundontwalk]

(1) indigenous communities with small populations and a history of repression will not want immigrants. Most Native American Nations for instance don't let large numbers of non-tribe members move in to their territory. Because of their history of repression by hegemonic outsiders, their concerns at least should be considered and at the very least ensuring total immigration rights to those areas should be the lowest priority.

(2) Related to (1) is the problem of disease in indigenous communities. Immigrants to places like Amazonia are likely to bring disease which local people have little or no immunity to, and so where there are locals who are vulnerable to foreign infections there should be very tight regulations about immigration. The same goes for any tribe or ethnic group in places like the Amazon that choose to have no or minimal contact with the outside world

(3) Natural reserves where people in general desire to preserve a pristine environment should also be regulated or banned altogether. Everyone should have the right to move to Wyoming for instance, but nobody should have a right to build a house on top of Old Faithful.
I agree with these caveats, but on the whole I support the idea.

[dodger]

To those who have decided mass immigration is not a fit subject for our deliberations....maybe the thought that some 80% of Britons feel it is most important. The unelected EU commissioners and overfed legislators all think mass immigration is fine and have enacted laws. Question, is it just white Britons who fear mass immigration? Question, is it only people in well paid employment? Is it folk who seek reasonably priced habitation? Is it workers who seek jobs for their offspring? Is it patients awaiting medical procedures? Is it parents concerned about mushrooming class sizes? Not empty rhetoric...even though we know the answer already. Union survey==UNITE--Labour activists in constituencies fighting narrow margins--Question--What are peoples main concerns?..Top of the list...MASS immigration! The survey was buried. Unheeded the people rejected Labour. Ponder this, there is 50% unemployment amongst our black youth---'80% of all new jobs in private sector have gone to eastern Europeans .keeping wages down', as the capitalist Adam Smith Institute noted approvingly. Shocked or dismayed? What do we tell our youngsters, perhaps a starry-eyed speech about a world without borders.A homily about internationalism? Rhetorical assertion on the working class not having a country. That wont cut it or butter any parsnips.Our rulers are not
quite so reticent....Clegg pronounced himself satisfied that it was a useful wage control. The ruling, employing class imports low-paid immigrant labour, to keep wages low and to rob other countries of their skilled labour.
The BNP despite dire warnings from left and ultra left were booted out. Let's have something useful to say on mass immigration--then we might boot them out for good. Of course, when people have actually arrived here, we recruit them to our unions and work with them in our unions. WE ARE A PRACTICAL AND PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE.

Here and now let's get down to talking with our people and figure what is good for us.
Take control.

Come on STARRY-EYES !!!!

[Marxaveli]

Immigration should be completely legal. If corporations can move across borders, why cant people? Oh, thats right, because taking the necessary measures to improve profits is ok, but people trying to improve their lives in this capitalist society isnt allowed. The immigrant workers are going to steal all our jobs dammit (even though the corporations have already outsourced them all anyway)....lmao. The hypocrisy of capitalism is so laughable, yet so horrible at the same time.

[S.Artesian]

To those who have decided mass immigration is not a fit subject for our deliberations....maybe the thought that some 80% of Britons feel it is most important.

No shit? Huh, how about defeating communism 40 years ago, what did the polls show then? WTF. How about the fact the making people illegal is a way to super-exploit their labor while at the same time demonizing them and making them the target of anger rather than capitalism itself?

How about the fact that in California in the 19th century, the organizing principle for the labor union movement was in fact racism-- protecting white labor from the "threat" of Chinese, and later all Asian, labor, with of course the unions demanding elimination of immigration and expulsions of the Chinese? Care to look at those poll numbers?

How about we look at this as a question of labor, you know that thing that guy with the bushy beard called class? So what class do the immigrants constitute-- are immigrants here to invest their capital? Or sell their labor? [Notice how the attacks are always upon poor immigrants, never on posh immigrants?]

Obviously to sell their labor. So anti-immigration is just one more way of dividing the working class, making it compete among itself, fractionalizing it, fractionalizing the whole. This excludes "class-for-itself" development from the getgo.




The unelected EU commissioners and overfed legislators all think mass immigration is fine and have enacted laws.

Yeah... and so what? Sarkozy, Rodriquez-Zapatero, Berlusconi, the Northern League etc etc have all attacked immigrants, expelling them. So which side are you on, that of the immigrants or that of the Sarkozy?




Question, is it just white Britons who fear mass immigration? Question, is it only people in well paid employment? Is it folk who seek reasonably priced habitation? Is it workers who seek jobs for their offspring? Is it patients awaiting medical procedures? Is it parents concerned about mushrooming class sizes? Not empty rhetoric...even though we know the answer already.

Is it the EDL, hoping to use fears about economic security to turn these against immigrants, demonizing immigration as the threat to the economic stability, when we know the answer to that already is YES, and immigrants represent ZERO threat to anybody's economic well-being since they, almost exclusively, take the jobs that the more established sectors of the working class don't want-- like agricultural labor, like off-the-books underpaid personal services, like sweat shops. Pay fucking attention, there's a test after this.




Union survey==UNITE--Labour activists in constituencies fighting narrow margins--Question--What are peoples main concerns?..Top of the list...MASS immigration! The survey was buried. Unheeded the people rejected Labour. Ponder this, there is 50% unemployment amongst our black youth---'80% of all new jobs in private sector have gone to eastern Europeans .keeping wages down', as the capitalist Adam Smith Institute noted approvingly. Shocked or dismayed? What do we tell our youngsters, perhaps a starry-eyed speech about a world without borders.A homily about internationalism? Rhetorical assertion on the working class not having a country. That wont cut it or butter any parsnips.

We tell them the truth-- that their economic stress has nothing to do with immigration; that attacks on immigrants are a diversion; that the jobs being taken by immigrants are jobs that are without the protections, etc. that all workers should be afforded.

Really... get your head out of your ass. Same thing occurred in the US internally when African-Americans migrated North and to the cities for work in the industrial centers. "Oh, they're going to take our jobs. Oh, look how many blacks are moving into Detroit. Oh, all the new jobs are going to the blacks." And this was a case where African-Americans were getting good jobs, with protections.

What was the reality-- well during this migration, after WW2, jobs were increasing, wages were rising for all-- and when the contraction started after 1969-- that had nothing to do with who had what jobs, how many people of what color were where. And, of course, it was the "internal immigrants" the black workers who suffered disproportionately, and still do, from the contraction.




Our rulers are not
quite so reticent....Clegg pronounced himself satisfied that it was a useful wage control. The ruling, employing class imports low-paid immigrant labour, to keep wages low and to rob other countries of their skilled labour.



Yeah, so then demand that all labor be protected-- with wage rates, benefits, and organization of the workers uniform.


The BNP despite dire warnings from left and ultra left were booted out. Let's have something useful to say on mass immigration--then we might boot them out for good. Of course, when people have actually arrived here, we recruit them to our unions and work with them in our unions. WE ARE A PRACTICAL AND PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE.

Here and now let's get down to talking with our people and figure what is good for us.
Take control.

Come on STARRY-EYES !!!!


Don't know what you have in your eyes, but it's not stars-- probably sand. Who's the "we" in "we are a productive people"? "native born, first generation and more" Britons. How touching. What do you think the immigrants are? Impractical, lazy? Shiftless?

Yeah let's have something useful to say on mass immigration: Nobody Is Illegal. Let's say the BNP is attacking the most vulnerable sectors of the laboring class in order to weaken the class as a whole and set up the other sectors for similar treatment.

Something along the lines of class solidarity, and an injury to one is an injury to all... yeah something starry-eyed like that.

[S.Artesian]

I'm for total immigration rights. It is hypocritical that in our day and age Capital is given limitless means and ability to move between borders but not people. If there is a socialist world with overall wealth inequality there will be less incentive to immigrate, but until then there is a huge incentive for workers to cross borders, but there would be no reason to ban immigration either.

There are a *few* issues with total immigration rights which must be addressed:

(1) indigenous communities with small populations and a history of repression will not want immigrants. Most Native American Nations for instance don't let large numbers of non-tribe members move in to their territory. Because of their history of repression by hegemonic outsiders, their concerns at least should be considered and at the very least ensuring total immigration rights to those areas should be the lowest priority.


How many immigrants want to move to Native American communities? Come on, that isn't a realistic issue. This is the discussion about migrants in urban, or small town areas seeking employment.



(2) Related to (1) is the problem of disease in indigenous communities. Immigrants to places like Amazonia are likely to bring disease which local people have little or no immunity to, and so where there are locals who are vulnerable to foreign infections there should be very tight regulations about immigration. The same goes for any tribe or ethnic group in places like the Amazon that choose to have no or minimal contact with the outside world
Evidence? Sorry to be so crude, but the above is 1000 percent horseshit. Exactly what disease, what pathogens are going to be brought? Ebola virus? Spanish influenza? SARS, Avian flu? Human to human communication of the last two has been shown to be quite rare. Spanish influenza, and other flu viruses are not community based. Ebola virus kills within several days and again and cannot be brought into an area by communities with "herd" immunities. So exactly what are you talking about? What infections?

This isn't the 16th, or 17th century and immigrants aren't bringing with them smallpox infested blankets for trading.

Again, you need to get real. Indigenous rain-forest communities from Indonesia or the Amazon are not looking to migrate to the cities. They may be compelled to do so by destruction of their habitats, by seizure and dispossession, but let's cut the crap about new versions of Typhoid Marys marching into Birmingham.



(3) Natural reserves where people in general desire to preserve a pristine environment should also be regulated or banned altogether. Everyone should have the right to move to Wyoming for instance, but nobody should have a right to build a house on top of Old Faithful.
This, as the previous two issues, has absolutely nothing to do with the struggle for open borders.


Other than those important issues, there should be nothing stopping anyone from immigrating anywhere. This should be an important part of the Socialist struggle.
Those aren't important issues.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

How many immigrants want to move to Native American communities? Come on, that isn't a realistic issue. This is the discussion about migrants in urban, or small town areas seeking employment.


Not just "native american" communities but rural areas in general with small indigenous groups

Also it is an issue for those communities. That's why those communities have rules against non-tribe members moving to their tribal areas. Those rules wouldn't exist if you didn't have Anglos trying to build houses or operate mines in sacred cultural areas or their homes. In fact, it is white encroachment on native tribal land that caused substantial problems for native tribes-white settlers would move to the lands given to tribal nations by treaty, then the Federal Government would support the right of those settlers and annex the land from the reservation. That's how the Black Hills war started. The only reason it's not a problem today is because tribes actually receive better legal support from the US government than they did in the 1870s and because tribal police mean business.



Evidence? Sorry to be so crude, but the above is 1000 percent horseshit. Exactly what disease, what pathogens are going to be brought? Ebola virus? Spanish influenza? SARS, Avian flu? Human to human communication of the last two has been shown to be quite rare. Spanish influenza, and other flu viruses are not community based. Ebola virus kills within several days and again and cannot be brought into an area by communities with "herd" immunities. So exactly what are you talking about? What infections?

This isn't the 16th, or 17th century and immigrants aren't bringing with them smallpox infested blankets for trading.

Again, you need to get real. Indigenous rain-forest communities from Indonesia or the Amazon are not looking to migrate to the cities. They may be compelled to do so by destruction of their habitats, by seizure and dispossession, but let's cut the crap about new versions of Typhoid Marys marching into Birmingham.


You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Encroachment into the Amazon jungle by loggers and other economic interests DOES bring disease which could potentially wipe out tens of thousands of people. Poxes, measles, the same shit that killed of the Aztecs can make tribes in the Amazon that have had minimal contact with outsiders quite sick or kill them.

I suppose the US State department just made up the fact that loggers and farmers bring disease to indigenous communities because it is a bourgeois government?

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/wha/119150.htm


Nonindigenous persons who illegally exploited indigenous lands for mining, logging, and agriculture often destroyed the environment and wildlife, spread disease, and provoked violent confrontations. FUNAI, which acknowledged insufficient resources to protect indigenous lands from encroachment, depended on the understaffed and poorly equipped Federal Police for law enforcement on indigenous lands.

To put it simply, encroachment on indigenous land by outsiders *does* spread disease just as much as it did 100-500 years ago. Biology and the science of the immune system doesn't change. Unlike Quechua, Nahua, Sioux and other groups with a history of contact, Amazon tribes have a much more limited history of exposure, especially undiscovered tribes.



This, as the previous two issues, has absolutely nothing to do with the struggle for open borders.

Not all migrants go to cities for jobs. Some go to rural areas to log trees or work on mines. Perhaps you're not aware of that but it doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

[S.Artesian]

Not just "native american" communities but rural areas in general with small indigenous groups

Also it is an issue for those communities. That's why those communities have rules against non-tribe members moving to their tribal areas. Those rules wouldn't exist if you didn't have Anglos trying to build houses or operate mines in sacred cultural areas or their homes. In fact, it is white encroachment on native tribal land that caused substantial problems for native tribes-white settlers would move to the lands given to tribal nations by treaty, then the Federal Government would support the right of those settlers and annex the land from the reservation. That's how the Black Hills war started. The only reason it's not a problem today is because tribes actually receive better legal support from the US government than they did in the 1870s and because tribal police mean business.

But this isn't the 19th century and that's not what the issues of immigration are in this century, that we confront in the real world. We're not talking about the right of NA logging companies to "emigrate" to the rain forest. We're talking about the, in the US, central American people emigrating to the US to work. They're not moving Iowa to farm, but to work in meat processing plants; they're not moving to Arizona to open up subdivisions on Navajo, or Hopi, territory. That's the Koch bros., good old 100% full citizenship US citizens. Let's talk about the real issue. Not the hypothetical of X number of capitalists moving into the rain-forest. We're against capital, remember? We don't oppose capital moving into the rain forest on the basis of immigration, we oppose it on the basis of being capital.




You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Encroachment into the Amazon jungle by loggers and other economic interests DOES bring disease which could potentially wipe out tens of thousands of people. Poxes, measles, the same shit that killed of the Aztecs can make tribes in the Amazon that have had minimal contact with outsiders quite sick or kill them.



To put it simply, encroachment on indigenous land by outsiders *does* spread disease just as much as it did 100-500 years ago. Biology and the science of the immune system doesn't change. Unlike Quechua, Nahua, Sioux and other groups with a history of contact, Amazon tribes have a much more limited history of exposure, especially undiscovered tribes.

And again, that isn't the issue. We oppose the encroachment of capital because it's capital, because it will destroy anything and everything in the process of value production. We oppose "native" loggers moving into rain forests and destroying indigenous cultures don't we.

The issue you raise plays right into the hands of those proclaiming that unrestricted immigration into the developed countries will expose those populations to new infections for which they don't have immunities. That's just horseshit; that's the issue I'm raising. The vectors of disease proliferation do not work that way when sit comes to introduction of new diseases into a community without immunity. So again, I ask you for data on any mass infectious transmissions of a serious nature in the "advanced" countries to the "host" populations that have been traced to immigrants, and that involve diseases unknown or unobserved in the host population. I'm not talking about varieties of hepatitis spread by blood-to-blood contact, or individual sexual relations. We're talking about mass infectious outbreaks. Where has this occurred in the "advanced" countries?

Nobody says the number of rich white people from Brazil emigrating to the US has to be controlled; or the numbers of rich Russians emigrating to England account of the risk of new disease transmission. It's a class issue. That's what you don't recognize in your hypothetical constructions.




Not all migrants go to cities for jobs. Some go to rural areas to log trees or work on mines. Perhaps you're not aware of that but it doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Lots of immigrants go to rural areas. They make up the overwhelming portion of agricultural transient labor in the US. So tell me exactly what problems have been created by this, what problems of "disease" etc have been created?

The problem is you think you know what you're talking about, without even recognizing what the real issues are.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

But this isn't the 19th century and that's not what the issues of immigration are in this century, that we confront in the real world. We're not talking about the right of NA logging companies to "emigrate" to the rain forest. We're talking about the, in the US, central American people emigrating to the US to work. They're not moving Iowa to farm, but to work in meat processing plants; they're not moving to Arizona to open up subdivisions on Navajo, or Hopi, territory. That's the Koch bros., good old 100% full citizenship US citizens. Let's talk about the real issue.


The real world is dynamic. The reason why people aren't moving to those areas to farm is because there is currently no economic incentive to do so, and a strong incentive not to do so. That can change. If there were not currently tight regulations about the right of people to migrate to land registered to a tribe and decide to reside there (ie, tight rules of migration), as well as tight policing from tribal police, it could be a problem again. My caveat was that the current rules for areas like native reservations in the US should be allowed to be maintained, at least for some time until a better arrangement can be made.

I agree with you that the main issue is immigration from central/south America to the US right now, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be particular, circumscribed caveats to either (1) Continue protection for current marginalized groups or (2) offer protection to potentially marginalized groups.


Not the hypothetical of X number of capitalists moving into the rain-forest. We're against capital, remember? We don't oppose capital moving into the rain forest on the basis of immigration, we oppose it on the basis of being capital.Yes and labor goes where the capital is. It is the labor force which spreads disease. This is the most obvious where you have illegal operations deep in the jungle, which exist in Peru, Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil. They pose a serious threat to the health and safety of the locals, but are usually not "Capitalists" but are often marginalized laborers themselves who are employed by those capitalists.


And again, that isn't the issue. We oppose the encroachment of capital because it's capital, because it will destroy anything and everything in the process of value production. We oppose "native" loggers moving into rain forests and destroying indigenous cultures don't we. Yes but it is not just the flow of capital it is also the flow of the labor which serves that capital. Perhaps you can block the capital itself from expanding there, which would get rid of much of the demand to migrate into the jungle, but you still have the problem of landless farmers, etc. You recently had this problem in Bolivia where indigenous folks were marching against the construction of a road which would have drawn in large amounts of internal migration for people to set up farms in their homeland.



The issue you raise plays right into the hands of those proclaiming that unrestricted immigration into the developed countries will expose those populations to new infections for which they don't have immunities. That's just horseshit; that's the issue I'm raising. The vectors of disease proliferation do not work that way when sit comes to introduction of new diseases into a community without immunity. So again, I ask you for data on any mass infectious transmissions of a serious nature in the "advanced" countries to the "host" populations that have been traced to immigrants, and that involve diseases unknown or unobserved in the host population. I'm not talking about varieties of hepatitis spread by blood-to-blood contact, or individual sexual relations. We're talking about mass infectious outbreaks. Where has this occurred in the "advanced" countries?

Nobody says the number of rich white people from Brazil emigrating to the US has to be controlled; or the numbers of rich Russians emigrating to England account of the risk of new disease transmission. It's a class issue. That's what you don't recognize in your hypothetical constructions.
Except I'm not talking about people bringing disease to Europe from Africa or Brazil, I'm talking about internal migrants in places like Brazil bringing disease into the jungle. As you said, there's no scientific evidence to back up the notion that people from the 3rd world who immigrate. Anyone who raises that as an issue against immigration to Europe/the USA is lying or doesn't understand the problem. This is only an issue which pertains to historically isolated ethnic groups without any real immunity to outside diseases. However, when you have governments deciding where to build roads or where to open up land in the frontier for landless farmers, it's a pretty serious issue, at least for those people-both the indigenous and the farmers.

