Immigration for liberals and socialists?

[millard]

OK I confess, I am a Liberal. But I do share a lot of ideals with socialists. But I am fairly alone in my tendency to oppose immigration. The problem is it's been shown to be is that unrestricted immigration breeds racism and xenophobia amongst the population, and when the UK cannot sufficiently promote social integration with this big melting pot of cultures. The failure to assimilate all the economic migrants makes people angry and flock to back to the countries core values. It really gets in the way of social progress. How do leftists feel about this issue?

[helot]

The bourgeoisie use foreign workers to help drive down wages and working conditions. The two main ways are through transferring their capital to other countries or by bringing cheaper labour to where their capital is. The former is really difficult to counter however the latter, which can easily breed xenophobia bolstered by the bourgeoisie through the media etc, can be countered through organising with migrant workers to make sure their working conditions are equivelant to non-migrants.

The xenophobia fostered by the bourgeoisie serves a vital purpose, it helps split the working class making it less likely that people will organise together and try to get better conditions. Your solution, heavy restriction on migration, won't solve the problem at all as they can only be solved through struggle and the first step of that struggle which would help unify workers is making sure migrants don't have worse conditions than non-migrants.

[Paul Cockshott]

marx's answer to this was to demand punitive laws against employers who paid immigrants less than the going wage for native workers.

[Comrade #138672]

The fear of the unknown and economic insecurity is transformed into xenophobia by the bourgeoisie. I believe that getting rid of the bourgeoisie will be the best cure for xenophobia.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem is it's been shown to be is that unrestricted immigration breeds racism and xenophobia amongst the population, and when the UK cannot sufficiently promote social integration with this big melting pot of cultures. The failure to assimilate all the economic migrants makes people angry and flock to back to the countries core values. It really gets in the way of social progress. How do leftists feel about this issue?

Immigration into the UK is not and has never been "unrestricted" (unless you go back to the times before any kind of centralised border control existed on these islands). That is an outright lie being promulgated by scummy tabloid rags like The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express.

Further, the failures of assimilation and integration don't "just happen", but are the consequence of deliberate ruling class policies as others here have pointed out. Bourgeois "multiculturalism" serves to effectively ghettoise immigrant cultures in the name of "diversity", rather than create a common cosmopolitan culture that exists alongside the already-present native and immigrant ones.

[dodger]

Further, the failures of assimilation and integration don't "just happen", but are the consequence of deliberate ruling class policies as others here have pointed out. Bourgeois "multiculturalism" serves to effectively ghettoise immigrant cultures in the name of "diversity", rather than create a common cosmopolitan culture that exists alongside the already-present native and immigrant ones.

Sadly only too correct Noxion. ThoughI have always worked and lived in areas where many immigrants made up the numbers. Inter-marriage common schools and class interests on London Tube made for largely positive experience. Some white flight, most just got on with it, made the best of it. Never fond of 'multiculturism', rather pointless in a mixed marriage. 100% Hackney though born in Barbados. In fact seemed a poisonous weed when first mooted. You call it bourgeois, accurate, though let's not forget many, many leftists championed this nonsense. What were they thinking?

Mass immigration is a problem is opposed by the majority of people. Consistently. Opposed here in Philippines, my daughter in law is parking her 3 children with her mother and going off to Kuwait to work as a domestic. She will be away for two years. More like 3 by the time she has paid the agent.Many with valuable skills leave. 15 girls from my sons class are off to Japan as entertainers, one of the girls said there was a chance of going to Australia after the tour. "That's close to where you live, Daddy Dodger!"---"Yes Miss, quite near!" A 21st century disease.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sadly only too correct Noxion. ThoughI have always worked and lived in areas where many immigrants made up the numbers. Inter-marriage common schools and class interests on London Tube made for largely positive experience. Some white flight, most just got on with it, made the best of it. Never fond of 'multiculturism', rather pointless in a mixed marriage. 100% Hackney though born in Barbados. In fact seemed a poisonous weed when first mooted. You call it bourgeois, accurate, though let's not forget many, many leftists championed this nonsense. What were they thinking?

I was referring to bourgeois multiculturalism because the problem is the bourgeois part, not the multiculturalism part.


Mass immigration is a problem is opposed by the majority of people. Consistently.

What mass immigration? :rolleyes:

Also, if people oppose so-called "mass immigration" (something you haven't substantiated) it is because the right-wing media constantly runs slanted stories designed to muddle up immigrants, asylum seekers, and other foreign nationals. Here's a forum with (http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=9) more than enough examples. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, remember?

