Immigration

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Why would people think that things like immigration are such a bad thing?

[Ned Kelly]

Because they are reactionaries. You can't be a socialist and advocate closed borders. End of story.

[Per Levy]

Why would people think that things like immigration are such a bad thing?

because "they take our jobs". ergo the bourgeoisies blames unemployment and scarcity of jobs on immegrants.


Because they are reactionaries. You can't be a socialist and advocate closed borders. End of story.

if memory serves me right we have some people on here who are actually pro closed borders.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It tends to be the whole "they take our jobs" and "they mooch off society" rant. Both these points are majorly flawed though.

Immigrants do not take "our" jobs. When someone lives in a society, they consume just like anybody else. When immigrants buy products they are increasing the profit margin of the business they are buying from. Once this business makes enough profit, it will invest in capital and this capital investment will cause more hiring. Studies have shown that free-market economics and globalization have much more to do with unemployment than immigrants will ever.

The mooch off society argument is flawed as well. I will ignore the overtly racist sentiment in this argument to focus on it's other flaws. Illegal immigrants generally have fake social security cards and documentation to get the jobs they look for. They get taxes taken out of their paychecks just like every other worker, except that they can't collect the money that they pay taxes to. They can't get social security, etc. for fear of being found out and deported. Legal immigrants also usually do not collect on these things for fear of deportation as well. That means that they actually contribute MORE to society than the average citizen.

Immigrants do not drive down wages for other workers. A system that makes immigrants, whether legal or not, second class citizens does that.

[OHumanista]

It tends to be the whole "they take our jobs" and "they mooch off society" rant. Both these points are majorly flawed though.

Immigrants do not take "our" jobs. When someone lives in a society, they consume just like anybody else. When immigrants buy products they are increasing the profit margin of the business they are buying from. Once this business makes enough profit, it will invest in capital and this capital investment will cause more hiring. Studies have shown that free-market economics and globalization have much more to do with unemployment than immigrants will ever.

The mooch off society argument is flawed as well. I will ignore the overtly racist sentiment in this argument to focus on it's other flaws. Illegal immigrants generally have fake social security cards and documentation to get the jobs they look for. They get taxes taken out of their paychecks just like every other worker, except that they can't collect the money that they pay taxes to. They can't get social security, etc. for fear of being found out and deported. Legal immigrants also usually do not collect on these things for fear of deportation as well. That means that they actually contribute MORE to society than the average citizen.

Immigrants do not drive down wages for other workers. A system that makes immigrants, whether legal or not, second class citizens does that.

Exactly. The amount of people who simply can't get over their petty prejudices (which are by the way very convenient for the burgeois) despite of facts is just absurd.

Btw, I have just changed country myself :D

[l'Enfermé]

You mean, people having to leave their families and ancestral homelands behind and move to countries where the culture is totally alien to them, they don't speak the language and there's a high chance that they will be discriminated against in some way because Capitalism is deterring their country from developing economically or Capitalism has caused some conflict or famine there is a good thing?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The whole immigrant hysteria is just ridiculous. I am glad this is in opposing ideologies so we can see some stupid, racist, and ignorant responses from the reactionary community on revleft.

[Ostrinski]

Most of the OI community is made up of libertarians, social democrats, and other socialists with positions antithetical to board rules. Racists just get the banhammer, thankfully. This place would be so much more of a headache if we had to deal with their asses constantly.

[milkmiku]

Immigrants do not take "our" jobs.

The thought behind this is more along the lines of "An American could be doing that". It is a nationalistic argument, not an economic one.

As for the taxes, from my personal experiences in the Lawn maintenance business, I know first hand that a number of employers simply underpay their undocumented immigrates and avoid taxes all together. Some exploit a misunderstood labor law to work their employes over 40 hours a week and avoid paying OT. Working them full time and having them documented as "part time" to avoid giving them workers benefits. Taking advantage of immigrates ignorance of the law is common place and the fact that the regulations and so called "watch dog" organizations do so little is sickening.

There are a lot of dirty fucks in this industry.

[dodger]

Some 80% of Britons would totally disagree with the points so far raised. Control of borders is worthwhile, it is looked as a most positive thing. It is debated through out the land. I recall over 50% black youth unemployment..that is a stain. Mass immigration must be curbed. Too much competition and it is a race to the bottom. Who wants that? Very well ignore peoples views. The Adam Smith crowd can brag 80% of new jobs went to immigrants forcing wages down. The EU is the author of much misery, majority of us wont vote in their elections. Fans of EU immigration legislation are not much in evidence. The left is seen as "a friend to every bloody working class on the planet but its own" Not a good place to be.

Of course the country that loses valuable skills and labour is further weakened.

A case study of one London borough exposes the lie peddled by politicians – usually seeking to divide us – that the north is poor and the south is rich...

The affluent South East? Take a closer look – the real world is rather different HERE is how Workers addresses the issues in London.
********
WORKERS, APR 2012 ISSUE

People are often bemused by the difference between what they experience in their everyday lives and what politicians tell us is happening. The problem for politicians is that we work and live in the real world, so we’re not easily fooled. And good statistics can tell us a truth that politicians would rather ignore or hide.

The term “affluent London and the southeast” trips off the tongues of politicians and is used sloppily in the media, usually in an attempt to divide us and foster resentment. Alex Salmond is fond of the term. And it’s true that average incomes are highest in London and the South East, but this fact covers another reality.


Old housing stock, multiple occupation: affluent London?

The east London borough of Tower Hamlets has one of the highest average incomes for those in work yet is one of the poorest local authorities in the country, with 27 per cent of its children living in poverty. Consider its high level of unemployment together with the presence of Canary Wharf (with many highly paid employees living in the borough during the working week) and a picture emerges of huge discrepancies in incomes. This picture is replicated to a greater or lesser degree around London.

In Britain as a whole, the picture painted by statistics is grim. A 2011 index, which mapped health and social problems against income gaps between the highest paid and the rest in 20 developed countries, showed Britain as having the third worst record.

Problem factors

It is no surprise that countries with the biggest gaps have the worst problems. The problem factors included life expectancy, infant mortality, murder rate, imprisonment, mental illness and obesity. The US “leads” the field by a long way (interesting when we are constantly encouraged to emulate the way they do things), followed by Portugal, then Britain (Greece comes fifth). Within Britain, London is home to the richest and some of the poorest people in Western Europe, and it has the biggest income gap in the EU.

Britain’s youth and adult unemployment is among the highest in Europe. Incomes here fell 3.5 per cent in real terms in 2011, with inflation 5 per cent or higher during the year. Many lower paid professionals effectively had sizeable falls in pay, while senior managers and directors had massive rises. There is a trend towards part-time working due to high unemployment levels. For those in work, incomes are often too low to live on and are “topped up” by working tax credit – a direct subsidy from the people to poverty-wage employers. In London, 20.7 per cent of children live in households where nobody works.

A dramatic rise in the population of young children in parts of Britain is leading to an acute shortage in school places. Based on government data, it is estimated that half a million new primary places will be needed by 2015 – the equivalent of over 2000 new primary schools. The spurt in child population is particularly acute in some outer London boroughs, where old school buildings are bursting at the seams.

Housing in Waltham Forest

Of 98,180 registered domestic residential dwellings, 21,280 are social rented (council or housing association), 22 per cent of the total.

The private rented sector increased from 18 per cent in 2001 to 32 per cent in 2011. The average stay in the private rented sector is 4 years – this has a significant impact on the turnover of borough residents and communities.

The average joint household income is just under £29,000. At that income housing in the borough is unaffordable. The waiting list for social housing is long and growing, particularly as people are driven out of central London by new rules governing social rents.