I was only setting up a specific caveat regarding immigration to particular high-risk areas. I was saying nothing about the immigration of people from the "global south" to the "global north". If what I say "plays into their hand" that isn't my problem that's their problem and has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of the health threats posed to these indigenous communities.



Lots of immigrants go to rural areas. They make up the overwhelming portion of agricultural transient labor in the US. So tell me exactly what problems have been created by this, what problems of "disease" etc have been created?
No problems have been created in the US recently, because it's not currently an issue there. The US has no real frontier anymore and most tribes already have well-established rules and systems of policing. However, in Brazil you do have a problem of internal migration deeper into the jungle, not just of capital but of laborers and landless farmers, in part because of lax enforcement and policing, and these migrants do bring serious sicknesses to these tribes that can kill large numbers of people.

[S.Artesian]

Well good luck with your "problem" of internal migration. That has nothing to do with the issue of immigration.

[rundontwalk]

Evidence? Sorry to be so crude, but the above is 1000 percent horseshit. Exactly what disease, what pathogens are going to be brought? Ebola virus? Spanish influenza? SARS, Avian flu? Human to human communication of the last two has been shown to be quite rare. Spanish influenza, and other flu viruses are not community based. Ebola virus kills within several days and again and cannot be brought into an area by communities with "herd" immunities. So exactly what are you talking about? What infections?

This isn't the 16th, or 17th century and immigrants aren't bringing with them smallpox infested blankets for trading.

Again, you need to get real. Indigenous rain-forest communities from Indonesia or the Amazon are not looking to migrate to the cities. They may be compelled to do so by destruction of their habitats, by seizure and dispossession, but let's cut the crap about new versions of Typhoid Marys marching into Birmingham.
lol.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-9R8mH08-jMC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=yanomami+disease+spread+by&source=bl&ots=6QczXpd3Oq&sig=igKZ_vJqNqbqQ55A8qW-nwkb0uI&hl=en&ei=ZkfJTtjHJYXjiAKYk8X4Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=yanomami%20disease%20spread%20by&f=false

And the Yanomami aren't even an ''uncontacted'' group.

I can't believe someone can be that wrong on the internet. Should this bother me?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Well good luck with your "problem" of internal migration. That has nothing to do with the issue of immigration.

(1) In the border areas of Brazil, Peru, Colombia and Venezuela, these communities can include both internal migrants and foreign immigrants. The border areas of these countries, in fact, is the general territory of this frontier, so it should be expected that much of the migration is both internal and foreign immigration. I remember a recent case where a large number of illegal gold miners in Venezuela were kicked out of a mine near a tribal area and many were Colombians and Brazilian workers, not only Venezuelans. The activity of the mine was causing a lot of damage to the local tribal people.

(2) I saw the thread as about borders on migration general as well as just state borders. The distinction isn't really relevant when we're talking about migration to populations and regions which have never really lived under a nation-state with declared borders (of course, Brazil, Colombia, Peru etc technically claimed those areas, but they were never really under the rule/domination of the Brazilian state in anything but a diplomatic sense) or functioned as tribal nations. The issue of indigenous populations in general is a special case because they functioned as politically autonomous groups before any State ever decided to forcefully incorporate them into their nation. Especially when they have treaty-protected national rights or reservations, moving to their territory is not just internal migration but in a way a form of immigration.

[S.Artesian]

lol.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-9R8mH08-jMC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=yanomami+disease+spread+by&source=bl&ots=6QczXpd3Oq&sig=igKZ_vJqNqbqQ55A8qW-nwkb0uI&hl=en&ei=ZkfJTtjHJYXjiAKYk8X4Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=yanomami%20disease%20spread%20by&f=false

And the Yanomami aren't even an ''uncontacted'' group.

I can't believe someone can be that wrong on the internet. Should this bother me?

Worry about yourself, because the thread is about open borders, and immigration. And that is not what impacted the Yanomami. Basic reading comprehension might help you. Read the thread, and pay attention to dodger's bullshit.

The issue is the movement of immigrant laborers into the "advanced" countries, and if that movement is exposing the "host population" to mass infections.

[dodger]

"The Immigration Dispute:: Is immigration beneficial to a nation?" Question on uk forum

1st response: " my parents are immigrants and i can see a few perspectives on this issue. My father first came here in the 70's to get a better life because there was little or no jobs available in his home country. Fast forward to present day the same reason exists, not only work but a better life and I cannot begrudge anybody for wanting that for themselves and their family. I think the problem is our policies that allow so much immigration that it is more of a hindrance than it is of benifit to our society.

I think a system needs to be put in place to address our needs before the immigrants, if we become bankrupt then whats the point."
A simple point of view, we know up and down the country, now magnified due to unemployment and acute housing shortages. We don't want mass immigration. It is of no benefit to us, that much is clear. We do not harbour ill will to any. Those who have settled here are members of the British working class. In transport we have had success in organising train cleaners across the country many brought over from Africa as direct labour contracts. Last week Mr Branson( VIRGIN) trains..has to pay his cleaners 10% more a week, with better entitlements too. I would suggest that workers in other countries defend their borders develop their country and settle accounts with their ruling class. We have stark choices here, who gets the job? A local boy or an Eastern European? Who? Simple question? 80% of the people are awaiting an answer.Don't panic starry eyes...the capitalist has already answered the question...80% of jobs in private sector have gone to Eastern Europeans. Let the Poles ask Lech walensa for employment. They should fight for work there. Show some solidarity to us. We wish to be productive we want prosperity, we don' want the cancer of unemployment. We also have no means to resist if their is a massive pool of labour. We have a stake here. Your demand for no borders is useless to us and every country on the planet. Capital, labour, drones whistling across. Nations can't develop, working classes can't thrive under your regime. I reject ideas that don't reflect our interests but only set the table for global capital. We have been forced into a EU state where a referendum promised by all parties has not materialized . I would have voted against the treaty. It has not been to my liking. It has at it's core an agenda to attack workers. Ask the Greeks. They have just been mugged. Words keep flooding back to me " Communists love every working class in the world----except their own", now what could that old trade unionist have meant by that? Over the years with intermarriage ,they reckon to have 1.5 m mixed race people hereby 2020. We have all wished for social cohesion. In large part we have it. Between the ultra left and the BNP, I frankly don't know which appals me most. I know you can fight it out on the streets---let me know who wins.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

dodger-it would be better for the UK to work on providing employment opportunities and social improvements in many of the ex-colonies which its immigrants come from than by barring the right of foreigners to immigrate. Labor moves between borders because of the way incentives lie. Most don't even want to move to the UK, USA, France etc and would be happier at home. However the reality of underdevelopment in the 3rd world and overdevelopment in the 1st makes immigration an inevitable reality. They get a lower wage at home than they possibly could abroad. Now, the UK has benefited substantially from the free flow of capital, including within the EU, is it a surprise that the "open borders" might benefit laborers too?

The whole idea of developing one "nation" over another is a dangerous one which has been the reality since mercantilism and nationalism came onto the scene. Fighting immigration is fighting the wrong battle; capital is the mutual enemy of both the immigrants and local workers. The BNP are just a bunch of crypto-fascist opportunistic goons who exploit the understandable but deeply misguided and tragic anger of the working class to incite race war. Leftists on the other hand have a consistent analysis of why the immigrants come and the conditions under which both the immigrants and local people can live in harmony.

S Artesian-As I said, many of the people who go to the Yanomami areas are from Brazil, Colombia, etc ... not all are internal migrants. That border area is very fluid and none of the nation-states seem to have a firm control over it. There is plenty of evidence of the total lawlessness of this frontier area, and the fact that people flow freely between the countries in the area despite the fragile ecological and social conditions of the residents. So rundonotwalk is not totally incorrect in his assessment that they are a good example.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Obviously.

What a stupid thread.

Socialism is international and if it is not, then it is nothing.

[RexCactus]

Unrestricted immigration is impractical without international governance. In the European Union, for example, they have established a system in which travel within the EU can reasonably be made unrestricted (though this is unlikely to happen in the near future). With the CIS and the Union State, unrestricted travel can exist in many former Sovyet States. With the potential Eurasian Union (fusion of the EU and CIS), single government may potentially exist between Europe and the CIS, though through a Federal system most likely. Without a single government, unrestricted immigration becomes a complete mess for social programmes, labour policies, &c. In a theoretically internationalist Communist government, this is reasonable, but before then, it is impractical.

[dodger]

smc..thanks..you are correct in highlighting the causes of migration. Unequal trading, syphoning off skilled labour. countries without a clear strategy sovereignty((a plan), genuine aid, straight forward naked plunder of patrimony. JEEZ THE LIST IS ENDLESS. Let's not forget war! This requires borders--control...at the very least. Of course as humans, many immigrant themselves, perhaps 1/2nd generation...certainly we would have gone to school or been neighbours or even intermarried, not entirely clueless on the subject. Or unsympathetic. It takes a special kind of fool to turn a contradiction(simple) into an antagonistic one. Leave aside for the moment those who revel in the idea of making mischief. I think we know in our heart of hearts the negative sides of mass immigration, can't be ignored or unacknowledged. Are we merely to be ambulance chasers or perhaps rich enough to live in a gated community? We have to get down to address the issues and set about solving them. Will the BNP(57 varieties) have a platform all to themselves if the progressives are in the debate? No of course not. Take it from one who knows intimately, they have not got one clever idea in their noggin. Like Long John Silver, they got a hook, don't like Jews..ok..kid got mugged by Somalians for 13th time...ok kid still on council waiting list...ok...kid can't find a job...ok..London looks like Nairobi....so it goes on. An easy answer blame it all on blah blah blah. Most Britons see through this...self serving nonsense. Their everyday experience tells them it is mindless piffle. Those who could not stand Mrs patels curry fumes took to white flight...moved to Essex. As did prosperous Asians who wanted better for their kids. The rest of us stayed put and got on with it, with very little help from anybody. The church building that started off as Anglican...then Orthodox then Synagogue, now a Mosque tells its own history. It, in graphic detail, tells us what an Englishman is.No doubt what a New Yorker is. Mosley marched down those streets, he was defeated there, though the battle was with the police in the main.

Developing one nation OVER another is indeed the road to hell. Examples from history abound. Trouble is, call me a cynic, who but us will develop the nation. Who else can? Since we must do it for ourselves, surely others must also. That we might learn from each other. We did not invent the halter, but we made dam good use of it. Orwell said we'd be reduced to eating herrings without an Empire that it would be a damp miserable place. Well ,I like herring, I can only remember parts of the swinging 60's, so that prediction fell flat. The real fascists are left to scuttle the corridors of Whitehall, Westminster Brussels and for all I know, Lambeth bloody Palace.
Self respect and arrogance, can you spot the difference? So can most of us Britons. We want what everyone else craves...a peaceful existence to be productive and satisfied. It goes without saying your nightmare scenario of race mayhem will be fought to the last breath. There is much good here to build on. I do not intend spending my declining years on a fruitless search for race issues. Class the most inclusive of terms has served me well over the years...I shall stick with that. International...certainly.....a part of the whole.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And so all the nationalists come out of their closet.

Total migration rights are only unworkable or in-practicable under Capitalism, because Capitalism needs to divide workers by something other than class: nationality on a global scale, and ethnicity & religion on a regional/national scale fit the bill perfectly for them.

Post-Capitalism, there are no real reasons why total migration rights cannot be achieved.

[dodger]

Stammer in your new world will there be no contradictions between workers? Look forward to the day.....in the meantime let not a minor problem become an intractable one. My neighbours son 50% black youth unemployment... a job....the boy or a polish immigrant? Who gets it?
Any ideas? Perhaps they have a slogan there in Poland. Polish jobs for British workers? He has a perfect right under legislation to join the BNP, not sure if his class interests would be best served. So talk about class ....Exactly whose class interests are actually served by this mess. Youth can see through platitudes. Internationalism will sound great but stale after a few months more of unemployment. Surely there is a Solomon out there.

[Crux]

"The Immigration Dispute:: Is immigration beneficial to a nation?" Question on uk forum

1st response: " my parents are immigrants and i can see a few perspectives on this issue. My father first came here in the 70's to get a better life because there was little or no jobs available in his home country. Fast forward to present day the same reason exists, not only work but a better life and I cannot begrudge anybody for wanting that for themselves and their family. I think the problem is our policies that allow so much immigration that it is more of a hindrance than it is of benifit to our society.

I think a system needs to be put in place to address our needs before the immigrants, if we become bankrupt then whats the point."
A simple point of view, we know up and down the country, now magnified due to unemployment and acute housing shortages. We don't want mass immigration. It is of no benefit to us, that much is clear. We do not harbour ill will to any. Those who have settled here are members of the British working class. In transport we have had success in organising train cleaners across the country many brought over from Africa as direct labour contracts. Last week Mr Branson( VIRGIN) trains..has to pay his cleaners 10% more a week, with better entitlements too. I would suggest that workers in other countries defend their borders develop their country and settle accounts with their ruling class. We have stark choices here, who gets the job? A local boy or an Eastern European? Who? Simple question? 80% of the people are awaiting an answer.Don't panic starry eyes...the capitalist has already answered the question...80% of jobs in private sector have gone to Eastern Europeans. Let the Poles ask Lech walensa for employment. They should fight for work there. Show some solidarity to us. We wish to be productive we want prosperity, we don' want the cancer of unemployment. We also have no means to resist if their is a massive pool of labour. We have a stake here. Your demand for no borders is useless to us and every country on the planet. Capital, labour, drones whistling across. Nations can't develop, working classes can't thrive under your regime. I reject ideas that don't reflect our interests but only set the table for global capital. We have been forced into a EU state where a referendum promised by all parties has not materialized . I would have voted against the treaty. It has not been to my liking. It has at it's core an agenda to attack workers. Ask the Greeks. They have just been mugged. Words keep flooding back to me " Communists love every working class in the world----except their own", now what could that old trade unionist have meant by that? Over the years with intermarriage ,they reckon to have 1.5 m mixed race people hereby 2020. We have all wished for social cohesion. In large part we have it. Between the ultra left and the BNP, I frankly don't know which appals me most. I know you can fight it out on the streets---let me know who wins.
so in other words you have swallowed that divide and conquer lie, hook, line and sinker. So riddle me this who is going to stop this "mass immigration" you speak of? Well if you had ever been involved with asylum work you would have known that the same people deporting people en masse are the ones fucking you over. Wake up.

[dodger]

so in other words you have swallowed that divide and conquer lie, hook, line and sinker. So riddle me this who is going to stop this "mass immigration" you speak of? Well if you had ever been involved with asylum work you would have known that the same people deporting people en masse are the ones fucking you over. Wake up.

Well obviously not the EU state officials it is their laws which are causing the problems. Enacting Hitleresque dreams of a united Europe. Asylum is totally another matter, you do your good asylum work no favours by muddying the issue. We in Britain have much to be proud of on the issue of asylum. Besides we have treaty obligations, going back many years. We also have black marks, but over centuries. Any doubts.....open up any telephone directory in the country. I don't think I have ever heard a syllable even AGAINST genuine asylum seekers. Griffin has gone to Brussels......let him seek asylum...I'll happily persecute him and testify to that effect....if it aids his application.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Stammer in your new world will there be no contradictions between workers? Look forward to the day.....in the meantime let not a minor problem become an intractable one. My neighbours son 50% black youth unemployment... a job....the boy or a polish immigrant? Who gets it?
Any ideas? Perhaps they have a slogan there in Poland. Polish jobs for British workers? He has a perfect right under legislation to join the BNP, not sure if his class interests would be best served. So talk about class ....Exactly whose class interests are actually served by this mess. Youth can see through platitudes. Internationalism will sound great but stale after a few months more of unemployment. Surely there is a Solomon out there.

You are just sounding idiotic and racist now. Why bring the Polish stereotype into this? If you knew anything, you'd know that Polish migration to the UK, in net terms, has been decreasing for 3 or 4 years now, so it's really a shit example.

There won't be unemployment under Socialism, obviously. That is the point. People will have the right, democratically speaking, to make this happen for themselves.

[dodger]

You are just sounding idiotic and racist now. Why bring the Polish stereotype into this? If you knew anything, you'd know that Polish migration to the UK, in net terms, has been decreasing for 3 or 4 years now, so it's really a shit example.

There won't be unemployment under Socialism, obviously. That is the point. People will have the right, democratically speaking, to make this happen for themselves.

Stammer I may well be idiotic but we are talking about people not tins of curry beans or polish sausage for that matter. My effort to put an unemployed black British youth as more deserving of employment than a Polish worker is deemed racist by you. Ok. Stereotypical. That's probably because often it is STEREOTYPICAL....hardly racist. So what's the story? Grin and bear it....very hard for a whole generation of our youth to be in this position. A pep talk on the working class not having a country....he suspects that is the case already. Socialists are more and more looking like the STUPID PARTY to many people. They made a mess of the economy now they can't even control a border on an Island. Let a reasonable number come in to settle. Do they want social cohesion? Or is there another agenda at work here...only asking? As others have....not with my patience though!!
Net immigration rose 21 per cent last year, with 239,000 more people arriving here than leaving, according to the Office for National Statistics. In 2009, the total was 198,000.

The government’s cap on migration to Britain from outside Europe is being more than offset by a renewed rise in migration from Poland and other EU countries. Immigration from within the EU, which is not subject to the coalition’s immigration cap, rose to 39,000 in 2010, up from 5,000 in 2009.
By 2016 it is estimated that 1.3 million new households will be formed, but that the number of new homes being built will be some 700,000, barely half of what will be required. Uncontrolled mass immigration from the European Union contributes to the gap.

[Veovis]

Capitalism LOVES open borders - as long as they're only open to capital and not to the free movement of labor.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Stammer I may well be idiotic but we are talking about people not tins of curry beans or polish sausage for that matter. My effort to put an unemployed black British youth as more deserving of employment than a Polish worker is deemed racist by you. Ok. Stereotypical. That's probably because often it is STEREOTYPICAL....hardly racist. So what's the story? Grin and bear it....very hard for a whole generation of our youth to be in this position. A pep talk on the working class not having a country....he suspects that is the case already. Socialists are more and more looking like the STUPID PARTY to many people. They made a mess of the economy now they can't even control a border on an Island. Let a reasonable number come in to settle. Do they want social cohesion? Or is there another agenda at work here...only asking? As others have....not with my patience though!!
Net immigration rose 21 per cent last year, with 239,000 more people arriving here than leaving, according to the Office for National Statistics. In 2009, the total was 198,000.

The government’s cap on migration to Britain from outside Europe is being more than offset by a renewed rise in migration from Poland and other EU countries. Immigration from within the EU, which is not subject to the coalition’s immigration cap, rose to 39,000 in 2010, up from 5,000 in 2009.
By 2016 it is estimated that 1.3 million new households will be formed, but that the number of new homes being built will be some 700,000, barely half of what will be required. Uncontrolled mass immigration from the European Union contributes to the gap.

You're the type of complete idiot (I imagine that's the only thing we'll agree on) who divides the working class, by putting your effort into pointing out high immigration into the UK, a highly developed country, from Eastern Europe and Africa, regions with mostly underdeveloped countries.