[dodger]

I was referring to bourgeois multiculturalism because the problem is the bourgeois part, not the multiculturalism part.



What mass immigration? :rolleyes:

Also, if people oppose so-called "mass immigration" (something you haven't substantiated) it is because the right-wing media constantly runs slanted stories designed to muddle up immigrants, asylum seekers, and other foreign nationals. Here's a forum with (http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=9) more than enough examples. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, remember?

Caught this in Morning Star:
Letters
Immigration problem all thanks to EU

Sunday 29 July 2012 Printable Email
Ed Miliband's June 22 speech on immigration continues to stir debate, much of it dragging in the separate issue of racism. Race was a factor in the 1960s and 1970s debates about immigration, when blacks and Asians were moving here.

Now, thanks to the EU-pushed free movement of labour, immigration is largely white people from eastern Europe moving here, competing with black, Asian-origin and white British people for low-paid jobs.
Employers back this because an increase in the supply of labour cuts its price.

Last year, 589,000 long-term migrants came to Britain — the vast majority from the EU. Mr Miliband said: “Britain must control its borders.” Fine — but he then said” “We cannot set the numbers coming in from the rest of the EU.”

The EU stops us having any control over immigration from the EU. But we can control our borders – when we leave the EU.

Will Podmore
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hopefully the whole subject along with the EU will get a good airing at TUC conference.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So you don't think the problem lies in the tendency of employers to pay less for immigrant labour?

[sublime]

OK I confess, I am a Liberal. But I do share a lot of ideals with socialists. But I am fairly alone in my tendency to oppose immigration. The problem is it's been shown to be is that unrestricted immigration breeds racism and xenophobia amongst the population, and when the UK cannot sufficiently promote social integration with this big melting pot of cultures. The failure to assimilate all the economic migrants makes people angry and flock to back to the countries core values. It really gets in the way of social progress. How do leftists feel about this issue?

Hi,

Socialists don't want to achieve "progress" in the same way that Liberals do, they want to break down people's identity into nothing more than "human" or even "sentient being". They hate the notion that country's have founding "core values" that have nothing to do with the worker/capitalist binary. They prefer nebulously social constructs of identity such as class over real natural physical forms of identity such as ethnicity, race or nation.

As for why leftism is overtly pro immigration, it has to do not specifically with any sort of belief that benefits come from immigration, but with Marxist philosophy in particular. They use racial strife to achieve their means and to establish their control over society, this means eliminating ethnic identification in traditionally European nations.

To understand the mindset, you have to first understand that the 'Internationalist' Left see everything in terms of class. Therefore, in their eyes a working class European man has more in common with a working class Sadisi Islamist than a business owning White person. So to them everyone who is against the uniting of the workers of the world is termed is an enemy, i.e. all immigration conservatives whether their economic views are socialist or conservative are considered the same. This is why Hitler to them is always depicted as the archetypal right winger when in fact he was left wing in any economic measure.

Once you understand that the destruction of the foundations of Capitalist societies is not a bad outcome for Marxists, and is in fact desirable, it’s not hard to understand why they are indifferent to multiculturalism and its negative effects. As you’ve probably wised up to, leftists don’t care if Africa, Asia, Central America, Arabia or Polynesia are "multicultural." The only places they insist must become multicultural are successful capitalist ones.

Marxists are perfectly aware that the rates of immigration are destroying White countries. This is exactly what they want, which is why they support it, because they hope to build a new communist society from the ruins of a capitalist society. Non-Western countries are typically a lot more racist than Western countries. But communists wont criticse them at all for it. Ask yourself why that is. It because they don't want to destroy those countries.

Really, more people on the political left should support British Nationalism and the protection of culture in liberal nations. A degree of socialism can work when you have a large, socially conscious ethnic majority, such as you have in Scandinavian countries or Japan. These countries are quite liberal in most regards and it works well for them because they have been traditionally a monoculture - it is only as they begin to accept huge numbers of immigrants that their systems begins to fail. Throughout Europe, in fact, Muslims are pouring in and most of their attitudes aren't socially liberal at all - they support persecuting gays, women, non-believers, censorship, etc.

It is similar in the USA, where Hispanics are socially very conservative. Gay marriage failed in California in 2008 because black and Hispanic voters showed up in such massive numbers. Communists believe that this stuff is all peripheral to a historical class war.