Private rents are rising rapidly, making them unaffordable for many, particularly for family-sized homes.

Council rents are to rise by an average of 6.9 per cent from April 2012, with some much higher.

There are 3,910 registered houses in multiple occupancy, 5 per cent of the total. The true figure is likely to be much higher, with small Victorian terraced housing in the private sector sometimes unofficially housing a family in each room. Changes in Housing Benefit will bring greatly increased demand.

Waltham Forest now has the highest levels of homelessness in the country. Of every 1,000 inhabitants, 2.55 are homeless. A local soup kitchen reports a steep rise this year in nightly visitors, with a significant proportion being from eastern Europe. ■
London has a high proportion of the population living in overcrowded accommodation; 7.2 per cent of households compared with 2.3 per cent in the rest of England. It also has one of the lowest levels in the country of under-occupation (households having two or more bedrooms more than they need). And every space is likely to be grabbed for building. The average density of new build in London in 2009/10 was 121 dwellings per hectare, three times the next highest region in Britain and the England average.

The Greater London Authority estimates that at least 380,000 undocumented migrants live in London, about 5 per cent of the population. An additional 3-4 per cent have been awarded refugee status. In 2008 about a third of all arrivals in England intending to stay stated London as their destination – around 160,000 people. There is a high rate of people moving in and out of London boroughs – called population “churn”. In nine boroughs over 10 per cent of the resident population moved in or out in 2008. This makes the planning of services very difficult.

Consider the situation of one outer London borough, Waltham Forest in the north east of the capital. The Central and Victoria tube lines both run through the borough, so housing is at a premium and the population has traditionally been mixed, with professional, semi-skilled and unskilled workers living side by side. But conditions in the borough for workers are now deteriorating rapidly, as this case study shows.

Jobless London

The Claimants to Vacancy Ratio (Office of National Statistics) listed the ratio of registered Jobseekers to available jobs in 206 regions of Britain and northern Ireland in 2011. London contained most of the worst 40 ratios. Travelling from west to east London on the Central Line life expectancy decreases dramatically: at Notting Hill Gate in the west it is 84.3 years for men and 88.9 for women; at Leyton in Waltham Forest it is 76.5 for men and 81.2 for women.

Youth unemployment in Waltham Forest rose by 3 per cent in 2011 alone, the biggest rise in the country. 12.6 per cent of 18-24 year-olds claim Jobseekers Allowance – one of the highest rates in Britain.

National trends affecting schools in Waltham Forest include the rapid conversion of local authority schools to academies and the creation of free schools, both of whose funding is removed from the local authority education budget by government, and to reductions in local authority expenditure and in support services for schools. The axing of the Building Schools for the Future programme has affected schools badly, as it has left many schools in poor buildings at a time when medium- and long-term capital funding is seriously in doubt.

In addition to all this, there has been a significant rise in the population in the borough, leading to an increase in demand for school places. In London as a whole a rapidly rising population means an estimated shortfall of 70,000 primary school places by 2015, with a funding shortfall of £1.76 billion. In Waltham Forest each year brings crisis planning of new reception places (for 4- and 5-year olds). Now the local authority is seeking space in existing schools for a further 22 reception classes from this September. There can be no new local authority schools to cope with the crisis – the government only permits new academies and free schools now.

It is common for local primary children to have to eat their dinners in the classroom because of lack of space in school canteens and halls. PE, dancing and music are difficult to manage with the increased numbers, and school libraries and ICT suites are becoming fast-disappearing luxuries. A number of primaries are to take an additional 60 children starting from this September. In an already overcrowded borough there is no space to expand, so other buildings are being taken over as “annexes” for additional classes. In one case, Portacabins on a car park behind a bookmaker in a local shopping centre 15 minutes walk away is a solution being considered. The situation is desperate.

This case study does not deal with other aspects of life in Waltham Forest, such as health, social care and social services, the pressure on infrastructure, and so on, with their own crises. Of course, many of the problems affecting Waltham Forest so acutely are mirrored all over Britain. But let’s stop allowing politicians et al to refer unchallenged to “the affluent South East”. ■


Sources of statistics:

Focus on London 2011 Housing: a growing city. Greater London Authority
London’s poverty profile. Trust for London and New Policy Institute
The impact of recent immigration on the London economy. London School of Economics 2007

http://www.workers.org.uk/features/feat_0412/southeast.html


*******************

[chefdave]

Do Revlefters really believe that being anti immigration makes you a racist?!

Personally I'm against *mass* immigration because I don't agree with the widespread cultural displacement of British people, but I'm pro international free trade and would like to see the UK pursue flexible border controls with other 1st world nations.

[Left Leanings]

Immigration is not a problem. Capital and their self-serving system is the problem.

Immigration and emigration has been going on for centuries and centuries.

In the UK in the 1970s, there was a shortage of labour, most notably in public transport and hospitals. So successive governments, both Labour and Tory, encouraged immigration from the Asian sub-continent and the Carribean.

One of the key ministers behind this policy was none other than the Tory, Enoch Powell. And he repaid the hard-work of immigrants when the economy took a nosedive, by arguing they were a problem. His famous speech talking about rivers of blood says it all. Such is the two-faced and devious hypocrisy of capital.

It's true that today, there is a shortage of employment opportunities, decent housing, an over-burdened education and healthcare system. How capital love to blame immigrants for this. It's part of their classic divide and rule strategy, and gives fuel to the fire, for racist and scumbag groups and organizations, like the BNP and the EDL.

Pit people against one another, and take the heat off the bosses and their system.

But the aforementioned problems are NOT caused by immigration or immigrants. They are the product of a fucked-up system, that puts the needs of the rich, before the needs of ordinary people, whether they were born in Britain, or came here just yesterday.

The world's resources, technology and personnel, can be organized in such a way so as to meet the basic material needs of ALL. When we seize control from capital and neuter their power, then the just reorganization of resources can commence.

[Ostrinski]

Do Revlefters really believe that being anti immigration makes you a racist?!

Personally I'm against *mass* immigration because I don't agree with the widespread cultural displacement of British people, but I'm pro international free trade and would like to see the UK pursue flexible border controls with other 1st world nations.Your "culture" can go shove a pole up its ass

[chefdave]

Your "culture" can go shove a pole up its ass

Thanks. Are you that disrespectful to all cultures?

[Ostrinski]

yes

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Personally I'm against *mass* immigration because I don't agree with the widespread cultural displacement of British people
The "British" people are the result of multiple waves of immigration.

[Left Leanings]

The "British" people are the result of multiple waves of immigration.

Yep. And doubt, many of chefdave's ancestors were among the mutiple waves of immigrants, no matter how much he may want to cling to this notion of untainted "Britishness". But to explain this to him, is to talk to a brick wall and expect an answer :D

[chefdave]

The "British" people are the result of multiple waves of immigration.

Joker! Yes 2000 years ago a few Italians came over and showed us how to build roads and aqueducts but in the intervening period the people of Britain built up their own cultures that are quite seperate to those found on the continent. If you compare our history to most other countries you'll find we're actually one of the most homogenous nations on earth, or at least we were till New Labour took over in 97.

[Left Leanings]

Joker! Yes 2000 years ago a few Italians came over and showed us how to build roads and aqueducts but in the intervening period the people of Britain built up their own cultures that are quite seperate to those found on the continent. If you compare our history to most other countries you'll find we're actually one of the most homogenous nations on earth, or at least we were till New Labour took over in 97.

Take some good advice: get an education :D

[Deicide]

Lithuania has an extreme case of xenophobia currently..