You ignore that there is no causal link, nay - not even any correlational link between higher immigration and poor economic performance, higher unemployment etc. We had high immigration during the boom, we have high (though lower) immigration during the bust, it makes no difference, same shit different day.

So, if I give you the benefit of my huge doubt and say that you're not a troll from Socialist Phalanx or some other orifice of disgusting White Nationalism, then i'm going to tell you to grow up, stop obsessing about immigration because the fact is that, in the UK, under Capitalism, you could have zero net immigration and there would still be British workers - white, black or any other colour - on the scrap heap, miserably and poor.

[dodger]

Capitalism LOVES open borders - as long as they're only open to capital and not to the free movement of labor.

http://www.amazon.com/Exploited-Migrant-Labour-Global-Economy/product-reviews/1842778528/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_summary?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Exploited: Migrant Labour in the New Global Economy [Paperback]
Toby Shelley (Author). I pasted a link for 2 reviews to this book. I hope of interest. At least we can agree 'Capitalism LOVES open borders '.
The book might cause you to reflect on capitals very real need for free movement of labour too.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So Dodger, are you a Socialist or a a Nationalist?

[Magón]

http://www.amazon.com/Exploited-Migrant-Labour-Global-Economy/product-reviews/1842778528/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_summary?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Exploited: Migrant Labour in the New Global Economy [Paperback]
Toby Shelley (Author). I pasted a link for 2 reviews to this book. I hope of interest. At least we can agree 'Capitalism LOVES open borders '.
The book might cause you to reflect on capitals very real need for free movement of labour too.

I think you completely missed what he meant by Capitalists loving open boarders. They love it, as long as they're allowed to go in between country's no problem. A Socialist/Communist agrees that there should be no boarders between countries for workers, and realize that they're simply imaginary lines on a map, with some having a fence or wall that doesn't even work so what's the point of having one?

[workersadvocate]

Why would modern capitalism not desire the convenient flow of (especially precarious) labor throughout the global economy?

Is 'pro-immigration' really the satisfactory answer, thus the last word about it, from leftists?
Isn't the answer really depending on international proletarian revolution in all lands? Does the call for international proletarian revolution get dropped when we confront the issue of immigration?
How is the Third World really going to get "developed" without proletarian revolutions? Don't we in the Western imperialist countries have a duty to encourage such revolutions in the Third World, as much as within "our own" countries?

If we are really in solidarity with the workers and oppressed in the Third World countries, then why would we uncritically support the immigration to the West of their most formally educated and skilled...such as letting so many of their medically trained run away to the West while leaving their own people behind! I think petty bourgeois folks cry about the rights of those educated individuals to "pursue happiness" individually however they can, but looking at it from the interests of the proletariat and the oppressed, who get the shaft as a result, you might realize that there is something more important than the better-off more educated types freely immigrating to the West to "make it big". I think the divide on immigration is really a divide between classes in the Left, and it will not get resolved until the proletariat dominates the Left.

Question: Did those states established as a result of proletarian revolutions in the past have borders? If so, why? Lenin and much of the original Bolsheviks clearly strove for international socialist revolution, but didn't really think it would happen simultaneously throughout the world. In the meantime, simultaneously with promoting international revolution, they erected borders.

Will classless stateless communist society really come "all at once" throughout the world, or is it more likely though the developments, cooperations, unifications of hundreds or even thousands of workers' states? What makes leftists think that today's societies will not shatter into splinters---as a result of the damage done between us under exploitative society--- before proletarian revolutions and building socialism makes possible the genuine international solidarity and reunification of humanity on a much higher level freed from exploitation and oppression?
Won't the real need to expand the proletarian revolution and build socialism internationally to all the various working peoples of the world objectively compel us together? Instead of "do gooder" liberal-cappie faith and charity, should we not instead turn to and use Marxism materialism as the basis for our proletarian internationalism?

What I'm really asking comrades here is how must we distinguish the proletarian revolutionary outlook on immigration from that of the pro-immigration capitalists and their various reformist and reactionary stooges.
It's not been made clear enough: certainly not to the working class masses, nor among leftist ranks.
Again, the reason for this lack of clarity seems to lie in the deformed character of the Left itself: dominated by petty bourgeois elements who claim that they stand for the "international proletariat," yet they can't really bring themselves to fully betray their own petty bourgeois class interests and eschew their "middle class" social status IRL. And of course, when worker-comrades bring the inconsistencies up and expose divide/conquer games played by the so-called progressive petty bourgeois sorts, we're supposedly "reactionaries".

Working class communists need to stop trusting the petty bourgeois 'progressives', and stop letting them bully us inside a movement that is supposedly dedicated to proletarian revolution and the interests of the international proletariat. Yeah, these middle class progressives may be (formally) "more educated"...all the better in order to manipulate us and screw us in the end for their own selfish interests within this capitalist system! I suspect that immigration is such a contentious issue in the Left precisely because of the distinct antagonist class interests involved (some on the left want to abolish and replace this system, and some leftists have at least a perceived remaining stake within this system). If you don't really aim to destroy capitalist society through international proletarian revolution and replace it with the DotP and the building of socialist society, then being "pro-immigration" just like the cappie liberals makes sense. Look at Left "pro-immigration" public literature or public speeches, and note how rarely proletarian revolution and building socialism is concretely and inseparably connected! What is "proletarian internationalism" without proletarian revolution and striving for abolition of capitalism and the construction of socialist society?

Let's not spend too much time fighting about the mistakes of the past, when instead we need to be correcting mistakes and making ourselves more distinctly clear as proletarian revolutionaries in today's world. We do have a world to win, in the here and now. Why sell ourselves short, in favor of what the cappie liberals and reformists are offering?

[dodger]

Stammer I don't think workers are divided, 80% against mass immigration is pretty much the case. I clearly place myself amongst that number. So how may I be dividing the working class? Well I went to the Socialist Phalanx site and could not make head nor tail who they were or what they were about. You evidently think they are a rum lot. When I get more time I shall return to it, see if I can make better sense or 'some other orifice of disgusting White Nationalism'. In a debate on ' no borders/free immigration I hardly need to tell you in Britain the debate was taken, up and down the nation. The working class have pronounced judgement, in the present conditions it is not in their interests. Feeble attempts to curtail debate will only reinforce those views. Anti EU sentiments are entrenched. We need to work from there not get starry-eyed. Attend to our own needs and work at it. Other countries of the world also need to mend their fences. Here in Wifey's patch American, British, Australian Korean and Japanese are all busy trying to kick in the door. There can be no development with open borders. The leaching of labour can only harm the country. Since only those with money can undertake ,legal or illegal channels to employment abroad, the skills for development are lost. A 15yr old girl latched on to me at the beach. Her mother was busy organising a visa to Japan for the child....a dance troupe...clubs and bars, she asked me where I was from , I said UK. Fantastic...that's next to Australia...I have always wanted to go there. I could dance in UK...LOOK I can show you...and went on to show me her moves. Making use of the pole of the Nippa hut. Very nice I said very professional my mother was a dancer too. Do you think I should go to Japan? Yeah, maybe, leave it a couple of years. Hear comes Wifey. I kept quiet about Ma leaving home at 14yrs. My nephew a police major is doing a 6 month care giver course, it lasted a week, he got his certificate. He's getting the necessary paperwork from the gang he busted 6 months previous. Mid life career move. Abu Dhabi....near to Australia I think. Everybody is going somewhere except me. If I can sell the truck...I'll be back for Christmas. I do not subscribe to starry-eyed visions of proles crossing borders and putting some internationalism label on it. 21st century slave trade, more like. Depressing of wages for workers and jobs lost at home. I simply refuse to get starry eyed.

You asked me to put a label on myself, Stammer, socialist or nationalist, does it belong in this thread? In any case , you and others can best make up your own minds. I am not in any party if that is what you mean. It certainly is not a question that comes up in this part of the world.......well maybe punctuated with a rubber hose.


I

[NewSocialist]

All of the bullshit about immigration supposedly “hurting“ the working class is just that: bullshit. What is the *working class* according to you people? A national body of workers or an *internationally exploited* class? Communists have always believed that the proletariat is *international* in scope, only nazbols, national “communsits“, straßerists and other faux-leftists have ever claimed that the proletariat can exist on a national context. As other comrades have shown, immigration *does NOT* harm the working class in host nations but it does *slightly* help the lives of the immigrants -even under current bourgeois conditions. anything that helps *unify* the working class across national bounderies is objectively progressive. Borders divide the working class which makes them objectively reactionary, it's pretty simple.

And I'll say it if no one else will -Lenin was 100% WRONG to support self determination of countries. His support of it has lent the faux leftists mentioned above appeal to Marxist texts to try to justify there disgusting nationalist/xenophobic/reactionary policies. Luckily most left wing groups today are smart enough to realize that borders do nothing to help the class struggle, they just keep workers divided and in support of the national bourgeois. The only “left“ sites you'll find today going on endlessly about how immigration “harms“ workers and how borders should be maintained are at racist shitholes like the “Socialist“ Phailanx. Based on a number of posts here lately I can't help but think they're trying to infiltrate revleft to spread there fascist propaganda.

http://www.ojjpac.org/tn_no_borders.jpg
'nuff said

[dodger]

If I have to listen to any more sermons, I shall puke.Well , well .well... that seems to have broken the wall of silence. Where workers lead others will certainly follow.....the dam has burst, try putting the genie back in the bottle now.


TRANSPORT UNION RMT today slammed Vince Cables attack on workers’ rights and warned that as well as opening the door to a vicious “hire and fire” culture he is also giving a green light to a massive increase in social dumping that will allow companies to hire in workers from abroad to undermine pay and conditions.

The Cable announcement doesn’t just mean getting rid of workers more easily, it also means having a ready supply of low-cost labour to fill minimum wage jobs. This is where the highly secretive Mode 4 trade agreement comes in. Getting rid of workers and replacing them with Contractual Service Suppliers - workers sent in by Indian companies, to work in any firm or public service at rock bottom rates.

RMT General Secretary Bob Crow said:

“Not content with opening up the widest gap between rich and poor since Victorian times, Vince Cable and the ConDems now want to drag us back to days of hire and fire where workers have to grovel to the boss for the right to earn a days’ pay.

“This assault on worker’s rights is being driven by the bosses organisations and the old guard right of the Tory Party. Vince Cable has completed his journey from the man who allegedly predicted the collapse of the banks to an out-rider for the return of Thatcherism.”

“In addition, last year Business Secretary Vince Cable won a concession from the coalition to exclude from any cap on foreign workers coming in under ‘intra-company’ transfers, also known as Mode 4. This process displaces workers in the UK and drives down wages.

“Under the proposed EU/India Trade Agreement companies would be allowed to bring in cheap labour and in return European corporations would have access to Indian retail and financial markets increasing job losses and exploitation here and in India and Vince Cable is the main Government advocate of that project.”

[Thirsty Crow]

If immigration is a problem from the perspective of the competitive labour market, then I guess I should do whatever it takes to stop all of the youth from getting ahead in chances for getting a job - at my expense. Hell, I might even go so far as to call for imprisonment of all illegaly pregnant women (obviously, a change in legislation would come before that) cause in twenty years time, they migth be stealin' bread from my mouth.

Pathetic.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Supporting the borders is something very sick in my opinion. Borders restrict the members of the human kind to enter a country. There should be borders in maps, for helping someone to realise where a country extends. Solidarity with the immigrants! They are humans,too they have rights.

[Thirsty Crow]

“Under the proposed EU/India Trade Agreement companies would be allowed to bring in cheap labour and in return European corporations would have access to Indian retail and financial markets increasing job losses and exploitation here and in India and Vince Cable is the main Government advocate of that project.”
The important part is bolded.

And just this: the issue with wage differentials between countries, and the resultant issue of immigration, really just shows that any notion of a "patriotic" bourgeoisie is criminally stupid at best, and a vicious ideological mystification most likely (what is exactly being mystified is the relation of the capitalist class and the working class of one nation, where it would supposedly be in the best of "native" capitalists' interest to support and provide for their fellow ethnic workers). This just calls for even more firm proletarian internationalism as it's become painfully obvious that the only interest that will ever propel the capialist to act decisevly is to buy labour power at the lowest price possible.

What is worst of all here is that, politically, this insistence on dealing with the issue of immigration as a genuine problem and grievance of a single national working class is absolutely devastating in that it opens the door wide to all sorts of abhorrent politics of united fronts with nationalist forces. How many slaughterfests are necessary for revolutionaries to understand that nationalists are to be opposed, just as any bourgeois political faction, at any cost?

And why the hell isn't this fucker banned already?? (as I recall, pranabjyoti was very quick to go doing the exact same thing)

[m-l Power]

The massive revolution is a direct consecuence of the imperialism. The right use always the easiest argument wich causes hate to inmigrants. They say "they steal our jobs" but they don´t said the reasons of a limit number of employs (as all we know, it´s the private possesion of production means).

Only the socialims can solve this and all the problems wich have relation with the capitalism.

[dodger]

Supporting the borders is something very sick in my opinion. Borders restrict the members of the human kind to enter a country. There should be borders in maps, for helping someone to realise where a country extends. Solidarity with the immigrants! They are humans,too they have rights.

RMT is a democratic union...it has and continues to uphold a practical, concrete policy on migrants. It's members are increasing as attacks on workers multiply. One obvious point overlooked is that a sizeable % of members are migrants1/2nd generation. Proof? Just take a tube ride..stand at a dockside...watch trackworkers. We have won recognition for a very vulnerable section only last week...many contract workers from Africa....stunning 10% increase. Our union is there to advance its members interests.

The policy we adopted was not as a kneejerk reaction or empty phrasemongering. Nor are we blind to our foe. ABC...we know our ABC's. Our policy was argued out at branch level and taken to conference , it is now policy. The executive is charged with implementing it. Further it is most satisfying to hear that the policy has now on further deliberation been adopted by TU congress. A victory for all workers. Attempts to stifle debate or deflect us from dealing with our enemies have been thwarted. Supranational slave labour gangs are not welcome. Especially when tied to unequal trade agreements with India or elsewhere. You may believe that workers are asleep or even too uneducated to manage their affairs....you could not be more wrong. It's not going to stop, the attacks on us all require that all resist. Greece is no stranger to these attacks, who are the authors of your misfortune, if not the very people we are aiming our sights at. If after being mugged by the EU and lying near prostrate you still wish British workers to support the policies of your attackers....... Perhaps a career in the clergy where pious pronouncements combined with chanting dogma and the burning of incense are at a premium,would suit politicos better........

[S.Artesian]

Supranatural slave gangs not welcome? Well, then I'm sure your democratic union has been in the forefront of battling against....well, for one the destruction of indigenous economies, mainly fishing, on the coasts of Africa, by the European fishing industry, essentially dispossessing those people and forcing them to emigrate in search of work. And I'm sure your democratic union has taken a forthright position against the "Natasha trade" where, with the destruction of the fSU, thousands of women have been forced into the sex trade under slave like conditions.
And I'm sure your democratic union, in your "victory for all workers," has forthrightly allied itself concretely in all those struggles that amount for "victories for all workers," right?

Or is it just "victory for all of the workers I want in Britain" that is the real meaning of your "victory for all workers"/

For the record, I think workers can manage their affairs, but only by the struggle for the abolition of capitalism everywhere, not by taking positions against sections of their own class.

Here's the reality of what you propose: It increases the police authority of the bourgeois state. That's what your so-called "democratic" victory for all workers amounts to-- more police power to attack more and poorer people. Objectively, you're on the side of the cops.

[Inner Peace]

Everyone is Equal!

Communism and Anarchism for total equality!

This borders that we call "lines" separate fellow human being.

[S.Artesian]

What this discussions shows, via the contributions of "dodger" is how sterile, incompetent, obsolete the trade union response is to capitalism-- to a capitalism that must seek out sources of cheaper labor everywhere to make a profit anywhere.

The reality of the situation in the advanced countries is that immigrants aren't "taking" anyone's job. Immigrants are filling jobs created by the very retreat of labor unions, the inability, unwillingness of the unions to confront capitalism as capitalism, as a class system opposed to the needs of the working class as an entire class.

In the US, the jobs are low wage, non-protected, "service" jobs; agricultural labor that has not and will not be filled by "native" workers; and industrial jobs where unions failed to mobilize to oppose the downsizing, asset liquidation of production, and the assaults on wages. The movement of immigrants into advanced countries in the 1990s and beyond only occurred because of the unions capitulation, nationalism, patriotism, parochialism in the "lost decade" of the 1980s.

So dodger can stick with his national agenda, denouncing those who oppose yet another facet of the union accommodation to capitalism as "religious preaching" but all he's doing is setting up the working class as a whole for another round of failure.

[dodger]

Supranatural slave gangs not welcome? Well, then I'm sure your democratic union has been in the forefront of battling against....well, for one the destruction of indigenous economies, mainly fishing, on the coasts of Africa, by the European fishing industry, essentially dispossessing those people and forcing them to emigrate in search of work. And I'm sure your democratic union has taken a forthright position against the "Natasha trade" where, with the destruction of the fSU, thousands of women have been forced into the sex trade under slave like conditions.
And I'm sure your democratic union, in your "victory for all workers," has forthrightly allied itself concretely in all those struggles that amount for "victories for all workers," right?

Or is it just "victory for all of the workers I want in Britain" that is the real meaning of your "victory for all workers"/

For the record, I think workers can manage their affairs, but only by the struggle for the abolition of capitalism everywhere, not by taking positions against sections of their own class.

Here's the reality of what you propose: It increases the police authority of the bourgeois state. That's what your so-called "democratic" victory for all workers amounts to-- more police power to attack more and poorer people. Objectively, you're on the side of the cops.

Think for a moment.....it is the RMT that is fighting EU legislation. Now who really is on the side of the cops...supranational corporations in India and EU. WHY SO STARRY EYED?....Have these companies suddenly transformed themselves into philanthropists? Can't you see whose interests would be served? Perhaps the Indian workers will support us and take a robust position. When the EU have increased penetration of India caused greater exploitation. Globalization can thank it's allies on the left....take a bow!

To meekly accept what the EU is dishing out and puffing chests out and calling it Internationalism has people splitting their sides laughing. outsiders idea of struggle maybe....some would call that struggle avoidance. In addition it is plain as the nose on your face that victory of Virgin cleaners over the millionaire Branson was a victory for their own efforts and a victory for workers everywhere. Also a wake up call for capitalists and EU unelected bureaucrats.

Your snide remarks about whether we support the just struggle of fisherman i w. Africa does you no credit. We are utterly against the failed EU experiment. Millions of Britons turned their backs on EU elections(60%) or voted for eurosceptic candidates. No we don't like participating in Hitler's dream of united Europe or harbour fantasies of reclaiming colonies in Africa. Our relationship with the Labour party has been severed We paddle our own canoe. Personally I would hesitate to lecture African workers on how they might improve their lot in life. I did listen on the radio, while a bankrupt peasant explained how his tomatoes could not compete with those dumped by the EU. MAYBE THEIR BORDERS NEED STRENGTHENING TOO............I had a workmate who, with his sister walked 600 miles to the London Transport recruitment centre, in W Africa a member of my union. We do know what is going on in the world. We have reliable sources and resources. Care to hear his views on capitalist mass immigration or being ruled from Brussels? He is a most vocal and literate person, better educated than me and a member of the British Working Class.....just a hint he is 6'.3" .....doesn't care to be treated like a permanent victim....so we don't treat him as such. I appreciate your post and I or we Britons must seem myopic to you, it is far from the case, for the better part those in struggle feel that the best service or contribution to make is fight here and fight now. Flowery utterances or empty slogans, don't impress. Not us or others further afield. We give assistance where we can as can be expected of a rail and maritime union, it does not stop at borders, never has...................