I am socialistic in some regards, perhaps not as much as you, but enough to value certain elements of socialism and to realize that these ideas would die without Westerners to hold them up.

My advice would be to understand how the goals of Marxists differ from those of a socially conscious Liberal like yourself and realize that they don't share your desire to see your nation state preserved in any form. All countries need to be destroyed so the universal communist society can be built.

[dodger]

So you don't think the problem lies in the tendency of employers to pay less for immigrant labour?

Bankers, Adam Smith Institute, every penny pinching employer are purring with ill disguised glee, Noxion. As was stated in the Morning Star:Noxion.
Employers back this because an increase in the supply of labour cuts its price.. Doug Nicholls UNITE back in 2006:Morning Star.


"Nevertheless, the EU has already shown on a mass scale that it considers it legal for migrant labour to create skills gaps in the country of origin and lower wages and worse conditions in the countries of destination.

There has also been a huge influx of other migrant labour which is sharply undercutting wages in many areas and putting new strains on public services, to a point where local government is having to consider high local taxes.

The government has lost count of legal and illegal immigrants. Recent research has indicated the full scale of the problem and capitalist spokespersons have revelled at the resulting suppression of wage levels.

In this severe overall context, two things are happening. First, more and more trade unionists are coming to realise that we should leave the EU altogether and abandon the EU federalist project in favour of peacefully co-existing and co-operating independent nations."

For good measure the UN Migration chief speaks:

The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said.

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.

He also suggested the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law.

He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.

Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.

He told the House of Lords committee migration was a "crucial dynamic for economic growth" in some EU nations "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states

So far over 80% consistently give this man the deaf ear. Some don't. Just to round off , your pointer to the Daily Mail produced these

580 foreigners a DAY got a job here last year... as the number of British-born unemployed soared
More than 1m women now jobless in Britain - 91,000 rise on last year
More than 530 Britons losing their jobs every DAY
Britain's overall jobless rate of 8.4 per cent is worst since 1995
North West worst hit region in last quarter with 26,000 more jobless
Union boss describes 'worst employment prospects since recession began'

[RedAtheist]

The problem is it's been shown to be is that unrestricted immigration breeds racism and xenophobia amongst the population, and when the UK cannot sufficiently promote social integration with this big melting pot of cultures.

This argument can used to promote any conservative position. For example,

- legalising gay marriage breeds homophobia when the government cannot sufficiently counter homophobic ideas
- a rise in feminism breeds sexism, when the sexist ideas of how women should behave are prevalent
- any regulation to a capitalist economy breeds fears of a 'socialist' government takeover.

All progressive changes breed a right-wing reaction, no change has been universally agreed to.

Furthermore, every time a government passes a law against immigration, racists feel validated in their position and they feel more powerful, encouraging them to promote their racism more fiercely.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Bankers, Adam Smith Institute, every penny pinching employer are purring with ill disguised glee, Noxion. As was stated in the Morning Star:Noxion.
Employers back this because an increase in the supply of labour cuts its price.. Doug Nicholls UNITE back in 2006:Morning Star.

The problem is that your xenophobic framing of the issue as one of "too much immigration", rather than "not enough wages/jobs", places culpability on the immigrants, not the bastards who aren't paying enough to workers of any nationality.


For good measure the UN Migration chief speaks:


So far over 80% consistently give this man the deaf ear.

Maybe because he's just another bureaucrat working for some impotent international organisation?


Some don't. Just to round off , your pointer to the Daily Mail produced these

So you don't think that any of them may have got the truth just a little bit twisted, exaggerated or hell, have been outright fabrications?

No wonder you're restricted, if you're so willing to uncritically swallow the Daily Mail's right-wing horseshit.

[l'Enfermé]

Multiculturalism is just another word for apartheid. Equal, but separate. Hah!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hi,

Socialists don't want to achieve "progress" in the same way that Liberals do, they want to break down people's identity into nothing more than "human" or even "sentient being". They hate the notion that country's have founding "core values" that have nothing to do with the worker/capitalist binary. They prefer nebulously social constructs of identity such as class over real natural physical forms of identity such as ethnicity, race or nation.

You like painting with that broad brush of yours, don't you?

Yes, socialists look at sociopolitical issues primarily through the lens of class, but you were obviously fast asleep whenever we've had arguments about "oppressed nations" or national self-determination in the face of imperialism.