Here's an interesting fact, I didn't see a black or asian person (in real life, obviously there were black and asian people on tv) until the first time I came to England (around 2001). I'd like to meet a black person that can speak Lithuanian :cool:

[dodger]

I thought the question had been sorted several centuries ago.....

The True Born Englishman
BY DANIEL DEFOE

Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,
That het’rogeneous thing, an Englishman:
In eager rapes, and furious lust begot,
Betwixt a painted Britain and a Scot.
Whose gend’ring off-spring quickly learn’d to bow,
And yoke their heifers to the Roman plough:
From whence a mongrel half-bred race there came,
With neither name, nor nation, speech nor fame.
In whose hot veins new mixtures quickly ran,
Infus’d betwixt a Saxon and a Dane.
While their rank daughters, to their parents just,
Receiv’d all nations with promiscuous lust.
This nauseous brood directly did contain
The well-extracted blood of Englishmen.

Which medly canton’d in a heptarchy,
A rhapsody of nations to supply,
Among themselves maintain’d eternal wars,
And still the ladies lov’d the conquerors.

The western Angles all the rest subdu’d;
A bloody nation, barbarous and rude:
Who by the tenure of the sword possest
One part of Britain, and subdu’d the rest
And as great things denominate the small,
The conqu’ring part gave title to the whole.
The Scot, Pict, Britain, Roman, Dane, submit,
And with the English-Saxon all unite:
And these the mixture have so close pursu’d,
The very name and memory’s subdu’d:
No Roman now, no Britain does remain;
Wales strove to separate, but strove in vain:
The silent nations undistinguish’d fall,
And Englishman’s the common name for all.
Fate jumbled them together, God knows how;
What e’er they were they’re true-born English now.

The wonder which remains is at our pride,
To value that which all wise men deride.
For Englishmen to boast of generation,
Cancels their knowledge, and lampoons the nation.
A true-born Englishman’s a contradiction,
In speech an irony, in fact a fiction.
A banter made to be a test of fools,
Which those that use it justly ridicules.
A metaphor invented to express
A man a-kin to all the universe.

For as the Scots, as learned men ha’ said,
Throughout the world their wand’ring seed ha’ spread;
So open-handed England, ’tis believ’d,
Has all the gleanings of the world receiv’d.

Some think of England ’twas our Saviour meant,
The Gospel should to all the world be sent:
Since, when the blessed sound did hither reach,
They to all nations might be said to preach.

’Tis well that virtue gives nobility,
How shall we else the want of birth and blood supply?
Since scarce one family is left alive,
Which does not from some foreigner derive.

[chefdave]

Yep. And doubt, many of chefdave's ancestors were among the mutiple waves of immigrants, no matter how much he may want to cling to this notion of untainted "Britishness". But to explain this to him, is to talk to a brick wall and expect an answer :D

Not really, but it's irrelevent anyway. I don't have to prove my Britishness before I'm able to legitimately argue against mass immigration, British people have a right to exist in their ancestral homeland just as Africans and Asians should be able to exist in Africa and Asia without the permanent threat of cultural 'enrichment'. What's so wrong with wanting to live in a country full of people that have roughly similar values to my own?

[Left Leanings]

Not really, but it's irrelevent anyway. I don't have to prove my Britishness before I'm able to legitimately argue against mass immigration, British people have a right to exist in their ancestral homeland just as Africans and Asians should be able to exist in Africa and Asia without the permanent threat of cultural 'enrichment'. What's so wrong with wanting to life in a country full of people that have roughly similar values to my own?

The fundamental difference between you and I is clear. You are both a reactionary and a nationalist. I am a socialist and an internationalist.

[chefdave]

The fundamental difference between you and I is clear. You are both a reactionary and a nationalist. I am a socialist and an internationalist.

Labels! When was the last time you travelled abroad?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

British people have a right to exist in their ancestral homeland
The Celts were from the mainland, the Romans were from what's now Italy, the Anglo-Saxons were from Germany, the Vikings were from Scandinavia, the Normans from Scandinavia via France, etc.

[l'Enfermé]

I'm all against the cultural displacement of the British people also(or any other people), actually. Though what it has to do with immigration, though, I don't know.

[l'Enfermé]

By the way, the Angles and the Saxons practically killed fucking everything in England, by the way. The modern English have practically nothing to do with the pre-Anglo-Saxon people that lived in England, so there's hardly a connection with the Romans(who didn't actually colonize Britain anyways). The Angles and the Saxons did assimilate some of the Celts living in England but not much, though they did bring with themselves traces of Lechit Slavs and other Western Slavs, and also Baltic and Finnic peoples. Then there's also the Normans. And the Frisians...Jutes and other Scandinavians, etc. English people aren't exactly homogenous like you said.

[Nox]

768h3Tz4Qik

[Nox]

By the way, the Angles and the Saxons practically killed fucking everything in England, by the way. The modern English have practically nothing to do with the pre-Anglo-Saxon people that lived in England, so there's hardly a connection with the Romans(who didn't actually colonize Britain anyways). The Angles and the Saxons did assimilate some of the Celts living in England but not much, though they did bring with themselves traces of Lechit Slavs and other Western Slavs, and also Baltic and Finnic peoples. Then there's also the Normans. And the Frisians...Jutes and other Scandinavians, etc. English people aren't exactly homogenous like you said.

Europe as a whole is very... can't think of a word... interlinked ethnically. They say that every single European is related to Charlemagne.

[Ostrinski]

I don't see the difference, other than aesthetic, between various western cultures.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

They say that every single European is related to Charlemagne.
Some math geeks ran the numbers, and it was like 99% of western Europeans were descended from Charlemagne. As a genealogist, I know it's just unlikely that most western Europeans can document it.

[roy]

Labels! When was the last time you travelled abroad?

What does that have to do with anything?

[Left Leanings]

The fundamental difference between you and I is clear. You are both a reactionary and a nationalist. I am a socialist and an internationalist.


Labels! When was the last time you travelled abroad?


What does that have to do with anything?

Nice one, comrade.

It hasn't got anything to do with anything. But reactionaries tend to clutch at straws, when they are on their arse :laugh:

[roy]

^ For sure, but I still want to see what s/he comes up with. :D

[#FF0000]

yeah dogg i'm from an area where there are dozens of languages spoken and where people from all over stop to live. anyone talking about 'cultural displacement' and this stuff is basically a racist, yeah.

I mean, folks who are like 'oh well i'm worried about losing my job or being economically displaced' might not be, even though i think they are wrong -- but those sorts of people always seem focused on Mexican or South American immigrants. I know there's plenty of Eastern European illegal immigrants but uh no one ever seems to bother them and I think it's easy to understand why.

[Left Leanings]

^ For sure, but I still want to see what he comes up with. :D

Oh, he will that, without a doubt. The anti-immigration, 'Britain for the British' sort of reactionary, is never short of something to say. But, as it is often said, 'an empty vessel makes the most noise' :laugh:

[kuriousoranj]

Immigration is an irrational concept, borders are nothing more than pencil marks on paper. Just look at some of the strangely shaped countries and tell me how that has anything to do with "national identity". However, capitalism exploits imbalanced nature of international workers, displacing them in mass swathes to undermine more established, or, if you must, "indigenous" workers.

The mere recognition of borders is at odds with socialism. I support the right of workers to live and work where they wish. That includes the right for them to stay, also, which is often ignored in the immigration debate.

[dodger]

I hope some at least enjoyed the poem, its point clear to all. It was adjit-prop to defend George I who spoke not a word of English and was becoming more unpopular by the day. Truth is truth even from a rogue like Defoe who like many a scribbler since has plied his trade in the service of rich and famous. In truth Defoe nailed it for all time what an Englishman was.