[S.Artesian]

This isn't about the "EU experiment." It's about capitalism. Clearly, your opposition is to the EU "experiment" not capitalism. See previous statement about inability, bankruptcy of trade union unconsciousness.

Here's a hint. Those who have no truck with demonizing immigrants are not advocates of the European Union.

The issue is not the EU policy that amounts "Nach Hayek, Uns." The issue is the anti-immigration propaganda that is used to deflect from the class enemy of the working class-- capitalism, whether its dressed up as John Bull, Margaret Thatcher, Sarkozy, Barros, etc.

Clearly, confronting your own bourgeoisie as that class enemy is a "foreign" concept to you, because of its European origins I gather.

[dodger]

This isn't about the "EU experiment." It's about capitalism. Clearly, your opposition is to the EU "experiment" not capitalism. See previous statement about inability, bankruptcy of trade union unconsciousness.

Here's a hint. Those who have no truck with demonizing immigrants are not advocates of the European Union.

The issue is not the EU policy that amounts "Nach Hayek, Uns." The issue is the anti-immigration propaganda that is used to deflect from the class enemy of the working class-- capitalism, whether its dressed up as John Bull, Margaret Thatcher, Sarkozy, Barros, etc.

Clearly, confronting your own bourgeoisie as that class enemy is a "foreign" concept to you, because of its European origins I gather.

The subject of the thread is borders...I made an attempt to put my view...the EU and globalization attacks borders. You make sound observations about unions in UK and US....their recent failure to address attacks made on them. Another hint then.....those who have truck with MODE 4(Clegg & co) are truly advocates of the European Union... the parties or tendency that attacks Mode 4 has my support. I'll check up over the next few days, if I have time. Also ask my Indian pals how this highly secretive agreement will impact on their country. Are you a member of a union Artesian? What are the views of members to borders/mass immigration? The cork is well and truly out of the bottle....it is an issue that just wont go away....anywhere in the world. Even with 400 academics here, on the payroll, extolling the virtues of the EU and THEIR open internal borders.

We can see every day the cuts in rates of pay a painter can tell me that jobs go to a Bulgarian. A Spanish Cafe owner employs Polish boys and girls to avoid benefits a Spanish worker was entitled to, he told me.Over 20% unemployment. Experts outside the class tell us that immigration is not harmful, either those experts are not listening or talking to the wrong people. Of course they might have another agenda the academics, media people and politicians. Now revolutionist, insurrectionists have added their voices to the bourgeois clatter. Do you think anybody is listening? VOICES FROM OUTSIDE. You can have an honest look at borders and immigration...talk and listen to the working class. See where a class interest may be best served. Naturally if you have more important things to occupy your time or a completely different agenda to workers? Or you believe workers are racist, labour aristocrats, too under the spell of media et al ...then debate might well seem fruitless. Or like as kids if a German visited we were under pain of death"DON'T MENTION THE WAR!"
The authors of our misery is the EU. All anti worker laws are passed there along with the ever more limited sovereignty of Westminster. We are not blind to British role within the EU...the stench reaches our shores every nation in EU complains of the stink.
Had a rude awakening Wifey's godson just stumbled in drunk as a skunk. A gold miner, the partizans have just blown up some equipment and seized security guards guns there at the mine. Clever enough, he knows that retribution will be swift and indiscriminate. The EU company expects results and swift. I covered him with netting and light a smoker.....yes this is the best place to be for him. He told wifey tell uncle not to be angry, " I'm a refugee". A refugee in his own country it would seem.

"Clearly, confronting your own bourgeoisie as that class enemy is a "foreign" concept to you, because of its European origins I gather."-----Now that made me laugh!

[Chambered Word]

The subject of the thread is borders...I made an attempt to put my view...the EU and globalization attacks borders. You make sound observations about unions in UK and US....their recent failure to address attacks made on them. Another hint then.....those who have truck with MODE 4(Clegg & co) are truly advocates of the European Union... the parties or tendency that attacks Mode 4 has my support. I'll check up over the next few days, if I have time. Also ask my Indian pals how this highly secretive agreement will impact on their country. Are you a member of a union Artesian? What are the views of members to borders/mass immigration? The cork is well and truly out of the bottle....it is an issue that just wont go away....anywhere in the world. Even with 400 academics here, on the payroll, extolling the virtues of the EU and THEIR open internal borders.

I don't see how the opinions of workers can be used as an objective fact to be used to support your point. If the majority of workers were racist, sexist, homophobic etc. would that make it ok? Socialist politics don't follow trends in public opinion, they are supposed to be grounded in a strong advocacy for the working class and against capitalism. The politics of anti-immigration seek to scapegoat foreign workers who are just as desperate and in the same economic situation as any other workers. You can go on and on about the EU all you like, but you've done nothing but parrot the propaganda disseminated by the politicians who run the member states; "foreign workers are to blame for the state of the economy!". People like you create divisions in the working class and ensure that foreign workers will be unrecognized as legitimate citizens, enabling the capitalist class to exploit them at an even higher rate while playing off sections of the working class against one another. There's nothing proletarian about your view at all, instead you patronize workers by pandering to the attitudes of the more backward sections of their class. Whatever you have to say about the EU is hardly relevant when you're the one promoting the ideas that serve the EU and its members the most.


We can see every day the cuts in rates of pay a painter can tell me that jobs go to a Bulgarian. A Spanish Cafe owner employs Polish boys and girls to avoid benefits a Spanish worker was entitled to, he told me.Over 20% unemployment. Experts outside the class tell us that immigration is not harmful, either those experts are not listening or talking to the wrong people.

Immigration isn't harmful, exploitation of even cheaper labour from the pool of desperate workers is the problem here. The capitalist class control the means of production while their workers are only able, and certainly encouraged, to fight over the limited opportunities that are given to them in the current economic system. How is it the fault of the workers that they must work to survive?


Of course they might have another agenda the academics, media people and politicians. Now revolutionist, insurrectionists have added their voices to the bourgeois clatter.

No, reformists and opportunists like yourself are. The 'bourgeois clatter' lays blame on immigrants for society's problems because they are an effective scapegoat for the real problems that workers face.


Do you think anybody is listening? VOICES FROM OUTSIDE. You can have an honest look at borders and immigration...talk and listen to the working class. See where a class interest may be best served. Naturally if you have more important things to occupy your time or a completely different agenda to workers? Or you believe workers are racist, labour aristocrats, too under the spell of media et al ...then debate might well seem fruitless. Or like as kids if a German visited we were under pain of death"DON'T MENTION THE WAR!"

Not really, unless you believe in a rigid anti-human concept of unchanging 'human nature'. I believe that people's attitudes can change with shifts in class consciousness. I'm not the one patronizing workers by treating them as if they're too inherently stupid to change the way they see the world. You on the other hand would rather pander to ignorance and fear, which is promoted by the very class that you're actually serving.


The authors of our misery is the EU. All anti worker laws are passed there along with the ever more limited sovereignty of Westminster. We are not blind to British role within the EU...the stench reaches our shores every nation in EU complains of the stink.
Had a rude awakening Wifey's godson just stumbled in drunk as a skunk. A gold miner, the partizans have just blown up some equipment and seized security guards guns there at the mine. Clever enough, he knows that retribution will be swift and indiscriminate. The EU company expects results and swift. I covered him with netting and light a smoker.....yes this is the best place to be for him. He told wifey tell uncle not to be angry, " I'm a refugee". A refugee in his own country it would seem.

So naturally, other workers who also have to survive using their labour power are somehow to blame for the state of the world?

The EU are just another bourgeois institution, run by the people who run capitalism in various different European countries; to somehow think that their project is much worse or even at odds with the rest of capitalism is not only false but capitalist apologism per se.

[blah]

Immigration should be regulated to the point needed to ensure there is no local overpopulation / shortages in a given territory.
And we should work towards a world where mass migration (as opposed to individual migration) would not be needed - people would have enough opportunities and will not be oppressed by repressive regimes where they are born, so they wont have to leave. Leaving may help them now, but it does not help their original countries to develop (brain drain etc...), and ultimately creates overpopulation / shortages in destination countries.

[Thirsty Crow]

People like you create divisions in the working class
While I agrre fully with the overall thrust of your post, I sthink that it's necessary to recognize that this element is entirely erroneous.
No trade unionist, no ideologist needs to create divisions in the working class since it's capital's function, one that is performed without regard to the way militants and/bourgeois ideologists confront it in their statements writings (in ideas, basically).

The point is precisely not to consider the global working class as a sort of an entity whose substance is entirely homogenous and harmonious (the unity of interests), but to argue for and struggle for our class to effectively move onto that stage which alone opens up the possibility of revolutionary struggle. The concrete conditions of divisions must be transcended, not denied.


...and ultimately creates overpopulation / shortages in destination countries.
Care to actually show - you know, demonstrate rationally - just how some countries with high immigration rates are "overpopulated"?
Since you did no such thing. You merely made an assertion.


Now revolutionist, insurrectionists have added their voices to the bourgeois clatter. Do you think anybody is listening?
What utter bullshit. It's not surprising that you are unable to disentangle a communist position on immigration from a broadly liberal one, when considering the fact that you apparently think that


The authors of our misery is the EUAnd that would imly a very real possibility of nationalist socialism as the political way to go a person of your persuasion might adopt.

[Ocean Seal]

Yep, every socialist country should have full free immigration into it. The only people who should ever be deported in a socialist country are agents of capitalist nations, but chances are we shouldn't deport them but rather jail them. So in short, yes free immigration. And immigration should be encouraged. The more people the more quickly we can construct socialism.

[rundontwalk]

How do you guys think we should go about implementing open borders globally? I'm thinking start with politically easier stuff like open borders between the Anglosphere, that way people can get used to the idea. Then gradually other countries are added in.

[blah]

Care to actually show - you know, demonstrate rationally - just how some countries with high immigration rates are "overpopulated"?

Unfortunately I cannot post links since I dont have 25 posts yet (is such a high limit necessary?). Google for example "colorado alliance for immigration reform", a lot of facts on how mass immigration lowers quality of life in destination countries in current capitalism.

Overpopulation is a condition where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat in some territory (when we speak about people, "carrying capacity" is obviously not about just survival and reproduction, but for providing all people with high quality of life, sustainably).

The definition is agnostic of the fact that effective carrying capacity of a territory depends on its development, economic establishment and utilization of available resources (not on simple density of population, as people often incorrectly assume - "we can all fit in Texas" arguments etc..). So while in capitalism, unregulated mass immigration often produces local overpopulation, decreases wages and increases unemployment and thus lowers average quality of life (thats why unregulated mass immigration is undesirable in capitalism), in socialism the increased utilisation of carrying capacity, free education for all immigrants and full employent may make the overpopulation problem from mass immigration nonexistent. But that of course depends on how successful and mature the implementation of socialism in question is in those things, and the actual level of mass immigration. During the transition period from capitalism to such developed socialism, some immigration regulation in some countries with high levels of immigration can still be desirable.

In socialism, high immigration would not not harmful to domestic population, in current capitalist system, and probably n transitional period, it is. Making borders fully open without instituting socialism first would not be beneficial. Socialists often dont clarify that they want fully open borders only after socialism is able to provide for the influx of many people without sacrificing quality of life of domestic population - thus people often think if socialists get to power they would open borders immidiately. This misconception leads to domestic people opposing socialism.

[dodger]

First rate post,Blah. the left needs to move out of it's comfort zone and your contribution shows that thought combined with the ability to see beyond hollow slogans can get us on a road to somewhere. All in all, it is far too important to be left to TEA BAGGERS or deranged flag wavers.....or dare I say it here on Revleft holy scripture written in 1913. Each country needs to talk to it's working class. Decide what is beneficial to that class. Priorities. It will vary country to country. In the US it may well vary from state to state. Several people more eloquent than I have pointed to the dangers of giving the deaf ear, you Blah, are but one.


JUST REALIZED GOING TO POST I HAVEN'T MENTIONED THE N****** WORD!

WHAT WOULD THE FUHRER SAY????

"And that would imly a very real possibility of nationalist socialism as the political way to go a person of your persuasion might adopt". Well 2012/3 is the year Croatia enters EU. Good LUCK......you'll need it....you'll know when you are truly in, when your fishing boats are rotting by the quayside. We will be future citizens of the EU together. Menocchio. When I hear a Marxist position, that reflects the interests of the British Working class, that is , to repeat myself all those who live and work here, I shall give a big cheer. I don't altogether know what it might look like....but feel sure I will recognize it when I see it. :crying:

[bcbm]

When I hear a Marxist position, that reflects the interests of the British Working class, that is , to repeat myself all those who live and work here, I shall give a big cheer

the marxist position is that workers have no country and we need to take power over production in the interests of this class with no country. until then, we stand with each other along class lines not national lines

[dodger]

the marxist position is that workers have no country and we need to take power over production in the interests of this class with no country. until then, we stand with each other along class lines not national lines

THANKS FOR YOUR SPEEDY REPLY....i SHALL TURN THAT OVER IN MY HEAD...see how that might pan out as it were.

[bcbm]

So while in capitalism, unregulated mass immigration often produces local overpopulation, decreases wages and increases unemployment and thus lowers average quality of life

bosses lower the quality of life, not immigrants.

where are these fucking troglodytes coming from?

[blah]

bosses lower the quality of life, not immigrants.


And until you get rid of the bosses and capitalism and institute socialism, mass immigration lowers the quality of life of people, even more so in a recession. Refusal to even acknowlegde this fact is what turns people away from the left, towards the fascists, whose agenda is far worse than simple harmless regulation of immigration until eventual socialism is established.

[S.Artesian]

So now we see how the opposition to immigration is really, at heart, Malthusian, as overpopulation is now the "great fear." Right, overpopulation. As if every single nation has an innate fixed biological "carrying capacity."

Come on, with birth rates slowing all over the advanced capitalist countries, particularly in Europe, exactly how are these countries going to become overpopulated by immigration?

Mass emigration lowers the quality of life of "people." What people? During the 1990s, after NAFTA and assorted other measures dispossessing villagers in Central America, there was a wave of emigration to the US- did that lower the "quality of life" for US workers in the 1990s? No, it did not.

Those making such arguments are simply flogging nonsense.

[Ravachol]

And until you get rid of the bosses and capitalism and institute socialism, mass immigration lowers the quality of life of people, even more so in a recession. Refusal to even acknowlegde this fact is what turns people away from the left, towards the fascists, whose agenda is far worse than simple harmless regulation of immigration until eventual socialism is established.

And so do the unemployed. And ofcourse repression is also the radicals' fault, rape is because she was 'asking for it', etc.,etc. Victim-blaming 'movement-builders' who want people to 'turn to the left' (dear god no) make me puke.

It's the bosses who lower the quality of life and the only answer can be working-class defensive solidarity and an offensive counter-assault against the bosses. Anything else is not only playing their game, it's being their effective enforcers, albeit with a leftish smear of paint.

[S.Artesian]

It's the bosses who lower the quality of life and the only answer can be working-class defensive solidarity and an offensive counter-assault against the bosses. Anything else is not only playing their game, it's being their effective enforcers, albeit with a leftish smear of paint.

^^This. Sums it all up. One sentence, 50 words or less.

[OHumanista]

Down with borders! They're keeping me away from my girlfriend and preventing me from proceeding with my life:(. ( and the other obvious reasons pointed by the others for society of course)

[S.Artesian]

Down with borders! They're keeping me away from my girlfriend and preventing me from proceeding with my life:(. ( and the other obvious reasons pointed by the others for society of course)

This ^^^Bringing it all home. The personal is the political. Sometimes.

Two brilliant posts of one sentence each. Brevity is the soul of historical materialism.

[blah]

Mass emigration lowers the quality of life of "people." What people?

The indigenous people. One example for all: Immigrants make 14% of the population of Oslo, yet commit 65% of all rapes in the city. Try to tell me with a straight face that unregulated mass immigration does not lower the quality of life of indigenous people, in the light of such statistics.

[S.Artesian]

The "indigenous people"? You mean the people who have been living in Norway for at least 30 years, don't you, not the indigenous people, since there aren't that many of the indigenous Samit people living in Oslo? And many of the indigenous Norwegian people were wiped out in the bubonic plagues of the 14th century brought on by their extensive contacts with Europe through trading.

That didn't stop the modern Norwegians and the modern Swedes afterwards from attempting to wipe out the indigenous Samits-- by among other things dispossession from and expropriation of their historic lands and areas, suppression of Samit culture and language, forced sterilization of Samit women.

Tell me, does Norway still have that law limiting the size of the house a Samit person can own? Or what is how many Samit people are allowed to live in a house? Or is it both. Long time since I read about it.

Point is, uhh.....nobody who really isn't indigenous should be proclaiming themselves as indigenous and opposing the movement of people.

Statistics can be put to stupid uses, you know? Like why not point out that almost 100% of rapes are committed by men, and therefore argue for preventative detention, or expulsion of men?

Why not use the statistics to exclude all immigrant men? That way the women can still migrate and work as domestics, or in lower wage jobs.

Yep, there's nothing like collective punishment, pre-judgement to ensure the workings of democracy.

Anyway, nothing justifies the raping of a woman; and no amount of criminal activity should be used to exclude entire classes, sections, groups of people.

[Per Levy]

Down with borders! They're keeping me away from my girlfriend and preventing me from proceeding with my life:(. ( and the other obvious reasons pointed by the others for society of course)

tell me about it, my fiance lives on another continent. not only is traveling there expencive but with all the regulation(getting visa and what not) it makes seeing each other really difficult.


The indigenous people. One example for all: Immigrants make 14% of the population of Oslo, yet commit 65% of all rapes in the city. Try to tell me with a straight face that unregulated mass immigration does not lower the quality of life of indigenous people, in the light of such statistics.

interesting, comments like this i usually read from xeno and islamophobic, rightists websites. especially the "indigenous" thing. its just a nicer to say that then saying we dont want darkskinned people here. now im not saying that you're a racist, im just saying where i read that kind of language before. besides that what s.artisan said.

[OHumanista]

tell me about it, my fiance lives on another continent. not only is traveling there expencive but with all the regulation(getting visa and what not) it makes seeing each other really difficult.



interesting, comments like this i usually read from xeno and islamophobic, rightists websites. especially the "indigenous" thing. its just a nicer to say that then saying we dont want darkskinned people here. now im not saying that you're a racist, im just saying where i read that kind of language before. besides that what s.artisan said.

My girlfriend lives on another continent too (Europe). I am now trying my luck getting a visa again, but the bureaucracy is absolutely terrible.*sighs, and proceeds with the mountain of paperwork*

[Drowzy_Shooter]

The absolute ONLY purpose for borders would be during the first 2-3 months of a revolution (were talking a trot/stalinist/MList/maoist/leftcommunist) revolution. And then the only purpose for the border would be to filter out capitalists. The main reason I say this is because no doubt all the intelligence organizations of the capitalist world would most certainly be trying to infiltrate and disrupt our revolution.