As for why leftism is overtly pro immigration, it has to do not specifically with any sort of belief that benefits come from immigration, but with Marxist philosophy in particular. They use racial strife to achieve their means and to establish their control over society, this means eliminating ethnic identification in traditionally European nations.

What the fuck is this fascistoid crap? Are you going to spout off about "cultural Marxism" next?

Care to give any actual examples of Marxists using "racial strife" in the manner you talk about?


To understand the mindset, you have to first understand that the 'Internationalist' Left see everything in terms of class. Therefore, in their eyes a working class European man has more in common with a working class Sadisi Islamist than a business owning White person. So to them everyone who is against the uniting of the workers of the world is termed is an enemy, i.e. all immigration conservatives whether their economic views are socialist or conservative are considered the same.

Bullshit. [citation needed].


This is why Hitler to them is always depicted as the archetypal right winger when in fact he was left wing in any economic measure.

Oh good grief, not another one of those "Hitler was left-wing!1!11!!" shitheads. Hitler was a corporatist, otherwise companies that made armaments for Germany at the time, like Thyssen or Krupp, would have been appropriated by the German people. Which they clearly weren't!


Once you understand that the destruction of the foundations of Capitalist societies is not a bad outcome for Marxists, and is in fact desirable, it’s not hard to understand why they are indifferent to multiculturalism and its negative effects. As you’ve probably wised up to, leftists don’t care if Africa, Asia, Central America, Arabia or Polynesia are "multicultural." The only places they insist must become multicultural are successful capitalist ones.

Where are you getting these frankly batshit ideas? Stormfront? Multiculturalism is something that has happened throughout the world and throughout human history. Given that the whole of the Earth's surface has been pretty much explored and mapped, combined with technology making global travel much easier than before, it should not come as a great shock that one can find enclaves of practically any culture almost anywhere in the world where there are significant numbers of humans.

Also, I think Asia would be surprised to discover that they aren't "successful capitalists". Especially the Chinese. Fuck you, racist.


Marxists are perfectly aware that the rates of immigration are destroying White countries.

WTF? How?! The UK is 90% white by ethnicity. What the fuck is your definition of "destruction"?


This is exactly what they want, which is why they support it, because they hope to build a new communist society from the ruins of a capitalist society. Non-Western countries are typically a lot more racist than Western countries. But communists wont criticse them at all for it. Ask yourself why that is. It because they don't want to destroy those countries.

Most communists on this forum live in "Western" countries, so it should come as no surprise that it is "Western" countries that come under criticism.


Really, more people on the political left should support British Nationalism and the protection of culture in liberal nations. A degree of socialism can work when you have a large, socially conscious ethnic majority, such as you have in Scandinavian countries or Japan. These countries are quite liberal in most regards and it works well for them because they have been traditionally a monoculture - it is only as they begin to accept huge numbers of immigrants that their systems begins to fail.

Fail at what? More vague rhetoric from the nationalist racist.


Throughout Europe, in fact, Muslims are pouring in and most of their attitudes aren't socially liberal at all - they support persecuting gays, women, non-believers, censorship, etc.

[citation needed], seriously. Just because the occasional "honour killing" makes the news does not means that such actions are representative of Muslim immigrants as a whole.


It is similar in the USA, where Hispanics are socially very conservative. Gay marriage failed in California in 2008 because black and Hispanic voters showed up in such massive numbers.

So it had nothing to do with the Mormon millions pouring into California?


Communists believe that this stuff is all peripheral to a historical class war.

Please, find a single statement by a revolutionary communist supporting the notion that a bourgeois referendum forms a meaningful part of class struggle. I dare you.


I am socialistic in some regards, perhaps not as much as you, but enough to value certain elements of socialism and to realize that these ideas would die without Westerners to hold them up.

Ah yes, those perfect blue-eyed, blonde-haired Westerners who form one of the Highest Races and can therefore do no wrong. Fuck off and die, fascist.


My advice would be to understand how the goals of Marxists differ from those of a socially conscious Liberal like yourself and realize that they don't share your desire to see your nation state preserved in any form. All countries need to be destroyed so the universal communist society can be built.

But it is the passing of "Western" countries that bothers you the most, doesn't it bonehead?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

You like painting with that broad brush of yours, don't you?

Yes, socialists look at sociopolitical issues primarily through the lens of class, but you were obviously fast asleep whenever we've had arguments about "oppressed nations" or national self-determination in the face of imperialism.