My local The Saracens Head, was not named in a fit of Islamophobia, CENTURIES PAST, though we used to torment its owner who had a very narrow idea what an Englishman was. Never the less he would have been enlightened to see who turned up for his funeral. His coffee coloured grandchildren sobbing showed he must have been in some awful way colourblind as well as fixated. All those who live and work here are British. Class is after all an inclusive term. White flight from our cities? There was some, most of us stayed and got on with our lives. Going to the same schools and in and out of each others houses. Intermarriage, just how homogeonized can one get than that? Then Black flight to more open surroundings. All our slang was Yid as were some of our friends, now? Salt beef bagel or Jamaican Pattie or kebab, bring it on...'if it don't kill me it will make me stronger!'

[chefdave]

What does that have to do with anything?

Well when you start crowing about your "internationalist" credentials I just wonder how international you really are. I'm not even sure what the term internationalist means, is it just an apologetic cultural relativist with a penchant for open borders?

[roy]

Well when you start crowing about your "internationalist" credentials I just wonder how international you really are. I'm not even sure what the term internationalist means, is it just an apologetic cultural relativist with a penchant for open borders?

Oh, I see. No, it means you recognise all borders as lines on maps and thusly want to see them destroyed. This is the communist position on countries.

[dodger]

768h3Tz4Qik



Well Nox, did you find a job?


I saw in an earlier thread, you were seeking same........


***************

[#FF0000]

Well Nox, did you find a job?


I saw in an earlier thread, you were seeking same........

Who is to blame for his lack of work, though? Capitalism itself, or immigrants?

[chefdave]

Oh, he will that, without a doubt. The anti-immigration, 'Britain for the British' sort of reactionary, is never short of something to say. But, as it is often said, 'an empty vessel makes the most noise' :laugh:

Well of course I'd like to live in a country free from the sectarianism that has blighted other parts of world so I'm going to oppose mass immigration as a precaution.

Why is it that the modern British feel so ashamed about the white working classes that they completely ignore them in favour of an "internationalist" approach? In the 1970's and 80's Labour opposed membership of the EC for example because they were concerned about the impact this would have on their core demographic, i.e the British working class were their priority. Now they couldn't give a stuff. The "progressive" left are so progressive and cosmopolitan that they completely forget about the plight of indigineous Brits, in fact they've become so detached from reality that they reject the term 'indigineous Brit' altogether. That is how much they detest the working class: they stoop so low as to even deny their existence.

[chefdave]

Oh, I see. No, it means you recognise all borders as lines on maps and thusly want to see them destroyed. This is the communist position on countries.

It's fair enough I suppose. At least you're consistent.

[chefdave]

The Celts were from the mainland, the Romans were from what's now Italy, the Anglo-Saxons were from Germany, the Vikings were from Scandinavia, the Normans from Scandinavia via France, etc.

So? If you researched any country's history you'd discover that the modern day incarnation is the result of migratory flows that have taken place over thousand over years. I wouldn't use this as an excuse to go and colonise Botswana though, purely because it's bad manners as much as anything else. If there is a case for state multi-culturalism and mass immigration it won't be found by digging up fossils and other irrelevent appeals to history.

[#FF0000]

I wouldn't use this as an excuse to go and colonise Botswana though, purely because it's bad manners as much as anything else

hey i just want to point out that moving to a place isn't the same as 'colonizing it'.


If there is a case for state multi-culturalism and mass immigration it won't be found by digging up fossils and other irrelevent appeals to history

Mmm I dunno guy, history does a pretty good job of showing how concept of 'indigenous Brits' is pretty ridiculous.


The "progressive" left are so progressive and cosmopolitan that they completely forget about the plight of indigineous Brits, in fact they've become so detached from reality that they reject the term 'indigineous Brit'. That is how much they detest the working class.actually i'd guess it's more because they recognize that class lines pay borders no mind, and that the problem isn't other workers who collect benefits or who are immigrants, but all bosses, everywhere.

[chefdave]

By the way, the Angles and the Saxons practically killed fucking everything in England, by the way. The modern English have practically nothing to do with the pre-Anglo-Saxon people that lived in England, so there's hardly a connection with the Romans(who didn't actually colonize Britain anyways). The Angles and the Saxons did assimilate some of the Celts living in England but not much, though they did bring with themselves traces of Lechit Slavs and other Western Slavs, and also Baltic and Finnic peoples. Then there's also the Normans. And the Frisians...Jutes and other Scandinavians, etc. English people aren't exactly homogenous like you said.


But virtually no-one (other than internet lefties of course) worries about identity politics to this degree. Any historical connection to the continent has been severed and England has matured as a homogenous nation state with it's own unique language, parliament and legal system.

Are you saying that you wouldn't consider an Englishman to be English if he could "only" trace his roots back 1600 years? If that's the case would you also be prepared to tell a Pakistani family that they're not British because they've only been here a generation or two?

[#FF0000]

British people have a right to exist in their ancestral homeland just as Africans and Asians should be able to exist in Africa and Asia without the permanent threat of cultural 'enrichment'.

No, no one has the right to tell other people where they can or cannot live just because they come from a different place with different customs and food. I don't know why you think anyone has this right, but alas, they do not.

I also think it's funny that a 'right-libertarian' is looking at this from such a... collectivist perspective.


What's so wrong with wanting to live in a country full of people that have roughly similar values to my own?

It just betrays a small mind, is all. Plus, living in a country with other natural-born countrymen doesn't mean you're living with people with similar values anyway, so that's a pretty silly angle to shoot from. Not to mention the fact that you don't have the right to tell other people they can't live somewhere because you don't like their values.

I sincerely hope you're not one of those people who complains about political correctness obstructing free speech because if you are, then it's starting to look like your worldview is a trainwreck of contradictions and gaps in reason.

And on top of that, coming from an area chock full o' immigrants from literally every habitable continent, I'm not convinced that people's 'values' vary so much that it should cause any trouble so long as everyone minds their own fucking business, generally speaking.

[chefdave]

hey i just want to point out that moving to a place isn't the same as 'colonizing it'.

Well if you had one British family living a Nigerian life in Nigeria then no that wouldn't be considered colonisation. If the Nigerian government pursued a deliberate open border policy though and encouraged millions of white Europeans to come and "integrate" without the explicit consent of the electorate I'd consider that to be a deliberate attack on the indigineous people. The same goes with the UK and third world immigration, we don't have to put up with open borders to appease the multi-culturalists.



Mmm I dunno guy, history does a pretty good job of showing how concept of 'indigenous Brits' is pretty ridiculous. No more ridiculous than a indiginous Kenyan or an indiginous Indian. You may reject the term 'indiginous' altogether in which case fair enough, I just hope you're singling out an ethnic group: the British, for special treatment and a denial of basic human rights because 2000 years ago the Romans invaded.



actually i'd guess it's more because they recognize that class lines pay borders no mind, and that the problem isn't other workers who collect benefits or who are immigrants, but all bosses, everywhere.Well they weren't saying that in the 70's and early 80's when we had a proper Labour party who weren't afraid of championing the rights of white working class males.

[#FF0000]

Well if you had one British family living a Nigerian life in Nigeria then no that wouldn't be considered colonisation

I don't think you can classify things like that to be honest (what exactly constitutes a "British life" or a "Nigerian life"?) but even if you could, you'd still be wrong because colonization is something carried out consciously by a foreign power that aims specifically to wipe out a foreign culture. It's a concerted effort.