[Commissar Rykov]

The absolute ONLY purpose for borders would be during the first 2-3 months of a revolution (were talking a trot/stalinist/MList/maoist/leftcommunist) revolution. And then the only purpose for the border would be to filter out capitalists. The main reason I say this is because no doubt all the intelligence organizations of the capitalist world would most certainly be trying to infiltrate and disrupt our revolution.
Indeed, they would and that defense would only need to be maintained until the rest of the World comes up to speed with the initial Revolution. Once that happens there will be no need for borders. Borders are nothing but a meaningless barricade used to keep the Workers divided and at each others throats. Humanity has no need of borders.

[bcbm]

The indigenous people. One example for all: Immigrants make 14% of the population of Oslo, yet commit 65% of all rapes in the city. Try to tell me with a straight face that unregulated mass immigration does not lower the quality of life of indigenous people, in the light of such statistics.

cite

edit:

actually here, you can just eat shit now


The police report referred to is Voldtekt i den globale byen (https://www.politi.no/vedlegg/lokale_vedlegg/oslo/Vedlegg_1309.pdf) (Rape in the global city) which provides a detailed analysis of the rape statistics in Oslo during 2010. The report in fact shows that, of 131 individuals charged with the 152 rapes in which the perpetrator could be identified, 45.8% were of African, Middle Eastern or Asian origin while the majority – 54.2% – were of Norwegian, other European or American origin.

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/storage/Rape%20statistics%20Oslo.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVE RSION=1308638447730

[blah]

cite

edit:

actually here, you can just eat shit now

I cannot post links, but you can google Aftenposten article "Innvandrere bak alle anmeldte overfallsvoldtekter i Oslo", google translate it and eat shit yourself:


According to the police report , "Rape in Oslo 2007" had 72.8% of the perpetrators of the year in another country than the Norwegian. In a similar survey in 2004, the figure of 63.2% and in 2001 at 53%. These figures applied to all rapes. The proportion of foreign perpetrators behind the attack rapes have been consistently higher.

Figures from the Oslo police violence and sexual section shows that all 41 Reviewed assault rapes in the years 2006-2008 involved a non-western culprit.

I was reffering to all immigrants, not just non-western, we are not racists are we?
And still, according to your newer statistic non-western immigrants make 45,8% of convicted rapists, so thank you for proving my case that immigrants, and as you have proven, particularly non-western immigrants are greatly overrepresented in violent rape statistics compared to their proportion in the city population.

Unregulated mass immigration increases crime rate and thus lowers the quality of life of domestic inhabitants in current capitalism. QED.

[Blake's Baby]

Wait, 'foreigners are easier to target by police forces so we should keep out foreigners'?

How about 'foreigners are easier to target by police forces so we should abolish nations and police forces'?

[blah]

Wait, 'foreigners are easier to target by police forces so we should keep out foreigners'?

How about 'foreigners are easier to target by police forces so we should abolish nations and police forces'?

You are implying that the disproportion is due to police targeting them more, and not due to their higher crime rate. Sources please.

And police forces would still be present in socialism, dont live in a dream world, only material crimes would not exist (or be greatly reduced) in socialism, things like sexual crimes or crimes from passion would still exist, and thats what police would be for.

[S.Artesian]

I cannot post links, but you can google Aftenposten article "Innvandrere bak alle anmeldte overfallsvoldtekter i Oslo", google translate it and eat shit yourself:



I was reffering to all immigrants, not just non-western, we are not racists are we?
And still, according to your newer statistic non-western immigrants make 45,8% of convicted rapists, so thank you for proving my case that immigrants, and as you have proven, particularly non-western immigrants are greatly overrepresented in violent rape statistics compared to their proportion in the city population.

Unregulated mass immigration increases crime rate and thus lowers the quality of life of domestic inhabitants in current capitalism. QED.


1. First see bcbm's prior response. and double it.

2. Norway has NOT experienced mass unrestricted migration. Before you ascribe any element of crime to any cause you might at least make sure such a cause even exists. In this case it does not. Immigrant population in Norway is about 600,000, or 12% of the population. In 2009, Norway received app 43,000 immigrants, down from 2006's 45,000 [which was 30% above the 2005 level]. So where is the "unrestricted mass migration"???? See point 1 and double it.

3. Of the 600,000, the other Baltic countries [including Sweden, Poland, Russia, and Germany etc] account for 180,000. Would you like to prohibit Swedish migration? Polish migration [largest migrant population in Norway]? Or are you really concerned about those 85,000 immigrants originally from Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia? See point 2 above and double it.

4. Since 1970, migration from Western Europe to Norway has remained pretty flat. What has increased dramatically is migration from Africa, Middle East, Asia. You are using the phrase "mass unrestricted migration" as code words for "dark-skinned" "people of color." You know it. I know it. BCBM knew it and nailed you for it. No, we're not racists, but you sure are. See points 3, 2, 1 above.

[bcbm]

I was reffering to all immigrants, not just non-western, we are not racists are we?
And still, according to your newer statistic non-western immigrants make 45,8% of convicted rapists, so thank you for proving my case that immigrants, and as you have proven, particularly non-western immigrants are greatly overrepresented in violent rape statistics compared to their proportion in the city population.


The police report also points out that "it must be stressed that the strong over-representation of people from minority backgrounds for several types of rape can not be interpreted as meaning that foreign culture is a causal explanation of rape" and that "the statistical difference in criminal behaviour between ethnic groups disappears when controlling for socio-economic conditions". It concludes: "Gross generalisations that have given the impression that the rapists are only foreigners – and largely Muslim – prove inadequate and erroneous."


Unregulated mass immigration increases crime rate and thus lowers the quality of life of domestic inhabitants in current capitalism. QED.

'immigration: no correlation with crime (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717575,00.html)'

beyond that you are stuck on fictions like borders and nations, the reality is that it is the existence of class and the economic system of capitalism that causes most crime, lowers or keeps low the quality of life for most people and makes so many of our lives unbearable shit. fight the real enemy

[the last donut of the night]

white ppl just dont wanna see me migrating because they know my foods tastier

but really, trolls? unilever, nike and coca-cola can fuck up any country in the world but a poor mexican peasant somehow cant move to america? are you guys stupid?

[blah]

1. First see bcbm's prior response. and double it.

2. Norway has NOT experienced mass unrestricted migration. Before you ascribe any element of crime to any cause you might at least make sure such a cause even exists. In this case it does not. Immigrant population in Norway is about 600,000, or 12% of the population. See point 1 and double it.

3. Of the 600,000, the other Baltic countries [including Sweden, Poland, Russia, and Germany etc] account for 180,000. Would you like to prohibit Swedish migration? Polish migration [largest migrant population in Norway]? Or are you really concerned about those 85,000 immigrants originally from Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia? See point 2 above and double it.

4. Since 1970, migration from Western Europe to Norway has remained pretty flat. What has increased dramatically is migration from Africa, Middle East, Asia. You are using the phrase "mass unrestricted migration" as code words for "dark-skinned" "people of color." You know it. I know it. BCBM knew it and nailed you for it. No, we're not racists, but you sure are. See points 3, 2, 1 above.

1,2,3 - I have nothing to add, I dont see your point, and I am talking about Oslo area, not the whole of Norway, Oslo is surely experiecing mass immigration.
4. I am using the word "mass unrestricted migration" as code word for "mass unrestricted immigration". Yes, lately it has been predominantly people from Africa, Middle East and Asia, but I dont care about their ethnicity (I have not brought that up first), only that they come in big numbers and have very increased crime rate compared to domestic people.


'immigration: no correlation with crime'

U.S. seems to be alone in this conclusion. See Wikipedia article "Immigration_and_crime"



beyond that you are stuck on fictions like borders and nations, the reality is that it is the existence of class and the economic system of capitalism that causes most crime, lowers or keeps low the quality of life for most people and makes so many of our lives unbearable shit. fight the real enemy

I know where is the root cause. Unfortunately I have doubts that we will be able to remove it, or even if we will, that it will happen soon. Treating the symptoms is thus acceptable too.

[black magick hustla]

Immigration should be regulated to the point needed to ensure there is no local overpopulation / shortages in a given territory.
And we should work towards a world where mass migration (as opposed to individual migration) would not be needed - people would have enough opportunities and will not be oppressed by repressive regimes where they are born, so they wont have to leave. Leaving may help them now, but it does not help their original countries to develop (brain drain etc...), and ultimately creates overpopulation / shortages in destination countries.

fuck you. we dont need people from the center of empire to tell us where we can move. i hope your neighborhood becomes filled with mosques and whatever is your mother language dissappears, you chauvinist

[the last donut of the night]

fuck you. we dont need people from the center of empire to tell us where we can move. i hope your neighborhood becomes filled with mosques and whatever is your mother language dissappears, you chauvinist

i hope all his neighbors become loud techno playing brazilian cowboys

[bcbm]

I know where is the root cause. Unfortunately I have doubts that we will be able to remove it, or even if we will, that it will happen soon. Treating the symptoms is thus acceptable too.

is the symptom immigration or the poverty, social exclusion, etc associated with it? you're using the most obvious scapegoat out of a complex social and economic problem.

[workersadvocate]

is the symptom immigration or the poverty, social exclusion, etc associated with it? you're using the most obvious scapegoat out of a complex social and economic problem.
Exactly, we are striving to abolish all exploitative oppressive society, and so the proletariat needs genuine revolutionary solutions, not scapegoats!
At the same time, the personalist, individualist, me vs. you, approaches to waging arguments around immigration fail...and almost never even try to challenge the system. If we cheer or play on either team within this system's competitions, merely seeking more 'upward mobility' or more crumbs for ourselves, we still lose in the end, and the ruling class gets to rule, exploit and oppress yet another day. "An injury to one is an injury to all"...that doesn't mean we turn the most injured against the less injured (or vice versa) in a war of mutual assured destruction or massively asinine distraction, while the ruling class laughs at this madness!

What bothers me is this 'devil may care' dismissive attitude in the (mostly petty bourgeois) Left about those workers who are concerned about immigration, and the fact that the pro-immigration argument is rarely made from a internationalist, proletarian and revolutionary position that could actually win most workers over to international proletarian solidarity and common class struggle against this system!
When we revolutionary socialists come across proletarians who are struggling with false consciousness and phony scapegoats/panaceas and reactionary demagague misleaderships, we're not supposed to just say 'fuck you stupid losers' or just support 'the other team' against 'their team' in capitalism's dog-eat-dog prole-vs-prole competitions. Please act like we seriously aim to win this historic struggle to abolish all exploitation and oppression worldwide, forever...and we really believe that we will achieve this victory. Do whatever you can to persuade working people that the international proletariat is our real 'team'...and everything they respond with will avail you even more opportunity to engage them, advance their consciousness, then motivate better action to flow from the improved consciousness. If you are having trouble being convincing, try to figure out why, to see if maybe you also need to learn more...but please don't take the easy way out by just dismissing other workers as too backwards and hopeless while pretending that we're perfect enlightened saints and benevolent saviors.
For many working people, it will require the positive radicalizing experiences in action of international proletarian class struggle to get them to rethink and to ultimately convince them.

[metal gear]

I agree that people of different nations should work together to fight capitalism. However I do not agree in open uncontrolled immigration, even after socialism. Order should not be dictated by the capitalist state and market capital, which btw, leads to open border, but human beings still need to build societies and you can't build a society based on rootlessness. Stalin limited immigration and he was right to do so.

[Red Planet]

Do you support the idea that there should be no legal restrictions on immigration throughout the world?

do you support the idea of a united working class? :rolleyes: teh answer is obvious: of course. "immigration" is actually a misnomer because in order for one to be an "immigrant," there would have to be legitimite grounds on which to exclude a citizen of the world, and there isn't. we are all creatures of the world. my land is your land or nobody's land, however you want to take it.

immigrants are better defined as VICTIMS of bourgeois nationalism in the white heterosexual male power structure, or victims of SCUM for short.

[Red Planet]

Boring, stupid shit.

Shut the fuck up.

[workersadvocate]

do you support the idea of a united working class? :rolleyes: teh answer is obvious: of course. "immigration" is actually a misnomer because in order for one to be an "immigrant," there would have to be legitimite grounds on which to exclude a citizen of the world, and there isn't. we are all creatures of the world. my land is your land or nobody's land, however you want to take it.

immigrants are better defined as VICTIMS of bourgeois nationalism in the white heterosexual male power structure, or SCUM for short.
Has anybody been successfully persuaded to commit to genuine and consistent international class solidarity by the sort of thing expressed at the end of this quoted post?

The winning hand in discussions on immigration, on racism, on sexism, and so on, is our common proletarian class interests and common need for proletarian revolution.
Personalism will fail ("who really gives a fuck about you? why should I?" this is how people really tend to feel about the victim-personalism stuff)
Moralism will fail ("your god/morality ain't my god/morality, and who made you god's/morality's messenger anyway?",that is the usual thought response to this stuff) This especially crashes in flames with people if the moralist is either a narrowly self-interested advocate who doesn't really give a shit about fundamentally abolishing exploitative society, or is from the exploiter class and just playing sides in a prole vs. prole game for the exploiter's self and class benefit.

Revolutionary socialists, as a whole, are not in the business of psychotherapy, or moral preaching, or liberal charity. We're supposed to be in the business of proletarian revolution and, through it, fundamentally transforming the relations of society so as to abolish all exploitation and oppression through the abolition of classes.

If we are striving for proletarian revolution, which requires international proletarian solidarity, it is very unwise to explicitly accuse or imply that a substance portion of the proletariat is part of a "white heterosexual male power structure". We don't any workers identifying with and siding with the ruling class! We want to break these false identifications with the exploiters' and oppressors' classes...so reinforcing it and acting like you are dealing with an enemy when getting into an heated argument with workers is not helpful. You are dealing with despairing, confused, afraid, and even quite alienated workers...deal with it, like you have a winning alternative and they have a compelling interest in helping make it happen, not like you are surrounded by a bunch of heartless brainless future Nazi-like concentration camp guards.

[Red Planet]

Has anybody been successfully persuaded to commit to genuine and consistent international class solidarity by the sort of thing expressed at the end of this quoted post?

The winning hand in discussions on immigration, on racism, on sexism, and so on, is our common proletarian class interests and common need for proletarian revolution.
Personalism will fail ("who really gives a fuck about you? why should I?" this is how people really tend to feel about the victim-personalism stuff)
Moralism will fail ("your god/morality ain't my god/morality, and who made you god's/morality's messenger anyway?",that is the usual thought response to this stuff) This especially crashes in flames with people if the moralist is either a narrowly self-interested advocate who doesn't really give a shit about fundamentally abolishing exploitative society, or is from the exploiter class and just playing sides in a prole vs. prole game for the exploiter's self and class benefit.

Revolutionary socialists, as a whole, are not in the business of psychotherapy, or moral preaching, or liberal charity. We're supposed to be in the business of proletarian revolution and, through it, fundamentally transforming the relations of society so as to abolish all exploitation and oppression through the abolition of classes.

If we are striving for proletarian revolution, which requires international proletarian solidarity, it is very unwise to explicitly accuse or imply that a substance portion of the proletariat is part of a "white heterosexual male power structure". We don't any workers identifying with and siding with the ruling class! We want to break these false identifications with the exploiters' and oppressors' classes...so reinforcing it and acting like you are dealing with an enemy when getting into an heated argument with workers is not helpful. You are dealing with despairing, confused, afraid, and even quite alienated workers...deal with it, like you have a winning alternative and they have a compelling interest in helping make it happen, not like you are surrounded by a bunch of heartless brainless future Nazi-like concentration camp guards.

international proletarian solidarity is exactly what I am aiming for, which is the entire point of rejecting silly notions such as anti-immigration and combating the real problem in society: the white male heterosexual and capitalist power structure. All proletarians can get behind this issue...unless they're reactionaries, in which case we must persuade them to accept this creed.

[JerryBiscoTrey]

Legalize drugs first then yes

[dodger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodger
Boring, stupid shit.


Shut the fuck up.

Red planet..kindly do not put quotes on this thread, THAT, I have not uttered. I would simply request you would remove that part of your post. I am sure you were not attempting to be underhand. I did not write ""boring stupid shit," I often read the posts twice so that I can readily understand the points being made. So I never made disrespectful or hurtful remarks to any poster here.

The left in the main have missed the tide...workers in Britain whatever their origins are firmly against social dumping. It is a race to the bottom. A world without borders a dream for fascist, financial capitalist and ultra left fantasist alike. A sorry picture emerges, as EU enlarges Ukrainians might go work in Polish factories further dropping wages. The cavalier way some people ignore these problems, will not go unpunished...the left will be further sidelined. It is not a race issue as some who stand outside the class would have it. It is one of class always has been always will be. The BNP are only too happy to have the debate couched in race terms, which ultra left, race obsessed fools ,gladly oblige. NEWS---NEWS==NEWS... It is EU unelected commissioners in Brussels who opened borders, who opened up the flood gates our righteous wrath is aimed squarely at them. Further opening up of borders aids globalization near and afar. Mass migration robs nations of skilled and valuable human resources. The impacts are plain for all to see. Wifey's helper's daughter was booted out of casualty without even an aspirin. Exhibiting advanced rabies, the child(8)'s only request was bread which her father rushed off to buy. 30,000 passed medical exams last year. It is a national disgrace here, also there are those in UK AND US WHO MIGHT BE TRAINED FOR THIS WORK. ROBBING , PLUNDERING RESOURCES IS THE NAME OF THE GAME. CAN WE AGREE ON THAT AT LEAST? South Africa a billion spent on training medical workers....they left the country. How can this be for the betterment.

What Red Planet are you on, incidentally???? Do you have the same problems there as we have on earth? Fascinating. okokok Time for me to "shut the fuck up "!!

[black magick hustla]

A world without borders a dream for fascist, financial capitalist and ultra left fantasist alike.

and a world with policed borders is the dream of fascists, petit bourgeois nationalists, and reactionaries with parochial sensibilities.

its interesting how those people who cling to the old world call us "fantasists". its a fantasy to think that the future has space for the dreams of labor bureacrats of a world of high tarriffs and indigenous labor and a healthy social democratic state. the national capitalists are in the retreat as the capital that knows no borders fights it off. meanwhile, real communists don't take sides in that economic fight, because we know it is rotten to the core.

its not our fault that we where born in countries that are in the losing side of the capitalist game. some of us were not lucky enough to be born in countries that have accumulated riches and infrastructures, and therefore economic opportunities, because centuries ago they plundered the earth of their riches with the most grandiose violence. what makes british people more deserving of british jobs, than lets say, indians, pakistanis or africans?


the economy is rotten to the core and we have no illusions for it. it doesn't matter if the consequences of mass immigration are fatal or not, the economy can't be reformed and will turn this planet into a large slum. so to your accusation of "fantasist", i reply that we are the most realistic motherfuckers in town.