What the fuck is this fascistoid crap? Are you going to spout off about "cultural Marxism" next?

Care to give any actual examples of Marxists using "racial strife" in the manner you talk about?



Bullshit. [citation needed].



Oh good grief, not another one of those "Hitler was left-wing!1!11!!" shitheads. Hitler was a corporatist, otherwise companies that made armaments for Germany at the time, like Thyssen or Krupp, would have been appropriated by the German people. Which they clearly weren't!



Where are you getting these frankly batshit ideas? Stormfront? Multiculturalism is something that has happened throughout the world and throughout human history. Given that the whole of the Earth's surface has been pretty much explored and mapped, combined with technology making global travel much easier than before, it should not come as a great shock that one can find enclaves of practically any culture almost anywhere in the world where there are significant numbers of humans.

Also, I think Asia would be surprised to discover that they aren't "successful capitalists". Especially the Chinese. Fuck you, racist.



WTF? How?! The UK is 90% white by ethnicity. What the fuck is your definition of "destruction"?



Most communists on this forum live in "Western" countries, so it should come as no surprise that it is "Western" countries that come under criticism.



Fail at what? More vague rhetoric from the nationalist racist.



[citation needed], seriously. Just because the occasional "honour killing" makes the news does not means that such actions are representative of Muslim immigrants as a whole.



So it had nothing to do with the Mormon millions pouring into California?



Please, find a single statement by a revolutionary communist supporting the notion that a bourgeois referendum forms a meaningful part of class struggle. I dare you.



Ah yes, those perfect blue-eyed, blonde-haired Westerners who form one of the Highest Races and can therefore do no wrong. Fuck off and die, fascist.



But it is the passing of "Western" countries that bothers you the most, doesn't it bonehead?

I agree with all your points and await this guys response with interest.

I cannot understand the mindset of some white people in the UK and elsewhere who perceive the 10% or less 'ethnic' population as a threat to their way of life...just...arrgh I don't get it!! :cursing:

[Marxaveli]

The fact he called Hitler a leftist discredits anything he posts from here on out - not that he had much credit to begin with. This is right-wing, historical revisionism at it's best - but you can hardly blame him, right wingers are so desperate to get Hitler out of their corner they will misconstrue facts and re-write history to do it. It will never work though, Hitler will forever be remembered as a Fascist, ethnocentric scumbag. Sorry, but you will forever have to live with him, just like Christians have to live with the Inquisition.

Also, even if immigration is destroying "white" nations, I'll be even more direct than Nox, and say SO THE FUCK WHAT!? It's about time white, patriarch, ethnocentric hegemony was brought down a few rungs on the fucking ladder.

[fug]

It's about time white, patriarch, ethnocentric hegemony was brought down a few rungs on the fucking ladder.
I can't wait for black, patriarchic ( sp? ), ethnocentric hegemony to replace it with...:laugh:

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

This is why Hitler to them is always depicted as the archetypal right winger when in fact he was left wing in any economic measure.
It's true that Hitler used anti-capitalist rhetoric, but he went out of his way to preserve private property and wait on the steel bosses hand and foot. This is a capitalist, not a socialist measure. In the same vein, I've known other people that refer to the Wall Street bailout as "socialism" as well, though it was a capitalist measure to bail out the bourgeoisie. I urge you to read more about the economic policies of the Third Reich before you embarrass yourself again.

[Marxaveli]

The Wall Street bailout was Socialism for the rich perhaps, certainly not Marxist Socialism, which is the only type of "socialism" that is relevant to us. Fuck anything else.

[Crux]

I'm pretty sure our rules says "No Fascists". Yep they do. Banned sublime.

[dodger]

Also, even if immigration is destroying "white" nations, I'll be even more direct than Nox, and say SO THE FUCK WHAT!? It's about time white, patriarch, ethnocentric hegemony was brought down a few rungs on the fucking ladder.

Interesting. Another communist view below:

Immigration and worker unity
posted 5 May 2012 07:00 by phil katz
Below is an outline of the speech given by Rob Wilkinson at the Cambridge CP branch meet on 4 May 2012.
Workers of All Lands, Unite!

Robert Wilkinson considers the issues raised in the CPB booklet ‘Workers of all lands – a Labour movement policy on migrant labour and immigration’. He argues that the policy of ‘open borders’, advocated by many sincere and well-meaning individuals and organisations, is dangerously naïve and is in fact welcomed by the BNP as confirming their condemnation of the Left as unrealistic idealists, far removed from the situation facing many sections of the working class in Britain.