Calling immigration into England 'colonization' is a silly thing to do then for two reason: 1) you're talking about families deciding themselves to move -- not colonists being sent out to claim lands and 2) I have seen the numbers and it is ludicrous to believe that what you consider "english culture" will be coming to an end because of immigration with the numbers as they are.

What are you going to get instead? A bunch of people who are new to the neighborhood, might be a little hard to understand, with kids who are going to grow up with yours and end up all but totally integrated. Because that is how these things go. People who are burning ulcers over this are a little delusional.


If the Nigerian government pursued a deliberate open border policy though and encouraged millions of white Europeans to come and "integrate"

Colonists don't really, uh, 'integrate' to be hoenst with you. Plus I don't think the idea of having open borders is to eradicate the dominant culture lol.


without the explicit consent of the electorate I'd consider that to be a deliberate attack on the indigineous people.

Well you can consider that, but uh, I don't think the 'electorate' has any right to say who can move into a vacant house in the neighborhood and who can't. Being born in a country doesn't mean you can tell people who can live there and who can't.


No more ridiculous than a indiginous Kenyan or an indiginous Indian

Mmmm nah I think those are pretty ridiculous too thanks to all of the different ethnic groups that exist in East Africa and Southeast India and thus make up the 'indigenous Kenyan' and 'indigenous Indian'. These are not homogenous groups (and even if they were, it really wouldn't matter).


i just hope you're singling out an ethnic group: the British, for special treatment and a denial of basic human rights because 2000 years ago the Romans invaded.



It's also because of all of the different ethnicities and groups that exist within England -- the black british, the british with origins in southeast asia, the middle east, etc.


Well they weren't saying that in the 70's and early 80's when we had a proper Labour party who weren't afaid of championing the rights of white working class males.

I thought being white had nothing to do with "Britishness"?

Also I'm a white working class male and I have to be honest I do not think that white males particularly need any champions.

[chefdave]

No, no one has the right to tell other people where they can or cannot live just because they come from a different place with different customs and food. I don't know why you think anyone has this right, but alas, they do not.

I also think it's funny that a 'right-libertarian' is looking at this from such a... collectivist perspective.

But I can't imagine you using this 'logic' to justify the British Empire though, no doubt as an utterly predictable left-winger you view the Empire as an evil imperialist abomination that destroyed the very fabric of indiginous cultures wherever it went. But if we were going to take your statement at face value the Empire would have been justified because the various native peoples around the world had no right to tell us where to live. Hell, we'd still be in control of a third of the world if we were following socialist principles instead of enlightened liberalism.




It just betrays a small mind, is all. Plus, living in a country with other natural-born countrymen doesn't mean you're living with people with similar values anyway, so that's a pretty silly angle to shoot from. Not to mention the fact that you don't have the right to tell other people they can't live somewhere because you don't like their values.

I sincerely hope you're not one of those people who complains about political correctness obstructing free speech because if you are, then it's starting to look like your worldview is a trainwreck of contradictions and gaps in reason.

And on top of that, coming from an area chock full o' immigrants from literally every habitable continent, I'm not convinced that people's 'values' vary so much that it should cause any trouble so long as everyone minds their own fucking business, generally speaking.Multi-culturalism is now being widely recognised as a failure by the British PM, the French President and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel amongst many others, but they're just saying what many of us have known for years. We've tried it, it hasn't worked, so lets just admit the mistake and learn from it.

[dodger]

An opener on Amazon UK blog:
"as someone who has left wing leanings. i feel to be accepted by political parties like, the socialist workers party, i have to swallow my growing concern at the massive influx of migrant workers into the country. i have worked in a dept where out of 140 staff, 5 were british. the rest mostly east european. the left are protesting about capitalism and its evils but strangly silent on this issue of big business encourging migrant workers into the country to take low paying jobs instead of paying people a decent wage to do these jobs, thus reducing costs and raising profits to re invest. the unions are silent and i feel that it all boils down to not wanting to be branded a racist, but i do feel the workers of this country are being forgotten about. views on this please."

A few posts along:
Mass immigration assets-strips the countries of origin, lowers wages and increases house prices and rents here, especially for poorer workers. Three-quarters of us believe that immigration has put too much pressure on health, education and transport.

Since 2004, the number of people from eastern Europe working here in Britain increased by 600,000. Over the same period, the number of unemployed young people here increased from 575,000 to more than a million. Last year, employment of British-born workers fell by more than 200,000 and employment of non-British-born workers rose by more than 200,000, to more than 4.1 million.

East European workers are more willing to work for lower wages: 89 per cent of them earned less than £400 a week, compared to 57 per cent of British-born workers. Many of the locals who compete to get low-skilled jobs are black or Asian, while the new immigrants are white.

Controlling immigration is not racist. The EU, the employers and the `left' all back the free movement of labour. The `left' claims that workers can't distinguish between immigration controls and racism, but the `left' defines immigration controls as racist, so they are the ones who cannot distinguish between immigration controls and racism.

Where are British workers supposed to work, if not in Britain? Who is supposed to do the jobs in Britain, if not British workers? No to the free movement of labour.
This is the Communist Party of Britain Marxist-Leninist position.

Yet another:
"The short answer is that the modern British left betrayed the ordinary working man when it actively connived at the importation of vast quantities of what is effectively scab labour from overseas. Back in the 1920s the bosses shipped scabs in from overseas to break strikes, in the 1960s and 70s it was the unions who waved them in - and an excess of labour is always to the employer's advantage and always drives wages down. No surprise that we've not been anywhere near full employment for decades. How can there be jobs for all when you have no fixed limit on the number of people to be employed?
But as long as people are worried about being labelled "racist" then there's nothing they can do - because "racist" is the default label for anyone that opposes mass immigration (whatever race the immingrants happen to be).
No idea why the left sold us all out so badly ... some people say it was the Frankfurt school, others say bourgeois infiltration of the labour movement. Both seem a bit paranoid but how the hell else would you explain it?"

A debate then, an EDL one had 5 responses. Seems a singular lack of interest in them or perceived importance. Drip-drip-drip- anyone notice the tap needs fixing? Or are we to ignore it.

[dodger]

Who is to blame for his lack of work, though? Capitalism itself, or immigrants?

Did not get the outcome of Nox's jobquest. We all wished him well.

Capitalism with its deliberate policy of social dumping immigrants are sure to have been a factor in any difficulties a young man in London might face. That for a long time has been the popular conclusion.

[Left Leanings]

Well of course I'd like to live in a country free from the sectarianism that has blighted other parts of world so I'm going to oppose mass immigration as a precaution.

Why is it that the modern British feel so ashamed about the white working classes that they completely ignore them in favour of an "internationalist" approach? In the 1970's and 80's Labour opposed membership of the EC for example because they were concerned about the impact this would have on their core demographic, i.e the British working class were their priority. Now they couldn't give a stuff. The "progressive" left are so progressive and cosmopolitan that they completely forget about the plight of indigineous Brits, in fact they've become so detached from reality that they reject the term 'indigineous Brit' altogether. That is how much they detest the working class: they stoop so low as to even deny their existence.

I gave up on the Labour Party a long, long time ago. It has at times both encouraged immigration, then discouraged it, just as the Tory Party also.

The Labour Party, however it chooses to dress itself up, and no matter how many working-class people misguidedly see it, is not the party of the working-class.

Labour handles immigration to meet the needs of capital, not workers.

Leftists do not ignore any section of the working-class. But we are firm internationalists, and do not blame immigration for a lack of jobs, housing and so on, but, moreover, capital and their fucked-up system.