[CynicalIdealist]

and a world with policed borders is the dream of fascists, petit bourgeois nationalists, and reactionaries with parochial sensibilities.

its interesting how those people who cling to the old world call us "fantasists". its a fantasy to think that the future has space for the dreams of labor bureacrats of a world of high tarriffs and indigenous labor and a healthy social democratic state. the national capitalists are in the retreat as the capital that knows no borders fights it off. meanwhile, real communists don't take sides in that economic fight, because we know it is rotten to the core.

its not our fault that we where born in countries that are in the losing side of the capitalist game. some of us were not lucky enough to be born in countries that have accumulated riches and infrastructures, and therefore economic opportunities, because centuries ago they plundered the earth of their riches with the most grandiose violence. what makes british people more deserving of british jobs, than lets say, indians, pakistanis or africans?


the economy is rotten to the core and we have no illusions for it. it doesn't matter if the consequences of mass immigration are fatal or not, the economy can't be reformed and will turn this planet into a large slum. so to your accusation of "fantasist", i reply that we are the most realistic motherfuckers in town.

I nominate this post for the greatest revleft post of all time.

[the last donut of the night]

and a world with policed borders is the dream of fascists, petit bourgeois nationalists, and reactionaries with parochial sensibilities.

its interesting how those people who cling to the old world call us "fantasists". its a fantasy to think that the future has space for the dreams of labor bureacrats of a world of high tarriffs and indigenous labor and a healthy social democratic state. the national capitalists are in the retreat as the capital that knows no borders fights it off. meanwhile, real communists don't take sides in that economic fight, because we know it is rotten to the core.

its not our fault that we where born in countries that are in the losing side of the capitalist game. some of us were not lucky enough to be born in countries that have accumulated riches and infrastructures, and therefore economic opportunities, because centuries ago they plundered the earth of their riches with the most grandiose violence. what makes british people more deserving of british jobs, than lets say, indians, pakistanis or africans?


the economy is rotten to the core and we have no illusions for it. it doesn't matter if the consequences of mass immigration are fatal or not, the economy can't be reformed and will turn this planet into a large slum. so to your accusation of "fantasist", i reply that we are the most realistic motherfuckers in town.

WERD dis my homie

[metal gear]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodger
Boring, stupid shit.



Red planet..kindly do not put quotes on this thread, THAT, I have not uttered. I would simply request you would remove that part of your post. I am sure you were not attempting to be underhand. I did not write ""boring stupid shit," I often read the posts twice so that I can readily understand the points being made. So I never made disrespectful or hurtful remarks to any poster here.

The left in the main have missed the tide...workers in Britain whatever their origins are firmly against social dumping. It is a race to the bottom. A world without borders a dream for fascist, financial capitalist and ultra left fantasist alike. A sorry picture emerges, as EU enlarges Ukrainians might go work in Polish factories further dropping wages. The cavalier way some people ignore these problems, will not go unpunished...the left will be further sidelined. It is not a race issue as some who stand outside the class would have it. It is one of class always has been always will be. The BNP are only too happy to have the debate couched in race terms, which ultra left, race obsessed fools ,gladly oblige. NEWS---NEWS==NEWS... It is EU unelected commissioners in Brussels who opened borders, who opened up the flood gates our righteous wrath is aimed squarely at them. Further opening up of borders aids globalization near and afar. Mass migration robs nations of skilled and valuable human resources. The impacts are plain for all to see. Wifey's helper's daughter was booted out of casualty without even an aspirin. Exhibiting advanced rabies, the child(8)'s only request was bread which her father rushed off to buy. 30,000 passed medical exams last year. It is a national disgrace here, also there are those in UK AND US WHO MIGHT BE TRAINED FOR THIS WORK. ROBBING , PLUNDERING RESOURCES IS THE NAME OF THE GAME. CAN WE AGREE ON THAT AT LEAST? South Africa a billion spent on training medical workers....they left the country. How can this be for the betterment.

What Red Planet are you on, incidentally???? Do you have the same problems there as we have on earth? Fascinating. okokok Time for me to "shut the fuck up "!!

Good post. Inter-nationalism is not the same thing as globalization to the point of total rootlessness. Can you immigrate into Cuba or North Korea just because you feel like it? Could you immigrate into USSR or China?

No it's a security risk and immigration is a privilege, not a right. Only capitalists disagree and yell dumb shit like "reactionary, fascist" etc because they can't take their vacations in the Bahamas.

[S.Artesian]

Good post. Inter-nationalism is not the same thing as globalization to the point of total rootlessness. Can you immigrate into Cuba or North Korea just because you feel like it? Could you immigrate into USSR or China?

No it's a security risk and immigration is a privilege, not a right. Only capitalists disagree and yell dumb shit like "reactionary, fascist" etc because they can't take their vacations in the Bahamas.

It's a privilege? Do you have the slightest idea of what precipitates immigration? Tell us, rocket scientist, what precipitated the immigration to the US from Brazil in the 1980s? From Mexico and Central America in the 1980s and 1990s. From Africa to Spain and Italy in the 1990s and 2000s? From the Philippines, Sri Lanka, India, to the Persian Gulf countries in the 90s?

No, internationalism is not the same as globalization, but parroting nationalist jingoism is just as stupid and vicious when it comes from the mouths of pseudo revolutionaries as when it's flogged by fascists.

[Per Levy]

I agree that people of different nations should work together to fight capitalism. However I do not agree in open uncontrolled immigration, even after socialism. Order should not be dictated by the capitalist state and market capital, which btw, leads to open border, but human beings still need to build societies and you can't build a society based on rootlessness. Stalin limited immigration and he was right to do so.

gtfu with your national socialism, socialism/communism is an international project and can only work that way.


rootlessness

the hell? im a human being the world is my home, and i can be at home where ever i wish on that world. the only thing thats stops me from doing so is capitalism.

[Per Levy]

Good post. Inter-nationalism is not the same thing as globalization to the point of total rootlessness. Can you immigrate into Cuba or North Korea just because you feel like it? Could you immigrate into USSR or China?

again this "rootlessness" in your opinion humans cant live with each other if they have a differnt skin colour or different "heritage" it seems. also why should we care what other nation states do? we want to abolish nations and states, we want a united world.


No it's a security risk and immigration is a privilege, not a right. Only capitalists disagree and yell dumb shit like "reactionary, fascist" etc because they can't take their vacations in the Bahamas.

well read your posts and and think about why people would call you a nationalistic reactionary. my future wife lives on another continent, from your point i should not move to her and live with her, or the other way around. i hope you dont call yourself socialist or communist cause you're neither.

[RedRevolution1938]

the hell? im a human being the world is my home, and i can be at home where ever i wish on that world. the only thing thats stops me from doing so is capitalism.

Sorry, but this is a very immature statement. You can go to Cuba, or North Korea, but you will not fit in. You will not be able to speak the language and the culture and customs will seem strange to you, as you will to them. It is absolutely foolish to just think you can show up some where and automatically fit in.

Now, I do one day believe, in the far future, borders will be dissolved. This is totally up to the masses of working people though. If they choose to dissolve the nation state as a whole, than that is their choice.

Also we have to consider how the dissolution of borders might cause imperialism. What do you think certain Africans would say if a bunch of honkeys just showed up and said "yep... we're livin' here now". They wouldn't like it.

[Per Levy]

Sorry, but this is a very immature statement. You can go to Cuba, or North Korea, but you will not fit in. You will not be able to speak the language and the culture and customs will seem strange to you, as you will to them. It is absolutely foolish to just think you can show up some where and automatically fit in. ah ja? i can speak the language of my wife, and im sure after a while i'll be used to "the culture" and stuff(getting used to miles and farenheit will be much tougher i think). and why do you think someone will not fit in in another country even if they speak the language?


Also we have to consider how the dissolution of borders might cause imperialism. What do you think certain Africans would say if a bunch of honkeys just showed up and said "yep... we're livin' here now". They wouldn't like it. that is not imperialism, just saying. also what does honkey mean? im not familiar with that term.

[Blake's Baby]

Wan't it Trotsky (following Socrates and Tom Paine) who declared himself to be a 'citizen of the world', RR1938? Was he being immature too? Stupid Trotsky. He should have grown up to become a nationalist, because destroying borders means imperialism. Because the last thing imperialism needs is a country to operate from.

Idiotic Totsky! Idiotic Paine! Idiotic Socrates! What they didn't know was that some people have a natural right to something or other because their mother happened to be near it when she gave birth to them! Durr, it's obvious.

[S.Artesian]

Sorry, but this is a very immature statement. You can go to Cuba, or North Korea, but you will not fit in. You will not be able to speak the language and the culture and customs will seem strange to you, as you will to them. It is absolutely foolish to just think you can show up some where and automatically fit in.

Now, I do one day believe, in the far future, borders will be dissolved. This is totally up to the masses of working people though. If they choose to dissolve the nation state as a whole, than that is their choice.

Also we have to consider how the dissolution of borders might cause imperialism. What do you think certain Africans would say if a bunch of honkeys just showed up and said "yep... we're livin' here now". They wouldn't like it.


Funny, I was in Cuba. I spoke the language, and I wasn't born there. I danced the Cuban son and the mambo, and I wasn't born there. Enjoyed the Cuban ice cream at Coppelia, and I wasn't born there. Learned the streets of Havana, and I wasn't born there. Learned how to make a natural daquiri and I wasn't born there. Fucking amazing. I must be one of those rootless cosmopolitans the Soviet CP warned about years ago.


Not only that.... my grandparents were immigrants to the US.. and they somehow managed to learn the language.

And hey, dig this. I know some Russians, Cubans, Chinese, Japanese, Somalians, Yemenis, etc. right here in NYC and they know the language, and I think they fit in, so do they. Of course, this is NYC... and I'm sure those with say the typical small-town mentality that seems to be evident by some posters here don't think those people should be allowed to fit in.


Dissolving nations isn't choice. It's a necessity for the development of socialism.

As for this:

Also we have to consider how the dissolution of borders might cause imperialism. What do you think certain Africans would say if a bunch of honkeys just showed up and said "yep... we're livin' here now". They wouldn't like it.

That did happen, and they didn't like it, not because people were "honkeys" [a misnomer BTW, should be "hunkies"-- derived from the African-American term for white workers of eastern and central European origin "bo-hunks"-- "bohemian"-"hungarian"] but because of capitalism, settler capitalism.

So sorry RedRevolution, you don't sound very red, or at all revolutionary, but maybe very 1938ish-- given the hostility to immigration and immigrants at that period.

[Art Vandelay]

Sorry, but this is a very immature statement. You can go to Cuba, or North Korea, but you will not fit in. You will not be able to speak the language and the culture and customs will seem strange to you, as you will to them. It is absolutely foolish to just think you can show up some where and automatically fit in.

Now, I do one day believe, in the far future, borders will be dissolved. This is totally up to the masses of working people though. If they choose to dissolve the nation state as a whole, than that is their choice.

Also we have to consider how the dissolution of borders might cause imperialism. What do you think certain Africans would say if a bunch of honkeys just showed up and said "yep... we're livin' here now". They wouldn't like it.

Communism is a stateless classless society. That is pretty much Marxism 101. It is not some choice, but a necessary and inevitable step in the creation of communism.

[Red Planet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodger
Boring, stupid shit.



Red planet..kindly do not put quotes on this thread, THAT, I have not uttered. I would simply request you would remove that part of your post. I am sure you were not attempting to be underhand. I did not write ""boring stupid shit," I often read the posts twice so that I can readily understand the points being made. So I never made disrespectful or hurtful remarks to any poster here.

The left in the main have missed the tide...workers in Britain whatever their origins are firmly against social dumping. It is a race to the bottom. A world without borders a dream for fascist, financial capitalist and ultra left fantasist alike. A sorry picture emerges, as EU enlarges Ukrainians might go work in Polish factories further dropping wages. The cavalier way some people ignore these problems, will not go unpunished...the left will be further sidelined. It is not a race issue as some who stand outside the class would have it. It is one of class always has been always will be. The BNP are only too happy to have the debate couched in race terms, which ultra left, race obsessed fools ,gladly oblige. NEWS---NEWS==NEWS... It is EU unelected commissioners in Brussels who opened borders, who opened up the flood gates our righteous wrath is aimed squarely at them. Further opening up of borders aids globalization near and afar. Mass migration robs nations of skilled and valuable human resources. The impacts are plain for all to see. Wifey's helper's daughter was booted out of casualty without even an aspirin. Exhibiting advanced rabies, the child(8)'s only request was bread which her father rushed off to buy. 30,000 passed medical exams last year. It is a national disgrace here, also there are those in UK AND US WHO MIGHT BE TRAINED FOR THIS WORK. ROBBING , PLUNDERING RESOURCES IS THE NAME OF THE GAME. CAN WE AGREE ON THAT AT LEAST? South Africa a billion spent on training medical workers....they left the country. How can this be for the betterment.

What Red Planet are you on, incidentally???? Do you have the same problems there as we have on earth? Fascinating. okokok Time for me to "shut the fuck up "!!

I became tired of seeing your lame posts all over the thread so I decided to take it up meself to tell you to take your bullshit and shove it somewhere quite unpleasant. i know you didnt write that, dipshit, i wrote it cause that sums up the content of your posts

[RedRevolution1938]

ah ja? i can speak the language of my wife, and im sure after a while i'll be used to "the culture" and stuff(getting used to miles and farenheit will be much tougher i think). and why do you think someone will not fit in in another country even if they speak the language?

Well that is good, and in that case I fully support your decision to move and make a life where ever. But it sounds as if some people on this thread think they can just go somewhere and plop down simply because they're human. No, one has to at least respect the ways of the people that were there and live there, in which in your case you will. I used the imperialism example and the African example to show that a boatload white people just showing up in Africa and trying to assimilate on the basis of being human is not good.


also what does honkey mean? im not familiar with that term.

It is just a derogatory word for white people, it was used as a joke.

[RedRevolution1938]

Communism is a stateless classless society. That is pretty much Marxism 101. It is not some choice, but a necessary and inevitable step in the creation of communism.

Don't confuse state with nation, an organic body of people who share culture, customs and language. And yes it is some choice, Marxism is about democracy and if you don't give the masses of working people some say in the matter than you are just a tyrant.

[S.Artesian]

But it sounds as if some people on this thread think they can just go somewhere and plop down simply because they're human.


Yep, that's about right. I think a human being should be allowed to move anywhere, and not be excluded because of race, color, religion, national origin.

That's the ideal situation.

The current, real situation, is that immigrant laborers are demonized in order to 1) increase their vulnerability and exploitation 2) provide a scapegoat.

You, apparently, have no recognition of either the ideal or real situations.

[RedRevolution1938]

. Yep, that's about right. I think a human being should be allowed to move anywhere, and not be excluded because of race, color, religion, national origin.

I think so too, but you have to learn the language, study the culture and follow the way the people live. Then you have a right to that nation/area/zone/culture.


That's the ideal situation





The current, real situation, is that immigrant laborers are demonized in order to 1) increase their vulnerability and exploitation 2) provide a scapegoat.

Agreed 100% you have no idea how many arguments I have been in trying to defend immigrant laborers with reactionaries that are closest to me.


You, apparently, have no recognition of either the ideal or real situations.

Now you are just throwing out false assumptions and insults. I think it is you, who is not acknowledging reality. If we have a worker's cooperative full of people that don't know shit about each other, speak different languages, and can't communicate due to these factors how can we run successful cooperatives?

Cultural and lingual common ground is very important to socialism if you ask me.

If you and your buddies want to move to Korea you aren't just going to show up and say "hey bros, look at us, we're commies throw us in a cooperative". Now, if you study Korean culture, acknowledge their customs, and learn their language, then there should be no problem with you moving there. Take Per Levy's case his wife is on another continent so he probably researched, studies, and learned directly from his wife everything about the country. He should be welcomed with open arms.

[S.Artesian]

Now you are just throwing out false assumptions and insults. I think it is you, who is not acknowledging reality. If we have a worker's cooperative full of people that don't know shit about each other, speak different languages, and can't communicate due to these factors how can we run successful cooperatives?

Cultural and lingual common ground is very important to socialism if you ask me.

You must be joking. You sound like somebody working for the old US INS-- "you must know English. you must learn about our culture, before we admit you."

Bunch of junk. People have moved all over the world, and learned the language and learned how to respect others without knowing jack shit other than it's important to respect others.

What are you talking about? You think the problem with immigration is that Guatemalans show up in LA not knowing English? That's just bullshit chauvinism.

Since socialism is not linked to a single language or a single culture, but to a common mode of production, the importance of language and cultural uniformity actually declines and dramatically so. Anyone can learn any language, and if not learn it completely in their lifetime, their kids certainly will.

Language and cultural diversity and variety are much more important. Like biological diversity and variety within a single species, they offer species wide protection from viruses and the social equivalent of disease-- in this case being the barely disguised chauvinist "localism" that is shot through your argument.


If you and your buddies want to move to Korea you aren't just going to show up and say "hey bros, look at us, we're commies throw us in a cooperative". Now, if you study Korean culture, acknowledge their customs, and learn their language, then there should be no problem with you moving there. Take Per Levy's case his wife is on another continent so he probably researched, studies, and learned directly from his wife everything about the country. He should be welcomed with open arms.

What crap. Nobody acts like that-- that "hey bros" crap-- because they're immigrants, or because there are no restrictions on immigration. People might act like that as individuals, because individually some people are jerks, at home and abroad. But that has nothing to do with the social movement, the social sources, causes, and impacts of immigration.

Next you'll be telling us how native cultures will be threatened with being overwhelmed if unrestricted immigration is allowed.

[Per Levy]

Now you are just throwing out false assumptions and insults. I think it is you, who is not acknowledging reality. If we have a worker's cooperative full of people that don't know shit about each other, speak different languages, and can't communicate due to these factors how can we run successful cooperatives?

Cultural and lingual common ground is very important to socialism if you ask me.

i just want to mention that the iww did organize immigrant workers of all kind, there were strikes where 7 different languages were spoken and it worked out. also the late 19th and early 20th century was packed with radical immigrant workers. many labour leaders came from germany, poland italy and so on(just to name a few). you can read all about it in dynamite by louis adamic.


Take Per Levy's case his wife is on another continent so he probably researched, studies, and learned directly from his wife everything about the country. He should be welcomed with open arms.

now look i didnt study culture or anything, my future wife lives in north america and you just get a lot of culture stuff through the media and what not. the real big issues to me at least will be law, being a husband, and as i mentionted miles and farenheit. besides that you will be thrown into cold water regardless, you cannot prepare that much for change like that. the point is you will get used to it pretty fast and that is a reallity imo. you get used to it and will adapt in one way or another.

[black magick hustla]

Good post. Inter-nationalism is not the same thing as globalization to the point of total rootlessness. Can you immigrate into Cuba or North Korea just because you feel like it? Could you immigrate into USSR or China?


"rootlessness" is a word used by nationalist scum to deride those of us who have no borders. tell me have you ever moved to a new country? i've lived in three countries by now. i was raised in mexico by a middle eastern and a mexican. people learn to get used to each other - a lot of the times the ethnic strifes we see in countries are more due to economic segregation than anything else really. there aren't inidan race riots in the US.