The formulation contained in some motions presented at union conferences that all workers ‘whatever their background or nationality’ are welcome in Britain, distorts the reality behind the factors that give rise to migration and the impact that it has upon both the donor and recipient societies.

The analysis contained in the CPB booklet reveals a truth ‘that dare not speak its name’, that migration may often act against the interests of the working class as a whole, regardless of its apparent attractiveness for the individuals concerned.

It is essential first of all, as the booklet makes clear, that we distinguish between asylum seekers and ‘economic’ migrants. Perhaps we need to go even further by seeing a distinction between migrant workers, who seek only temporary employment in any particular country, and immigrants, who endeavour to settle permanently in their new country and become an integral part of the society.

Former National Union of Teachers President Bill Greenshields, in a speech that he made at their Annual Conference, spoke of the phrase ‘the free movement of labour’ as being a myth. The reality, he said, is more often than not a coerced movement of labour. Workers who leave their family and community to seek work elsewhere do not normally do so from a motivation of exercising their ‘freedom of choice’ but have been compelled by the economic, social and political situation to migrate and seek a better world elsewhere.

Unfortunately the reality of the ‘Promised Land’ is not one that is ‘paved with gold’ and ‘flowing with milk and honey’ for the vast majority and, for some, it is paved with tombstones and flowing with blood.

I could go further than Bill Greenshields and characterise what has been happening as a ‘Wage-Slave Trade’ that has been similarly destructive of the lives of millions of workers and other poverty stricken populations, no less acceptable simply because it is supposedly ‘voluntary’.

The workers who drowned in Steerage on the ‘Titanic’ in their vain hopes of reaching the ‘Land of Opportunity’ are now matched every single year by those whose boats sink in the seas in their futile attempt to reach Europe or North America.

Both in Europe from the 17th to the early 20th Century, and now in Australia, Latin America, Asia and Africa, emigration acts as a ‘safetyvalve’ to relieve the pressure that might otherwise erupt into revolution.

Since the 1980s, following the imposition of neo-liberal economic policies by the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, the situation for migrant workers has become much worse. The much vaunted ‘freedom’ of the worker to migrate is pitiful in comparison with the real freedom of the capitalist employer to seek cheaper workers elsewhere.

Workers’ organisations on the other hand have always sought to regulate the ‘freedom’ of the employer in the labour market by enforcing the rate for the job, demanding equal treatment for all and opposing any attempts by the employers to divide, and thereby weaken, the workers by gender, race, religion or nationality. The key factor is the extent to which the trade union movement can exert its power to regulate the terms on which the new labour is to be employed.

Such action is not anathema to trade unionism at international level. Indeed it was a cornerstone principle of the First International.

Some employers are employing migrant workers at wage rates not acceptable to local workers, often below the legal minimum wage, with inferior working conditions, longer hours and much lower health and safety standards and social benefits.

This situation is made even worse by the international rules on labour migration being promoted by the EU under the General Agreement on Trade in Services at the World Trade Organisation, establishing legal structures that will allow migrant labour to undercut wages and conditions everywhere.

Not surprisingly this has provoked huge trade union protests across Europe, raising concerns about ‘social dumping’ - an economic term that means little more than the super exploitation of migrant labour - that could spark a ‘race to the bottom’ between different groups of workers.

There are some who focussed on what they regarded as a negative aspect of the dispute at the Lindsey Oil Refinery and ignored the extremely important issues raised by the workers and the trade unions involved.

When construction workers fight to maintain the terms and conditions of the Blue Book, they are engaged in a struggle as fundamental as it would be for, say, teachers to protect the Burgundy Book from employers in Academies and Trust Schools who might seek to undermine it.

The blame for the attempted misuse of the dispute by the BNP wrests with Gordon Brown’s raising of the argument of ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ in his speech to the Labour Party Conference in 2007. This was a blatantly hypocritical use of the slogan when the Prime Minister was well aware that he had already agreed to the EU directives on removing the barriers to the use by offshore subcontractors of workers employed on terms and conditions of employment of their home country, a lot worse of course than those here in Britain.

This is not only an issue that affects industrial workers as was evident in the angry reaction of the public service union PCS to a document leaked in early 2006 on the possibilities of the Government ‘offshoring’ jobs in the Department of Work and Pensions. Mark Serwotka, the General Secretary of the PCS, commented that ‘the government now seems to be embracing not only potential privatisation, but potentially public sector jobs being shipped overseas’.