[dodger]

I gave up on the Labour Party a long, long time ago. It has at times both encouraged immigration, then discouraged it, just as the Tory Party also.

The Labour Party, however it chooses to dress itself up, and no matter how many working-class people misguidedly see it, is not the party of the working-class.

Labour handles immigration to meet the needs of capital, not workers.

Leftists do not ignore any section of the working-class. But we are firm internationalists, and do not blame immigration for a lack of jobs, housing and so on, but, moreover, capital and their fucked-up system.

I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer Left Leanings but when years past workers of all shades of opinion and pigment spoke of the dangers of EU legislation, who was listening? Mass immigration, social dumping benefits the capitalists. They engineer it, and legislate..Let us at least be clear.

Your clarity on Labour is welcome. Endorsed by many, me included.....compounded by LORD MANDELSON:

"Mandelson IIRC has told the indigenous British unemployed to seek work elsewhere in the world, after all, he got a wonderful well paid job in Brussels despite the little scandals surrounding his departure from London." Not my words, but, my sentiments echoed....

[Left Leanings]

I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer Left Leanings but when years past workers of all shades of opinion and pigment spoke of the dangers of EU legislation, who was listening? Mass immigration, social dumping benefits the capitalists. They engineer it, and legislate..Let us at least be clear.

Your clarity on Labour is welcome. Endorsed by many, me included.....compounded by LORD MANDELSON:

"Mandelson IIRC has told the indigenous British unemployed to seek work elsewhere in the world, after all, he got a wonderful well paid job in Brussels despite the little scandals surrounding his departure from London." Not my words, but, my sentiments echoed....

Dodger, we both know what the issues are around immigration, and how it is used by capital, and the impact it has on workers of all kinds, under the bosses system.

But what are you saying? Are you taking an anti-immigration stance?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Well they weren't saying that in the 70's and early 80's when we had a proper Labour party who weren't afraid of championing the rights of white working class males.
What about the rights of women and non-whites? Do you have a problem with them?

[roy]

But I can't imagine you using this 'logic' to justify the British Empire though, no doubt as an utterly predictable left-winger you view the Empire as an evil imperialist abomination that destroyed the very fabric of indiginous cultures wherever it went. But if we were going to take your statement at face value the Empire would have been justified because the various native peoples around the world had no right to tell us where to live. Hell, we'd still be in control of a third of the world if we were following socialist principles instead of enlightened liberalism.

Come on, now. That's totally different. The British Empire didn't just rock up in the neighbourhood minding their own business: they killed, raped, pillaged and plundered. They never had any intention of living harmoniously with the people they subjugated and exploited. I'm 100% sure you actually realise this is a whacky comparison, too.


Multi-culturalism is now being widely recognised as a failure by the British PM, the French President and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel amongst many others, but they're just saying what many of us have known for years. We've tried it, it hasn't worked, so lets just admit the mistake and learn from it.

Well, it's pretty multicultural where I live and we're doing just fine. The only obstacle to multiculturalism is racism, seriously. If you don't think it will work and you abhor it, there's your self-fulfilling prophecy. I mean, are you seriously trying to argue against the idea of people with different cultural backgrounds living in the same area? That's totally ludicrous.

[Left Leanings]

Multi-culturalism is now being widely recognised as a failure by the British PM, the French President and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel amongst many others, but they're just saying what many of us have known for years. We've tried it, it hasn't worked, so lets just admit the mistake and learn from it.

No. Multiculturalism is not widely regarded as a failure. Quite the reverse, actually. Like 'username' indicated in his post, I also live in a very multi-cultural town. There has been immigration here on a significant scale for decades. My mother recalls immigrant families living on her street when she was young, and she was born in the mid 1940s. Peeps got along just fine, and we still do now.

For example, every year we have a festival (mela), staged by the Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities. It is well attended by peeps of all cultures and backgrounds, and the atmoshpere is vibrant, buzzing and enjoyable. I went to it last year, and had a fucking great time. Not one hint of disharmony or discord.

And I think you will find that those politicians you cite, the great and the good such as Cameron et al, are in fact, up to their old, old trick of divide and rule. Immigrants are useful when it suits them; and they can be shit on when it doesn't.

Kind of takes the heat off bosses and their demic of an economic system,

[chefdave]

I gave up on the Labour Party a long, long time ago. It has at times both encouraged immigration, then discouraged it, just as the Tory Party also.

The Labour Party, however it chooses to dress itself up, and no matter how many working-class people misguidedly see it, is not the party of the working-class.

Labour handles immigration to meet the needs of capital, not workers.

Leftists do not ignore any section of the working-class. But we are firm internationalists, and do not blame immigration for a lack of jobs, housing and so on, but, moreover, capital and their fucked-up system.

The economy is a seperate issue, but I think it needs pointing out that within our current 'capitalist' (land monopolist) setup mass immigration works in favour of big business because it can be used as leverage against the traditional working class. Employers aren't going to hire Brits with expensive living costs when they can employ cheap Eastern European labour for a fraction of the price, so wages fall and this squeezes workers out of employment altogether. Even with the ludicrous numbers of young people enrolling in further education youth unemployment is still through the roof, but instead of dealing with the structural problems that prevent gainful employment we just bribe people with benefits and hope the problems go away.

The term 'international socialist' is an oxymoron, imo you can either focus on improving the lot of the indiginous working class or sideline their concerns and instead focus on the needs of immigrants. Trying to attempt both is a juggling act I've seen nobody manage.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think chefdave is less right-libertarian and more BNP.

[dodger]

Dodger, we both know what the issues are around immigration, and how it is used by capital, and the impact it has on workers of all kinds, under the bosses system.

But what are you saying? Are you taking an anti-immigration stance?

Left Leanings, apologies, thought to put a clear cut point of view across. Am attempting at present to fill in Wifey's Visa, and I don't mean credit card. Grown men should not sob...£700 was the final straw. Borders immigration all up for discussion. Legals illegals political asylum a rational approach will always yield best dividends.Multiculturalism, We need to talk about what is good for us. I cannot keep repeating, what we are all thinking, now many are saying the EU dream has become a nightmare for many. What can we say to those youth without jobs. Platitudes about Internationalism will lead to it being despised. The effect on those countries where skill shortages are endemic.Not just Philippines. Hungary Slovakia....where are all the doctors? The subject is far too important to be left to bigots, EDL, do gooders, BNP or those who see a race angle every time we sip a cup of tea. We need to pursue our interests point the finger, get our people back to work.

[roy]

The economy is a seperate issue, but I think it needs pointing out that within our current 'capitalist' (land monopolist) setup mass immigration works in favour of big business because it can be used as leverage against the traditional working class. Employers aren't going to hire Brits with expensive living costs when they can employ cheap Eastern European labour for a fraction of the price, so wages fall and this squeezes workers out of employment altogether. Even with the ludicrous numbers of young people enrolling in further education youth unemployment is still through the roof, but instead of dealing with the structural problems that prevent gainful employment we just bribe people with benefits and hope the problems go away.

The term 'international socialist' is an oxymoron, imo you can either focus on improving the lot of the indiginous working class or sideline their concerns and instead focus on the needs of immigrants. Trying to attempt both is a juggling act I've seen nobody manage.

Internationalist socialists are the only socialists (please don't bring up the Nazi Party). It's not up to one person or a group of people to bring about change for the working class, obviously. It's the job of the working class itself, obviously. We aim for nothing less than the liberation of the global proletariat. We'd be hypocrites if we didn't.

[chefdave]

What about the rights of women and non-whites? Do you have a problem with them?