[anarchoash]

This subject is certainly something that I am very passionate about as one of my life-long dreams has always been to travel and see this beautiful planet in all it's glory but as long as we're living in a capitalist system I don't ever see it getting fulfilled. Like the other day I spoke to a travel agent about immigrating to Vancouver, BC in Canada. I was told that I'd be denied a Visa, why? Because moving country requires money, to get money you need a job, to get a job you need a Visa, to get a Visa you need certain "skills"...who the hell has the right to deny me access to where I want to go and to do what I want to do with my life. So to answer your question yes, I support the idea that there should be no legal restrictions on immigration throughout the world. I believe that everyone has just as much right to go wherever they choose as the people who currently reside there

[阿部高和]

absolutely free borders is a fantastic dream of anyone and everyone who's never had the unpleasant experience of working in a logistics department of any non-profit or corporation or whatever.

What happens when immigration exceeds housing? when food supplies don't meet population standards? when native languages get wiped out by mass immigration?

What do we do then?

I'm all for a society of free borders, but there must be movement control at least to control the logistical nightmare this would be, to prevent native subjugation and to prevent logistical nightmares, since all the money in the world won't have enough homes ready in time for mass immigration (at least when I review history and look back to how badly the United States of America absorbed it's immigration in the 1900's--barely enough housing, food, or anything for anyone. that was of course due to capitalist management, but everything takes time)

[阿部高和]

Next you'll be telling us how native cultures will be threatened with being overwhelmed if unrestricted immigration is allowed.

How many people in America today speak Pequot, Algonquin, or Pomo?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

How many people in America today speak Pequot, Algonquin, or Pomo?

A lot of that had more to do with the military assaults, land expropriations and forced boarding schools than the migration of people westward.

[black magick hustla]

What happens when immigration exceeds housing? when food supplies don't meet population standards? when native languages get wiped out by mass immigration?



simple we dont tell the capitalist state how to manage a moribund economy. its funny how some of the dreamers, stalinists, and laborists here talk about how illusory are free borders, when they push for laughaubly ineffective reforms, that anyone with some rudimentary knowledge of econ knows. they are the same people who think that the welfare state and "taxing the rich" are a possibility. we push against austerity cuts not because we know the economy can grant us those rights, but because we know it can't.

[Art Vandelay]

Don't confuse state with nation, an organic body of people who share culture, customs and language. And yes it is some choice, Marxism is about democracy and if you don't give the masses of working people some say in the matter than you are just a tyrant.

Your original post which I quoted was addressing borders not nations. Simply because borders one day dissolve does not mean culture will with it. Marxism is about democracy but it is a stateless society, no if ands or buts. My point had nothing to do with democracy but with the acceptance of the material conditions of the world which will exist come time for communism.

[dodger]

I became tired of seeing your lame posts all over the thread so I decided to take it up meself to tell you to take your bullshit and shove it somewhere quite unpleasant. i know you didnt write that, dipshit, i wrote it cause that sums up the content of your posts

Red planet ...The clarification is most welcome.......

[NewSocialist]

Don't confuse state with nation, an organic body of people who share culture, customs and language. And yes it is some choice, Marxism is about democracy and if you don't give the masses of working people some say in the matter than you are just a tyrant.

This is the *exact* same shit the nazbols and national “communists“ say :rolleyes:

You have an avatar of Trotsky. Did he *ever* write anything at all to the effect there's some huge distinction between nation and state and we should respect the nation anymore as a result? I think NOT.

[Tim Finnegan]

Don't confuse state with nation, an organic body of people who share culture, customs and language.
You're confusing anthropology with ideology. The "nation", in this sense, dates back no further than the early modern period, where it was conceived precisely as the ideological-culture analogue to and thus justification of the state. It's pretty standard history that most of the major "nations" of Europe were invented by bourgeois nationalists, either declaring the heterogeneous peoples within their borders to constitute a "nation" (France, Britain) or marking off some broad area of people with a vaguely similar language and attempting to unify it (Italy, Germany), and in both cases the homogeneity of population that we see today- aside from being frequently exaggerated- owes itself to state-driven programs of cultural assimilation and conformity. The only times that nations have ever arisen in what could reasonably be described as an "organic" manner is when others imposed it was defined for them by others, as in Ireland, and even they tend to follow much the same pattern as soon as somebody decides that they're going to be a "nationalist".

[Blake's Baby]

In 1890, only 20% of the population of France spoke French. The other 80% spoke Breton, Flemish, Langue D'oc, Occetan, German, Letzburgish, Catalan, Basque, Italian and several other languages.

Surely you're not claiming that France was just made up Tim?:thumbup1:

In the same period, I bet you could look at Spain (Castilian, Catalan, Basque, Galician, Portuguese...), The UK (English, including Scots as a pretty divergent dialect), Irish Gaelic, Scots Gaelic, Welsh (in two majorly divergent groups), Channel Islands French, and Manx (died out in the 1970s) or Italy (the divergences between for example Emilia Romagna and Sicily or Napes being enormous) to see that the notion of the 'national community' is a pretty much mythical construct.

[S.Artesian]

Let's try and get to the meat of this issue: anti-immigrant sentiment, actions, both official and non-official tend to increase as economies worsen.

The assumption underlying the posts of dodgers, and others, is that open, or "easy" immigration to the advanced capitalist countries lowers the living standards of the "host" working class.

I think that claim is bullshit. I think there is absolutely no evidence for such an assertion. I think making such an assertion is nothing but an accommodation to petty-bourgeois panic, and not "working class interests."

So if dodger has a reference that shows that indeed, the decline of living standards of the working class in the advanced countries since 2007 is a result of immigrant labor, let's have dodger, and others, direct us to that data.

If not, then I suggest dodger, and others, shut up, and peddle their chauvinist horseshit, and their class cowardice, elsewhere.

[tir1944]

Does anyone have some statistics and information on immigrants' participation in Comparties (and other Leftist movements and organizations) in the UK or some other Western country...?

[Искра]

Why is that immportant? Immigrants are usually trying to get a "green card" and citizenship, so probably most of them don't participate in anything radical. Maybe second generation...

[dodger]

Artesian...the accent is on employers, I had hoped the obvious glee which open borders was greeted by them AND your good self and others might give you pause for thought. Some throw out accusations of racism. We have 20% youth unemployment as stated. Furthermore is the shameful statistic of 50% black youth without jobs. Now here to us is the simple part....we say the job should go to our youth....not an Italian or whatever. RACISM? EU laws aid employers.
The Commissioners are handpicked from those who will protect capitalism, brutally if needed.
A race to the bottom, hardly the scenario we would wish on ourselves or neighbours over the channel.
The EU directives and laws, such as “free” movement of labour, are intended to prop up capitalism by providing rootless low paid workers with no allegiance to any national working class. The EU plans to gobble up the Balkan mini states next and has its eyes on Ukraine, Turkey and Georgia, giving it a vast pool of much lower paid workers to let loose on the rest of us, depressing wages further and at the same time getting control of the Black Sea and confronting Russia.
This article written in Workers, 2007 ,was a wake up call to trade unionists and workers alike.

The TUC report, "The economics of migration: managing the impacts", published in June, claims that immigration benefits Britain. The TUC deserves some credit for joining the debate, but rather less for the anti-working class conclusions it reaches. In this article, we review a plethora of findings, from the TUC's own (albeit ignored) evidence through a number of eminent economic sources, and conclude that immigration is harmful to workers to the same degree as it benefits capitalism – racist as ever, whenever they get the opportunity they pay foreigners even less than they pay the indigenous workforce.

The figures showing the number of foreigners who have moved to the UK in recent years are heartening to the employer:

2002-3: 349,000
2003-4: 370,000
2004-5: 439,000
2005-6: 662,000
2006-7: 713,000
Total: 2,533,000
There are also, by Home Office estimate, some 430,000 illegal immigrants who are particularly "favoured" in the employment market.

The expansion of the EU has been the main reason for the increase. 222,000 Poles were given National Insurance numbers for the first time in 2006–7, bringing the total to 466,000 in the last four years. In a recent survey, half the Polish immigrants said that they would like to stay here – so much for the government's claim that they'll all go back.

Poaching
UN Resolution 2417 forbids poaching specialist professionals, yet the government's own figures show that:
38 per cent of all doctors working in hospitals in England qualified outside of Britain.
40 per cent of new dentists were born abroad.
58 per cent of new doctors in the NHS were born overseas.
25 per cent of British medics have their roots in the Indian subcontinent. They supply a third of trainee doctors.
44,000 overseas nurses worked in the NHS last year alone.
In Greater London 23 per cent of doctors and 47 per cent of nurses working in the NHS were born overseas.
The more skilled the immigrants, the more the loss to the source countries. In a 1990 study, the ILO found that a 'truly astonishing' proportion of highly educated people aged 25+ with 13 or more years of education had emigrated to the USA: for example, Guyana 80.62 per cent, Jamaica 69.34 per cent, Gambia 58.51 per cent, El Salvador 46.63 per cent, Trinidad 43.7 per cent. The TUC report has to admit "the negative effects of migration" on developing countries.

As the TUC report says, 'Migrant workers ... often earn much less than native workers would for the same work.' Since 2002, real wages of new immigrants have fallen relative to those of British workers. As the TUC report admits, "it is likely that workers who are unable to enforce their employment rights and constantly at risk of being reported to the authorities by their employers are more vulnerable than any other group. It seems extremely unlikely that this would not have some impact on wage levels, at least at the bottom end of the labour market."

So, "migration may have held down pay at the bottom end of the distribution". And, "Migrant workers are more likely to work in jobs with higher health and safety risks and to be even more at risk than other workers." Employers gain hugely from illegal workers, who lower wages and increase profits, and the government looks the other way. Yet the TUC still says that immigration is good for Britain!

A recent report, The Impact of Recent Immigration on the London Economy (City of London, July 2007), describes as a positive effect of migration "its quantitative contribution through expanding labour supply and thus enabling employment growth and reducing upward wage pressure". It goes on, "An effect of the concentration of migrants in the worst paid segment of the labour market has been a significant downward pressure on wages at the bottom end of the market. This seems to have encouraged job growth in these occupations, but earnings among workers in this sector have suffered, falling behind growth in the cost of living."

As the TUC notes, 15 per cent of employers target Eastern European immigrants. For example, at one North Wales factory, the employer sacked the entire workforce, and two weeks later hired a contingent of Polish workers, at much reduced wages.

Inaccurate statistics
Further, says the TUC "the Local Government Association claimed that inaccurate migration statistics had left as many as 25 local authorities paying for services to migrants who had not been included when the central government grant to authorities was being calculated. Up to 25 councils, including Birmingham, Sheffield and Manchester were affected."

Yet after all this evidence that an increase in the number of unskilled migrants reduces the wages of unskilled domestic workers, the TUC report concludes, "the country as a whole is benefiting from migration, as we noted above, the Treasury expects it to account for at least a tenth of future economic growth". Note that the sole proof of benefit from migration that the TUC produces is not any actual existing present benefit, but only a Treasury prediction of "future economic growth". If they had been able to find any present benefit, they would certainly have said so!

If the TUC officers cannot see the wisdom of their own evidence, then it is asking too much of them to look further. But we will.

So, economist Paul Samuelson writes, "an increase in supply will, other things being equal, tend to depress wage rates." A US study found that a 10 per cent increase in labour supply reduced wages for all groups. "Undoubtedly access to lower-wage foreign workers has a depressing effect [on wages]," says former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich. Research suggests that between 40 and 50 per cent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers. Some native workers lose not just wages but their jobs through immigrant competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration.

Wage reduction
Then George Borjas, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard finds, "benefits from immigration arise because immigrants reduce the wage that native workers get paid." No workers' pain, no employers' gain. Native workers lose, and this loss accrues to capitalists. "Workers lose because immigrants drag wages down. Employers gain because immigrants drag wages down. These wealth transfers may be in the tens of billions of dollars per year." For example, in the last 16 years US immigration has increased the labour supply by 16 million, 10 per cent, and cut the native wage rate by 3-4 per cent = $152 billion. It also increased US national income, but only by 0.1 per cent = $8 billion. Total gain to capital, $160 billion. In sum, says Borjas, "Immigration redistributes wealth from labor to capital."

The Wall Street Journal constantly calls for unrestricted immigration. Perhaps in theory it is possible that the US capitalist class's chief organ has misread the bottom line, and that unrestricted immigration is bad for capitalism and good for the working class, but is it likely? Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, pointed out what should be obvious to the TUC – that the laws of supply and demand inevitably imply that an increase in the supply of workers lowers wages and decreases inflationary pressures.

Britain's low wage rates are partly due to high immigration flows, which is why immigrant labour is popular with employers. New Trade Minister, Digby, Lord Jones, says, "we have a tight labour market in the UK and yet wage inflation has not been a problem. Immigrants are doing the work for less."

The Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, says, "Immigration has reduced wage inflation ... the inflow of migrant labour, especially in the past year or so from Eastern Europe, has probably led to a diminution of inflationary pressure on the labour market."

Evidence
Professor Richard Layard of LSE, who helped to design the Government's Welfare to Work programme, wrote, "There is a huge amount of evidence that any increase in the number of unskilled workers lowers unskilled wages and increases the unskilled unemployment rate. If we are concerned about fairness, we ought not to ignore these facts. Employers gain from unskilled immigration. But the unskilled do not."

Immigration has an adverse effect on the job opportunities of those British workers whose skills are similar. The greater the number of immigrants, the greater the losses suffered by those who compete with immigrant workers. Immigrants take jobs that natives cannot afford to take and work for less than the going rate. Had immigrants never arrived the employer would have been forced to raise wages to fill the positions.

The present wave of unskilled immigration is destroying the jobs, wages and conditions of our less skilled workers. A 'guest worker' programme of permits for temporary low skilled labour would also benefit employers and harm low skilled labour. Canada, Australia and New Zealand exclude low skilled labour through point systems and quotas aimed at recruiting highly skilled immigrants, but a skills-based point system would threaten the wages and conditions of our skilled workers.

Where's the need?
In Britain, there are more than two million "economically inactive" people who want a job. The real level of unemployment is 4.5 million, so why do we need to import workers?

Employers are glad to recruit overseas as this avoids both higher wages and training costs. But overseas recruitment is a disincentive to training and re-training British workers. It is also a disincentive to investment.

We need to defend skill, defend the interests of our skilled British working class, and demand apprenticeships to develop skills. If we did all these things properly, would we need any immigration?

But first we need to get to grips with the evidence and base our arguments on them. At the moment there is too much claptrap coming from both "sides": unpleasant racists who hate all foreigners and so-called liberal thinkers who smother workers with their "caring", masking only their cowardice to face up to reality.

Meanwhile, in all this muddled thinking and refusal to discuss, the real sides of the argument are missed: as always, it's workers versus capitalists and as always we forget this at our peril.
******* ******
The debate has moved on, the detested BNP has run its course. Despite shrill calls that we might be murdered in our beds. Nobody is going to be silenced, nor should they be. The people have the bit between their teeth, the hated place we find ourselves as EU citizens.

Tobey Shelley Financial Times...writes, "while migration comprises millions of individual dilemmas, decisions and histories, those aggregate into a stripping by the global North of the labour and skills of the South. Inasmuch as the impetus to migrate is created by the trade rules and financial institutions dominated by the North, this constitutes systematic pillage." Indeed it does.

James K. Galbraith...."the active agent in the migration process is not the immigrant. Rather it is the employer who seeks migrant labor in order to pay less for labor and to minimize the risks of unionization ..." Speaks for itself......

[阿部高和]

simple we dont tell the capitalist state how to manage a moribund economy. its funny how some of the dreamers, stalinists, and laborists here talk about how illusory are free borders, when they push for laughaubly ineffective reforms, that anyone with some rudimentary knowledge of econ knows. they are the same people who think that the welfare state and "taxing the rich" are a possibility. we push against austerity cuts not because we know the economy can grant us those rights, but because we know it can't.

I'm not a Stalinist first of all, secondly, I'm someone who's lived on a small island most of my life, and it's crowded enough and already has land and conservation issues, as it is I can't imagine it being even more crowded than now.

[Ismail]

I'm not a Stalinist first of all,"Stalinists," at least those adhering to a pro-Albanian position, do not "tell the capitalist state how to manage a moribund economy." Hoxha explained the Marxist-Leninist road on questions of trade unions, giving economic struggles political content, etc. in his work Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism: http://enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/english/eurocommunism/IV.pdf

[阿部高和]

"Stalinists," at least those adhering to a pro-Albanian position, do not "tell the capitalist state how to manage a moribund economy." Hoxha explained the Marxist-Leninist road on questions of trade unions, etc. here: http://enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/english/eurocommunism/IV.pdf

I agree with this statement.

[brigadista]

from June 2009

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2722

Support the SOAS occupation against the deportation of cleaners
Support the SOAS occupation against the deportation of cleaners

Last Friday (12th June) at 6:30 a.m., immigration officers raided the School of Oriental and African Studies in London and arrested nine cleaners working for ISS cleaning contractors. Five cleaners have since been deported whilst the remaining 4 are being held and awaiting deportation.

The cleaners had summoned to a meeting where they were soon confronted by 50 Immigration and Border police dressed in riot gear. The cleaners were locked in and were lead one by one to another room where their immigration status was checked. A union representative was refused accessed to them.

The raid was requested by ISS and carried out with the complicity of SOAS management, two of whom were present. It is a shameful attempt to punish the SOAS cleaners for their sucessful fight for union representation and improved pay. SOAS cleaners recently took part a well organised, militant and widely supported Justice 4 Cleaners campaign. They have also been taking strike action in support of Joseph Stalin Bermudez, the sacked Unison Branch chair, who had vigourously campaigned for the cleaning staff. The message the SOAS management and ISS are sending out is clear: migrant workers are only welcome in the UK if they tow the line and accept their poverty pay and harsh conditions. The labour movement and students need to send a clear message back: we will not tolerate such intimidation of our brothers and sisters!

SOAS students and unions responded rapidly to this racist attack on militant migrant workers. After a demonstration against the arrest and deportations of the cleaners, 50 students occupied the director offices with the following list of demands:

We call on the directorate to request the secretary of state to immediately release the detainees and to prevent the deportation of the three cleaners who are still in detention in the UK.

For the directorate to release a public statement condemning what has happened to the SOAS cleaners and calling for their immediate release and return.
To campaign for the return of the cleaners who have already been deported.
To bring all contract staff in house. SOAS should not use contractors, ISS or others.
To keep immigration officers from entering campus under ANY circumstances or other forms of collaboration with immigration or police. Universities are for education not for state violence and oppression.
A year's wage as reparations for all detained and deported staff.
To hold accountable SOAS managers who were complicit in facilitating the raid and detention of the cleaners, refusing to aid a sick worker and a pregnant woman.
To reinstate Jose Stalin Bermudez, the SOAS UNISON branch chair.
To respect the right to organise in Trade Unions unimpeded.
To provide space and resources for a public meeting to build support for the SOAS 9 and other migrants, in education and beyond, affected by immigration control and racism.
Amnesty for all those involved.

[S.Artesian]

Artesian...the accent is on employers, I had hoped the obvious glee which open borders was greeted by them AND your good self and others might give you pause for thought.