Mark Sewotka identified the need for ‘binding national agreements negotiated by trade unions, and equal legal status for all, regardless of nationality’. The logic of this position involves rejecting the European Union and the World Trade Organisation’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).

He also said that ‘Every worker will benefit from a campaign to unionise overseas workers in order to prevent employers from using them as a weapon against fellow workers’ (my emphasis). What do you do when someone is hitting you with a weapon? The BNP solution is to vent our anger against the weapon – but if we simply smash the weapon our attacker will only go away and find another one. Sooner or later we have to take the weapon from them and ourselves use it against them. We need to recruit the migrant workers on nationally negotiated wages and conditions to fight alongside the rest of us against the employers.

The immigration and asylum laws and the organisations for their implementation as they stand are not fit for purpose. They are too often used in a blatantly discriminatory manner against those in genuine need. But criticism of the operation of the asylum and immigration procedures is misdirected against the workers who have the responsibility for making the system work as best they can. It is the task of the trade unions involved, and the TUC as a whole, to ensure that these workers are not misused by the Government to enforce its own agenda.

The Government approach to the ‘Fight against Terrorism’ has aimed to aggravate mistrust and division between workers from different backgrounds.

Only the workers themselves, united in struggle against those who would seek to divide us, can overcome this challenge.

Workers everywhere have a responsibility to their own class that must override the ‘rights’ of the

employers to exploit workers wherever they choose in pursuit of maximum profits.

Workers also have a collective responsibility to ensure that the exercise of their ‘rights’ as individuals are not at the expense of the conditions of the class as a whole.

Those who ‘export’ their own individual skills and education from their home country in the search for better employment prospects in another are in danger of damaging the society that they leave by denuding it of the services that are in greater need there than in the country of their destination. That is why the Commonwealth Teachers’ Protocol agreed by Education Ministers of the Commonwealth, on the initiative of former NUT General Secretary Steve Sinnott, is a significant model for emulation in other sectors. Indeed it has already been emulated to protect the international ‘agency’ trade in nurses.

Employers must have their ability to recruit and employ workers constrained as much as possible by the workers themselves organised collectively in trade unions and enforcing agreements that insist on non-discriminatory terms and conditions.

For years the international union movement has been divided. But with the formation of the International Trade Union Confederation and really effective international secretariats in areas such as food and hotels, energy and metallurgy, transport and the media, it becomes possible to give our cross border class organisations a cutting edge and a pro worker focus. And with coordinated campaigns to raise wages within companies across borders, the opportunity for employers to undercut can be diminished.

Workers from all lands need to unite - after all, we have a world to gain.

[fug]

Where i live the problem isn't immigration, it's emigration and brain drain.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Interesting. Another communist view below:

As if communists can't be fucking wrong. Ya tool.


Former National Union of Teachers President Bill Greenshields, in a speech that he made at their Annual Conference, spoke of the phrase ‘the free movement of labour’ as being a myth. The reality, he said, is more often than not a coerced movement of labour. Workers who leave their family and community to seek work elsewhere do not normally do so from a motivation of exercising their ‘freedom of choice’ but have been compelled by the economic, social and political situation to migrate and seek a better world elsewhere.

So what, we should be telling migrant workers to stay at home? What good will that do?


I could go further than Bill Greenshields and characterise what has been happening as a ‘Wage-Slave Trade’ that has been similarly destructive of the lives of millions of workers and other poverty stricken populations, no less acceptable simply because it is supposedly ‘voluntary’.

The workers who drowned in Steerage on the ‘Titanic’ in their vain hopes of reaching the ‘Land of Opportunity’ are now matched every single year by those whose boats sink in the seas in their futile attempt to reach Europe or North America.

Maybe if the situation was better back home they wouldn't be risking life and limb on the high seas in flimsy boats? It's a crazy idea, I know.


Both in Europe from the 17th to the early 20th Century, and now in Australia, Latin America, Asia and Africa, emigration acts as a ‘safetyvalve’ to relieve the pressure that might otherwise erupt into revolution.

Unsubstantiated assertions are fun!


The immigration and asylum laws and the organisations for their implementation as they stand are not fit for purpose. They are too often used in a blatantly discriminatory manner against those in genuine need. But criticism of the operation of the asylum and immigration procedures is misdirected against the workers who have the responsibility for making the system work as best they can. It is the task of the trade unions involved, and the TUC as a whole, to ensure that these workers are not misused by the Government to enforce its own agenda.