Ah I see, so it's both racist and sexist to consider the needs of white males within a predominantly white western society?

Females and non-whites have enough lobby groubs that are out there 'raising awareness' for the unique problems they suffer, what I asking is why have the leftist Labour movement because squeamish about representing what used to be their core demographic: white working class men.

[roy]

Ah I see, so it's both racist and sexist to consider the needs of white males within a predominantly white western society?

Females and non-whites have enough lobby groubs that are out there 'raising awareness' for the unique problems they suffer, what I asking is why have the leftist Labour movement because squeamish about representing what used to be their core demographic: white working class men.

White men aren't oppressed. White working class men are oppressed, but not because they're white and male. We don't care what colour or gender you are as long as you're a worker.

[Left Leanings]

The economy is a seperate issue, but I think it needs pointing out that within our current 'capitalist' (land monopolist) setup mass immigration works in favour of big business because it can be used as leverage against the traditional working class. Employers aren't going to hire Brits with expensive living costs when they can employ cheap Eastern European labour for a fraction of the price, so wages fall and this squeezes workers out of employment altogether. Even with the ludicrous numbers of young people enrolling in further education youth unemployment is still through the roof, but instead of dealing with the structural problems that prevent gainful employment we just bribe people with benefits and hope the problems go away.

The term 'international socialist' is an oxymoron, imo you can either focus on improving the lot of the indiginous working class or sideline their concerns and instead focus on the needs of immigrants. Trying to attempt both is a juggling act I've seen nobody manage.

I have already said I understand the how the bosses use immigrant labour, and how this impacts on the working-class, whether they were born here or came here recently.

But we are just going round in circles here. You have one way of looking at problems, and your own favoured way of attempting to solve them. I have another.

As for the juggling act you've seen nobody manage...well of cos you bloody haven't...under capitalism. And you're not going to either. Which is why I stand for the abolition of capital and their system of economics.

[chefdave]

I think chefdave is less right-libertarian and more BNP.

Not really. The BNP are a socialist party more in tune ideologically with the revolutionary politics of South America. Although they've traditionally be labelled a party of the far-right, i.e within the Conservative/libertarian spectrum it's becoming increasingly common to hear people talk of them as a far leftist party, and when you consider their economic policies and the sort of voters they attract (i.e disenfranchised Old Labour supporters) it becomes obvious they're a million miles away from right-wing libertarianism.

Nice try though. I reject socialism in all it's forms, including the BNP.

[Left Leanings]

I think chefdave is less right-libertarian and more BNP.

Comrade, I suspect that you may well be right. And to argue with him is to try and plat saw dust together.

[chefdave]

Comrade, I suspect that you may well be right. And to argue with him is to try and plat saw dust together.

Nope, see above. On the issue of immigration the left have moved so far to the left that occuping the middle ground has become synonymous (in some people's minds) with the far-right. It's ridiculous. Opposing mass immigration is actually quite a mainstream acceptable opinion and one people are no longer afraid to voice through fear of being labelled 'wacist' or 'BNP', unfortuantely the left once again have lost the argument because the facts got in the way of a plan that looked fantastic on paper.

[chefdave]

White men aren't oppressed. White working class men are oppressed, but not because they're white and male. We don't care what colour or gender you are as long as you're a worker.

What a load of nonsense. Anyone can be oppressed, you don't have to belong to a certain group, i.e female, black, Muslim etc to automatically qualify for victimhood status. Nobody is oppressed because of who they are they're oppression is the result of the circumstances they're in. There's a huge difference.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The BNP are a socialist party
Now you're just trolling. :lol:

[Left Leanings]

Now you're just trolling. :lol:

Which is his actual intention :D

[chefdave]

Internationalist socialists are the only socialists (please don't bring up the Nazi Party). It's not up to one person or a group of people to bring about change for the working class, obviously. It's the job of the working class itself, obviously. We aim for nothing less than the liberation of the global proletariat. We'd be hypocrites if we didn't.

Right, but why do we have to liberate the global proletariat by attempting to entice as many 'international comrades' as possible into the UK? You could be an international socialist without necessarily advocating mass immigration, these two things aren't mutually inclusive. Funding working class movements in other countries for example would count as an expression of international socialism, why not do that?

[dodger]

Come on, now. That's totally different. The British Empire didn't just rock up in the neighbourhood minding their own business: they killed, raped, pillaged and plundered. They never had any intention of living harmoniously with the people they subjugated and exploited. I'm 100% sure you actually realise this is a whacky comparison, too.



Well, it's pretty multicultural where I live and we're doing just fine. The only obstacle to multiculturalism is racism, seriously. If you don't think it will work and you abhor it, there's your self-fulfilling prophecy. I mean, are you seriously trying to argue against the idea of people with different cultural backgrounds living in the same area? That's totally ludicrous.

Here in this part of the world they still carry a big stick. Gold, a frenzy as virulent as any Black hills legend or 49'er's. Chrome enough for a dozen Krups. Copper...hardwood forests. Even on an Archepeligo the lines or borders that some would like to join capital in dismantling are being defended with every sinew. Along with the armed goons army and police,Us Imperialism...Australians sniffing the air. Opposition, WATCHED IT GROW, TAKE ROOT. 30,000 GRADUATE WITH MEDICAL QUALIFICATIONS. STILL MY NEIGHBOURS DAUGHTER SENT AWAY FROM CASUALTY WITH ADVANCED RABIES. Merely a day and a half to the toxins reaching her brain, well she was tiny even for an 8yr old. A nurse? Not even an aspirin? I did see in my local paper 65 of them beaming with delight just having disembarked from a coach. Jet lagged but happy.

Everybody seems to have a homemade version on what multicultualism actually is. I thought it meant opposition to the melting pot. Can anyone enlighten me? As one who daily passed a church that served Huggenots then Synagogue, followed by Greek orthodox, and was now a Mosque, I HAVE TO ASK WHAT'S NEW??

[chefdave]

Now you're just trolling. :lol:


Which is his actual intention :D

Nah, you're just losing the argument and reverting to type by stooping to childish name calling. I didn't think it would take long before somebody would point the accusatory finger and cry 'wasict!' at someone who opposes mass immigration. Thankfully this underhand tactic doesn't wash the general public anymore.

[Per Levy]

Now you're just trolling. :lol:

not really, that is pretty much the belive of the "new right" in an atempt to differanciate themselves from nazis and so on. for these "new rightists" nazis are socialists(just national ones) and only conservative/libertarians are truly rightists. of course they're xenophobic as hell, just nowadays they dont hat on jews so much as on muslims and "different cultures" then theirs. so chefdave falls in that category.

[Per Levy]

Nah, you're just losing the argument and reverting to type by stooping to childish name calling.

your arguments are totally bogus and have been dealt with quite often, now its just easier and funnier to make fun of you.

[Per Levy]

Right, but why do we have to liberate the global proletariat by attempting to entice as many 'international comrades' as possible into the UK? You could be an international socialist without necessarily advocating mass immigration, these two things aren't mutually inclusive.

this is one planet and one human race, everyone shall live where they please. problem is just that many people dont move somewhere else because it pleases them because the system(capitalism) forces them to move or either die or suffer massive poverty.


Funding working class movements in other countries for example would count as an expression of international socialism, why not do that?

you have absoloutly no idea of internationalism and still spout and tell people what it supposed to mean.

[chefdave]

this is one planet and one human race, everyone shall live where they please. problem is just that many people dont move somewhere else because it pleases them because the system(capitalism) forces them to move or either die or suffer massive poverty.