I've had a bellyful of your ignorant smears, linking everyone who doesn't genuflect to your English chauvinism to the great conspiracy of the Protocols of the Elders of the EU. Do it again and I might lose my temper and call you a s++m [email protected]@@@@g g&b of s**t, a bucket of g#ts with s**t for b****s, or a r**cid piece of r*t f*t. I would prefer not to call you that, at least not on the board.

There isn't a single hard fact in your post proving that immigration has reduced the living standards of the host working class in any of the bullshit you produce above, that immigration policies have caused living standards to decline.

There is every bit of evidence that capitalism attacks living standards of all workers, and in particular and more extensively, the living standards of the migrants.

Instead of pointing that out, instead of pointing how capitalism is required to attack all workers in order to offset declines in profitability, you decide to divide the working class along national, i.e. bourgeois lines.


Some throw out accusations of racism. We have 20% youth unemployment as stated. Furthermore is the shameful statistic of 50% black youth without jobs. Now here to us is the simple part....we say the job should go to our youth....not an Italian or whatever. RACISM? Yes, racism, and national chauvinism, because it cedes the division of the working class that your properly English EDL wants to use to immobilize British workers from moving forward as a class.

You think its too difficult for workers to understand that immigrant workers aren't their enemy, capitalism is, and in order to defeat that enemy they have to unite with immigrant workers to oppose all attacks on migrants, all attempts to demonize a sector of the working class. That's not too difficult or too subtle for workers to understand.

But here's what is too "subtle"-- the distinction you make between "recent" or current immigrants in Britain, and first generation "native" workers. Everyone with an ounce of brains [that might leave you out, not sure] knows that immigration didn't start in 2007, or even 1981. It's just so easy to do what Thatcher did and simply say-- "tough, you're not really citizens, members of our society. you just want to think you are. well we're going to change that and give all those jobs to real Englishmen."

You have 20% youth unemployment? No shit. Every [advanced] capitalist country has 20% youth unemployment. What you are doing, besides stoking national chauvinism, is arguing that if those "alien" youth are expelled, that youth unemployment of your real English youth will decline. Guess what? It won't. Spain, busy expelling, and paying migrants to leave has what? 40-45% youth unemployment.

Exactly how many "real" Spanish youth want to work as agricultural laborers; as underpaid, off the books, delivery persons, messengers, or in sweat shop clothing manufacturing? Here's a hint-- NONE.

Need an example? Alabama. Passed a harsh, the harshest in the US, anti-immigrant labor law. Guess what? Guess what happened even with Alabama's high youth unemployment. Agricultural producers who employed that migrant labor cannot fill the resulting vacant jobs. It's so bad, that the state is considering schemes-- not of chain gang labor of imprisoned men and women, that tried and true example of Southern hospitality, but of attempting to require ex-prisoners, those on probation, to work those jobs.






The EU directives and laws, such as “free” movement of labour, are intended to prop up capitalism by providing rootless low paid workers with no allegiance to any national working class. Whereas you want to make sure the working class maintains its allegiance to a "nation." Allegiance to any and all national working classes is hardly a step forward. Need an example? Here's two. World War 1 and World War 2.

Where and when has the class struggle in Europe ever been advanced by allegiance to a "national working class"?


The EU plans to gobble up the Balkan mini states next and has its eyes on Ukraine, Turkey and Georgia, giving it a vast pool of much lower paid workers to let loose on the rest of us, depressing wages further and at the same time getting control of the Black Sea and confronting Russia.
This article written in Workers, 2007 ,was a wake up call to trade unionists and workers alike.And your opposition to immigrant laborers entering Britain is going to confront that how? You demanding that the "jobs go to British youth" is going to organize resistance to the EU plans [which are quite ambiguous re Turkey, seeing as how the EU has pretty well discouraged Turkey from continuing its claim for full membership] exactly how? It won't but it will encourage your little fantasy that the purity of Britain can be maintained against the hordes from the east.

But the more you talk, the more clearly is revealed your chauvinism, your racism, your patriotism. Listen to your language: "rootless workers," "with no allegiance to any national working class," "a vast pool of much lower paid workers to let loose on the rest of us."

This is the language, the hysterical language of the panicked petty-bourgeois; this is the language that attempts to liken immigrants to a plague, a vector of infection, a source of disease-- rootless, no allegiance, let loose.

Keep talking there, Jack, and I do mean Jack as in Union Jack.


The figures showing the number of foreigners who have moved to the UK in recent years are heartening to the employer:

2002-3: 349,000
2003-4: 370,000
2004-5: 439,000
2005-6: 662,000
2006-7: 713,000
Total: 2,533,000
There are also, by Home Office estimate, some 430,000 illegal immigrants who are particularly "favoured" in the employment market.
OK, what were the unemployment rates in Britain in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007? You're indicating above that the 20% unemployment rate currently is somehow linked to this influx, could be reversed by reversing this influx, so what were the unemployment rates for those years? What were the average wage rates for workers in Britain for those years

And....what were the numbers of immigrants to Britain in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011? And what were the employment rates among those immigrants in 2002-2007, and again 2008-2011. What? You don't think a lot of them lost their jobs? That's not what the studies in the US show. Those studies show that many migrant workers lost their jobs, that remittances to those countries providing migrant workers declined after 2007.

So if you could quit waving that flag for a second, try answering those questions.


The expansion of the EU has been the main reason for the increase. 222,000 Poles were given National Insurance numbers for the first time in 2006–7, bringing the total to 466,000 in the last four years. In a recent survey, half the Polish immigrants said that they would like to stay here – so much for the government's claim that they'll all go back.
I have no doubt that half would like to stay, but then again half wouldn't. So let's say half go back. Are you now claiming that even allowing half the number of immigrants to enter Britain is unacceptable? You think if half go back in 2012, somehow unemployment lis going to drop in Britain? You know, usually the bourgeoisie have to train and pay people to spout such nonsense, giving them titles like journalist, or economist. You apparently do it for free.



Poaching
UN Resolution 2417 forbids poaching specialist professionals, yet the government's own figures show that:
38 per cent of all doctors working in hospitals in England qualified outside of Britain.
40 per cent of new dentists were born abroad.
58 per cent of new doctors in the NHS were born overseas.
25 per cent of British medics have their roots in the Indian subcontinent. They supply a third of trainee doctors.
44,000 overseas nurses worked in the NHS last year alone.
In Greater London 23 per cent of doctors and 47 per cent of nurses working in the NHS were born overseas.And the presence of these doctors and professionals, does it lower the standards of living of 100% native British doctors and professionals? Does the presence of these doctors and professionals reduce the standards of medical care in Britain? That's the issue, that's the argument you are trying to make when it comes to non-professionals, that this immigration has reduced the living standards of the British workers.

Do you think if you conduct your witch hunt against these doctors, if say you pull an Idi Amin and expel them, as he expelled the Asian residents, suddenly Cameron and company are going to increase funding to the NHS? Recruit potential candidates for doctors and professionals from the currently unemployed youth?

I know, I know you would never do anything so vicious and violent as that. That would be so unBritish, I'm sure, but the point is you are feeding a mythology that becomes an excuse, a rational, and a submission to capitalism.


The more skilled the immigrants, the more the loss to the source countries. In a 1990 study, the ILO found that a 'truly astonishing' proportion of highly educated people aged 25+ with 13 or more years of education had emigrated to the USA: for example, Guyana 80.62 per cent, Jamaica 69.34 per cent, Gambia 58.51 per cent, El Salvador 46.63 per cent, Trinidad 43.7 per cent. The TUC report has to admit "the negative effects of migration" on developing countries. So therefore, you are demanding that all workers join together to overthrow the economic structures that have so impoverished Jamaica, Gambia, El Salvador, and Trinidad? I bet not. I know the TUC isn't about to take on the historical role, say of Britain in Trinidad-- it's exploitation of the labor force in Trinidad; its imprisonment of Turbal Uriah Butler and other leaders of the petroleum workers back in the day for their crime of striking and jeopardizing Britain's war effort back around WW2, particularly since the leaders of British trade unions were sharing seats on war planning and production boards with the bourgeoisie.

The hypocrisy exhibited by trade union bureaucrats is enough to gag a maggot.


As the TUC report says, 'Migrant workers ... often earn much less than native workers would for the same work.' Since 2002, real wages of new immigrants have fallen relative to those of British workers. As the TUC report admits, "it is likely that workers who are unable to enforce their employment rights and constantly at risk of being reported to the authorities by their employers are more vulnerable than any other group. It seems extremely unlikely that this would not have some impact on wage levels, at least at the bottom end of the labour market."

No shit, Sherlock. All the more reason to make all migrant laborers legal.


So, "migration may have held down pay at the bottom end of the distribution". And, "Migrant workers are more likely to work in jobs with higher health and safety risks and to be even more at risk than other workers." Employers gain hugely from illegal workers, who lower wages and increase profits, and the government looks the other way. Yet the TUC still says that immigration is good for Britain!
Yeah, that's our argument, not yours. "Employers gain hugely from illegal workers" except we say, do away with the illegality that allows employers to operate. You say-- do away with the migrants as if laws, restrictions, etc. are going to stop workers migrating to begin with. [/QUOTE]


A recent report, The Impact of Recent Immigration on the London Economy (City of London, July 2007), describes as a positive effect of migration "its quantitative contribution through expanding labour supply and thus enabling employment growth and reducing upward wage pressure". It goes on, "An effect of the concentration of migrants in the worst paid segment of the labour market has been a significant downward pressure on wages at the bottom end of the market. This seems to have encouraged job growth in these occupations, but earnings among workers in this sector have suffered, falling behind growth in the cost of living."
And again, those are exactly the jobs everybody will rush to take once the migrants are expelled. Point is, immigrant labors are the most severely exploited. The way forward is for workers to protect, defend the most vulnerable sectors of its class, rejecting all distinctions based on legality or illegality of migrant status; rejecting all national allegiance.


As the TUC notes, 15 per cent of employers target Eastern European immigrants. For example, at one North Wales factory, the employer sacked the entire workforce, and two weeks later hired a contingent of Polish workers, at much reduced wages.
Again, no shit Sherlock. So what's the solution? Prevent migration? Attack the Polish workers? Same thing has happened throughout history; in the US black workers have been used against the organized white workers. So what's the solution? Expel the black workers? Of course not.

The problem is the stunted, obsolete, archaic trade union organization and mentality that says-- if we control the migrants, we'll have British jobs for British workers. Sure you will, count on it.



Further, says the TUC "the Local Government Association claimed that inaccurate migration statistics had left as many as 25 local authorities paying for services to migrants who had not been included when the central government grant to authorities was being calculated. Up to 25 councils, including Birmingham, Sheffield and Manchester were affected."
Spoken like a true tea-bagger. Studies in the US have shown and shown repeatedly, that in general migrants contribute more than they "take away,"-- paying taxes and receiving less services, not collecting social security payments etc.

And do you think, for one second, that if the migrants weren't there "consuming" your precious "services" that the level of services for the British working class would improve, be increased? You might, ignorant as you are of the actual economy in which we live.


Yet after all this evidence that an increase in the number of unskilled migrants reduces the wages of unskilled domestic workers, the TUC report concludes, "the country as a whole is benefiting from migration, as we noted above, the Treasury expects it to account for at least a tenth of future economic growth". Note that the sole proof of benefit from migration that the TUC produces is not any actual existing present benefit, but only a Treasury prediction of "future economic growth". If they had been able to find any present benefit, they would certainly have said so!
And you have provided no proof that immigration has worsened the living standards of the British working class.



If the TUC officers cannot see the wisdom of their own evidence, then it is asking too much of them to look further. But we will.
I'm sure you will. Make sure you have your hat in your hand. You think maybe TUC is part of the far-left, EU, anti-national allegiance conspiracy, threatening to overwhelm Brittania?



So, economist Paul Samuelson writes, "an increase in supply will, other things being equal, tend to depress wage rates." A US study found that a 10 per cent increase in labour supply reduced wages for all groups. "Undoubtedly access to lower-wage foreign workers has a depressing effect [on wages]," says former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich. Research suggests that between 40 and 50 per cent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers. Some native workers lose not just wages but their jobs through immigrant competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration. Robert Reich is full of shit. Has been full of shit. Will be full of shit. The lowering of wages for the entire class has been determined not by the availability of immigrants but 1) sustained political assaults on organized labor-- look, there isn't a single fucking illegal immigrant working as an airline pilot for a major airline in the US. Now look at what has happened to the real wages of airline pilots since 1981. Do you even bother to check into these things? Or do you just accept whatever you think sounds good? 2) advances in technology amplifying the productivity of labor, displacing large numbers of production workers from full-time employment 3) reversal of advances made by black workers during the 1960s and 1970s.



The Wall Street Journal constantly calls for unrestricted immigration. Perhaps in theory it is possible that the US capitalist class's chief organ has misread the bottom line, and that unrestricted immigration is bad for capitalism and good for the working class, but is it likely? Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, pointed out what should be obvious to the TUC – that the laws of supply and demand inevitably imply that an increase in the supply of workers lowers wages and decreases inflationary pressures.
References please [plural, you said constantly]. I read the WSJ daily-- although not the editorials, as they tend to make me feel ill. So could you provide a reference for the WSJ supporting unrestricted immigration, and eliminating the "illegal" status to those immigrant laborers now so designated?



Professor Richard Layard of LSE, who helped to design the Government's Welfare to Work programme, wrote, "There is a huge amount of evidence that any increase in the number of unskilled workers lowers unskilled wages and increases the unskilled unemployment rate. If we are concerned about fairness, we ought not to ignore these facts. Employers gain from unskilled immigration. But the unskilled do not."

Again, these are the jobs you are claiming that will be award to British youth, who will leap at the opportunity to have them. Employers gain because they can take advantage of immigrant workers, not because immigrant workers are taking jobs away from British workers.



Immigration has an adverse effect on the job opportunities of those British workers whose skills are similar. The greater the number of immigrants, the greater the losses suffered by those who compete with immigrant workers. Immigrants take jobs that natives cannot afford to take and work for less than the going rate. Had immigrants never arrived the employer would have been forced to raise wages to fill the positions.

The present wave of unskilled immigration is destroying the jobs, wages and conditions of our less skilled workers. A 'guest worker' programme of permits for temporary low skilled labour would also benefit employers and harm low skilled labour. Canada, Australia and New Zealand exclude low skilled labour through point systems and quotas aimed at recruiting highly skilled immigrants, but a skills-based point system would threaten the wages and conditions of our skilled workers. Great. Yeah, that's what we want to tell the workers. "We want to be like Canada, New Zealand, Australia-- settler states." Only you want to be more Australian that Australia, more Canadian than Canada-- and exclude skilled workers too. Disgusting, you should be restricted.




We need to defend skill, defend the interests of our skilled British working class, and demand apprenticeships to develop skills. If we did all these things properly, would we need any immigration?
This is sickening jingoist chauvinistic shit. "We need to defend the interest of our skilled British working class"? If I were working in Britain and you said that to me, I'd tell you to piss off you fucking wanker and take your nationalist horseshit over to the EDL and the National Party where it belongs.

[EmmaWestTheBest!]

Do you support the idea that there should be no legal restrictions on immigration throughout the world?

Yes because that's very natural and good just look at the mixed people of mongolia the country is better, stronger and more organised than either russia or china!!!

[the last donut of the night]

You're confusing anthropology with ideology. The "nation", in this sense, dates back no further than the early modern period, where it was conceived precisely as the ideological-culture analogue to and thus justification of the state. It's pretty standard history that most of the major "nations" of Europe were invented by bourgeois nationalists, either declaring the heterogeneous peoples within their borders to constitute a "nation" (France, Britain) or marking off some broad area of people with a vaguely similar language and attempting to unify it (Italy, Germany), and in both cases the homogeneity of population that we see today- aside from being frequently exaggerated- owes itself to state-driven programs of cultural assimilation and conformity. The only times that nations have ever arisen in what could reasonably be described as an "organic" manner is when others imposed it was defined for them by others, as in Ireland, and even they tend to follow much the same pattern as soon as somebody decides that they're going to be a "nationalist".

(my bold)

yeah, in fact, as soon as the italian unified state was proclaimed, garibaldi said something like, "we made italy, now we have to make the italians." if you go to places like italy and even france nowadays you'll see that a lot of people in those geographical borders don't speak the state language, preferring to use their dialects. it's also no surprise that ever since the revolution, the french state has been supressing the use of languages such as provencal, occitan, alsecian and others

[Cencus]

Personal experience rather than statistics here but in my view still valid.

From about 1998 I found myself working for a temping agency doing what is called General Industrial jobs. (roughly translated shite underpaid work [we workd out it at one point there wasn't a single contract the company had in our area that didn't involve getting cold or wet or dealing with rubbish, usually all 3]). Needless to say that the nature of the work (unskilled with little need for communication) meant they had a lot of folks who were new to the U.K. on the books.

There were certain jobs that were particularly loathed, these usually involved very long hours with minimum wage. The British folks generally would only take these jobs if there was absolutely nothing else available and they were getting desperate. Very quickly the agency staff gave up offering these jobs to U.K. folks and they became the sole preserve of immigrants. Talking to other folks in other agencies (the entry level jobs market in this sorta stuff is dominated by agencies in the area) the situation was the norm across the area.

Which brings me to my point at last :p I believe wages for bottom of the pile jobs in this area were depressed by the willingness of immigrant labour (most in the agency were assylum seekers who had no access to welfare so had no choice but to take whatever they could get) to do really shitty jobs for really shitty wages. Do I have a problem with this? No because they are just ordinary working class folks trying to get by same as me. My connection is with my class not my location.

[workersadvocate]

So who is seriously going to organize these unorganized in these shitty jobs with shitty pay and shitty working conditions, regardless of legal status or nationality? Unions are in no hurry to do that, it seems. Reformists only want to get involved when they expect votes or want to play games in the bourgeois courts.
There has been a good discussion here, with many posting important points we need to consider. No to chauvanism, no to scapegoating, but also no to reformism. Can we trust the petty bourgeois left to offer and do what is necessary? I think we can only make the breakthrough needed with a genuine independent mass workers' movement --especially rooted in the worse off more exploited and oppressed layers-- and this can result from and restore a proletarian revolutionary left. Internationalism in deedss advancing the proletariat, or it isn't authentic. We've seen where petty bourgeois reformism gets the proletariat. Better answers won't and can't come from those seeking for themselves a better position under capitalism.

[Red Planet]

I cant believe it took ten threads to get a simple point across about imigration: no borders, no immigrants! Problem solved

[brigadista]

there is a problem for people to organise who are "illegal" in US called undocumented. If you are illegal then you are subject to detention and removal and being charged with a criminal offence therefore you are going to keep your head down- the problem is the illegality issue in the UK . I believe in other European countries "undocumented" people can work but not in the UK.

Would be grateful if other Revlefters from Europe could state what the position is for undocumented people in other EU countries.

Given the number of deaths and injuries in immigration detention here , you are going to want to keep a low profile in this position also you may face fear on return to your home country however the UK may have considered that you were lying about that [!] so you wont want to be returned. The UK system also will not give permission to stay for many who cannot be returned therefore they are living in a situation where they have no permission to stay yet cannot return home , effectively being in the position of being "starved out"... relying on church/mosque charity.

this is why I posted the SOAS cleaners info from 2009 because the immigration authorities came down hard when those cleaners organised...