Nope. This is one country and we have the legal right to patrol the borders and keep out anyone who isn't supposed to be here. Many people in the third world live in unimaginable poverty and this is very sad, but we won't solve structural problems such as these by giving everyone a free pass to come and live in the UK. British people have the right to a safe and secure homeland, if the government acting as our employee refuses to provide that we're perfectly entitled to kick them out and replace them with someone prepared to put the interests of the British people ahead of the interests of foreign immigrants.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I think chefdave is less right-libertarian and more BNP.

But mostly an idiot.

[Conscript]

He talks about british people but he really means british capital :laugh:

[dodger]

Whilst the working class is sent hither and thither, workers competing with one another in a race to the bottom, who benefits Who? In fact where is the benefits felt? The idea that there is one race, the human race is profound. Then why the obsession with racism? Could it be that somebody with a certain skin pigment carries te burden of permanent victim. Not given to himself but bestowed by "well intentioned" do gooders. Others? Not many would welcome that label. Surely the key to emancipation is a building up of their own countries.Control of borders. If "THEY" don't want it , surely a small hint the idea at least needs further examination. How do countries prosper? Do we know? If we are silent ,surely others will take up the reins or cudgels.

[#FF0000]

But I can't imagine you using this 'logic' to justify the British Empire though, no doubt as an utterly predictable left-winger you view the Empire as an evil imperialist abomination that destroyed the very fabric of indiginous cultures wherever it went. But if we were going to take your statement at face value the Empire would have been justified because the various native peoples around the world had no right to tell us where to live.

Except the British Empire wasn't just a bunch of white people moving into a new neighborhood. Nor do empires necessarily 'destroy the fabric of indigenous culture'. Looking at history, I'd say a common thread is that empires would often try to leave the indigenous culture intact and use it. The Spanish sort of did this, and the English absolutely did this in India, where they'd use local ethnic stereotypes and play groups off of one another, among other things.

But yes, imperialism isn't just people moving to a new place -- it's one country maintaining dominance over another country in the interest of extracting resources, labor, and opening and exploiting new markets. That is imperialism, and that is what we're against. Not white people living in Africa or Asia.


Multi-culturalism is now being widely recognised as a failure by the British PM, the French President and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel amongst many others, but they're just saying what many of us have known for years. We've tried it, it hasn't worked, so lets just admit the mistake and learn from it.

Again as a dude who lives in an extremely multi-cultural community, one has to be a dummy to think "it doesn't work". People seem to get on just fine here. Plus It's not something that can 'work' or can't -- multi-culturalism is a fact of life and has been since humans had legs that could take them wherever they wished.

[#FF0000]

Whilst the working class is sent hither and thither, workers competing with one another in a race to the bottom, who benefits Who? In fact where is the benefits felt?

The rich benefit obviously -- but workers in general suffer because their right to live where they want is obstructed. I'm an American, but I'd absolutely be living in Europe if their immigration laws weren't so draconian. As such I'm pretty much stuck wallowing in the States.


The idea that there is one race, the human race is profound. Then why the obsession with racism? Could it be that somebody with a certain skin pigment carries te burden of permanent victim. Not given to himself but bestowed by "well intentioned" do gooders.Nope. People still denigrate others for their race even though it's a dumb and artificial category. Here in America, specifically in New York City, the NYPD have a policy of stop-and-frisk, where they can basically pat down whoever they deem suspicious. It goes without saying that most people who are subjected to this are totally innocent. They are also overwhelmingly black or hispanic (80% or so of all stops). They are also usually young men, teenagers. The schools here are also set up in such a way that they are segregated more consistently than they were 50 years ago when segregation was official policy.

And sure, this is America, not England. But I think it's more than likely that things are much the same -- that young black kids are harassed by cops more often, and have fewer opportunities than other white children.

Pointing out racism that already exists doesn't make one a racist or doesn't make one responsible for that racism. Ignoring racism doesn't make it go away, either.

[#FF0000]

Did not get the outcome of Nox's jobquest. We all wished him well.

Capitalism with its deliberate policy of social dumping immigrants are sure to have been a factor in any difficulties a young man in London might face. That for a long time has been the popular conclusion.

Except the idea that immigrants take jobs and make it harder for native born people to find jobs is unfounded and only makes sense if you do literally nothing in regards to knowing the actual facts. most studies show literally no impact from immigrants because it is offset by their demands for goods and services which leads to more jobs. Plus immigrants very often start up shops and businesses themselves -- this goes for unskilled/uneducated immigrants as well as the very skilled and educated ones.

So, there's that too

[dodger]

Except the idea that immigrants take jobs and make it harder for native born people to find jobs is unfounded and only makes sense if you do literally nothing in regards to knowing the actual facts. most studies show literally no impact from immigrants because it is offset by their demands for goods and services which leads to more jobs. Plus immigrants very often start up shops and businesses themselves -- this goes for unskilled/uneducated immigrants as well as the very skilled and educated ones.

So, there's that too

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farti cle-2031973%2FUK-immigration-9-10-jobs-created-year-went-foreign-nationals.html&ei=rhyLT8PvC6n9iQLt6Z2nCw&usg=AFQjCNHheeUDmDRS69Ubn7OaCNWvyIRu6A

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fukne ws%2Fimmigration%2F8609827%2FUK-jobs-Migrants-take-the-jobs-from-young-Britons.html&ei=rhyLT8PvC6n9iQLt6Z2nCw&usg=AFQjCNFr3eWD7Ipv74W119aGzwIg3-GRBA

Not happy reading ....

[#FF0000]

surely the telegraph and daily mail trump peer-reviewed studies into the effects of immigration

[Offbeat]

Not really. The BNP are a socialist party more in tune ideologically with the revolutionary politics of South America. Although they've traditionally be labelled a party of the far-right, i.e within the Conservative/libertarian spectrum it's becoming increasingly common to hear people talk of them as a far leftist party, and when you consider their economic policies and the sort of voters they attract (i.e disenfranchised Old Labour supporters) it becomes obvious they're a million miles away from right-wing libertarianism.

Nice try though. I reject socialism in all it's forms, including the BNP.
I've seen this troll come out with a lot of rubbish, but this is bullshit of the very highest order.

[dodger]

surely the telegraph and daily mail trump peer-reviewed studies into the effects of immigration

We have 400 paid EU academics here in UK spewing as much as mail and telelaugh. If you are young unemployed and the job is offered to an immigrant, that should at least give pause for thought. Building worker undercut....warehouse jobs only E Europeans. Agency staff tell us "only E Europeans. The info is getting through and is being internalized. There is no peer grouped study that can convince any youth that an immigrant taking a job helps his situation. Anyhow people can make what they will of government statistics nobody believes the EU propaganda or welcomes diktats from unelected officials.

[Left Leanings]

I've seen this troll come out with a lot of rubbish, but this is bullshit of the very highest order.

I couldn't agree more. In the early part of the thread, he was talking about the rights of the indigineous British, and maintaining that multiculturalism has failed. His language and rhetoric is highly reminiscent of groups like the BNP and the EDL. Yet he claims not to support them.

Basically, he's a waste of fucking space.

[dodger]

Immigration is an irrational concept, borders are nothing more than pencil marks on paper. Just look at some of the strangely shaped countries and tell me how that has anything to do with "national identity". However, capitalism exploits imbalanced nature of international workers, displacing them in mass swathes to undermine more established, or, if you must, "indigenous" workers.

The mere recognition of borders is at odds with socialism. I support the right of workers to live and work where they wish. That includes the right for them to stay, also, which is often ignored in the immigration debate.

yes kuriousoranj well said "That includes the right for them to stay, also, which is often ignored in the immigration debate"