The Government approach to the ‘Fight against Terrorism’ has aimed to aggravate mistrust and division between workers from different backgrounds.

Only the workers themselves, united in struggle against those who would seek to divide us, can overcome this challenge.

Great, but what this to do with your allergic reaction to "multiculturalism", dodger?

[Crux]

Dodger: Positing that immigration is the responsibility of the individual immigrant is absurd.


Workers’ organisations on the other hand have always sought to regulate the ‘freedom’ of the employer in the labour market by enforcing the rate for the job, demanding equal treatment for all and opposing any attempts by the employers to divide, and thereby weaken, the workers by gender, race, religion or nationality. The key factor is the extent to which the trade union movement can exert its power to regulate the terms on which the new labour is to be employed.

Such action is not anathema to trade unionism at international level. Indeed it was a cornerstone principle of the First International.

But indeed the issue of whether women should be allowed into the work force was a debate within the early labour movement that in many ways echoes this discussion on immigration. Indeed it is still a fact that women work for less and under worse conditions. The answer was not then and is not now for the restriction of either women or immigrants into the workforce, but for the defence of rights for all worker's.

[dodger]

Dodger: Positing that immigration is the responsibility of the individual immigrant is absurd.



But indeed the issue of whether women should be allowed into the work force was a debate within the early labour movement that in many ways echoes this discussion on immigration. Indeed it is still a fact that women work for less and under worse conditions. The answer was not then and is not now for the restriction of either women or immigrants into the workforce, but for the defence of rights for all worker's.


Many who have not grasped these fundamentals are doomed to bobbing around like corks in the ocean. Just drove my daughter in law to the airport. She is off to Quatar for 2/3 years. Working as a domestic. Her 3 daughters 9/5/3yrs will live at her mothers. Me in the 4x4with 8 females and new boyfriend. An hours journey. After 5 mins in the car the eldest started to cry, soon all the children were sobbing. Their mother erupted followed by Wifey. Mother sisters. I looked over at the chap rolling my eyes, bugger me wasn;t he wailing too. Even when they ate every one of my boiled sweets I kept in the glove compartment I never dropped a single tear. Niagra Falls, the volume of tears all the way to the airport. Dropped them all off at departure parked the car, slowly, very slowly made my way over. I got a light off the security guard. The kids were pulling on Ma's clothes. She was saying" i CAN'T LEAVE THEM!"...The security guy whispered"SHE'LL GO--THEY ALWAYS DO!" He laughed "20th one TODAY!" Told me his Missus was over there too. It wasn't much better on the way back. The wailing did subside. I have not cried since I was 4 yrs old..Ma said I was a stoic. What's more I completely forgot to ask her whether immigration was her personal responsibility- zounds it completely slipped my mind.

Another relative is working in a Home for Mentally Handicapped, in UK, a domestic. University trained radiologist. Doing well she said, until £ dropped a 1/3 against the peso. Her 2 siblings education went down the toilet. Even with 2 jobs.. Another relative, police Major working uk , Mc Donald's. Ditto...though this fellow had style, he sent his wife and step daughter out on the game to make up the shortfall. Hope they take, care London is the VD capital of Europe now.

The Filipinos I worked with on the Tube prospered, they had a grasp at least how to survive. I recall their views on mass immigration they stuck solidly to the view it was a race to the bottom.

Your comparison with women entering certain trades is intelligent observation. Bears striking similarities. When I joined London Transport '75 ,there was not one female driver. We changed that situation. No rational argument could be found to counter their acceptance. On the other hand social dumping, mass immigration supranational trade deals all are increasingly on the workers agenda. Both here and further afield, an international current is flowing. Lets SEE WHAT COMES OF IT. Fascists or ultra left will not frame the debate or block agenda,,,they don't have the numbers or the ear of people. Unless of course, if we withdraw from debate.

[#FF0000]

hey remember when dipshit 'socialists' and 'communists' railed against immigrants before and it turns out they were wrong and solidarity with immigrants is actually the right thing

i'm p sure everyone does

[GPDP]

Hey dodger, fuck off.

Love,
An illegal immigrant

[fug]

hey remember when dipshit 'socialists' and 'communists' railed against immigrants before and it turns out they were wrong and solidarity with immigrants is actually the right thing
Please post more about this, thanks.

[Crux]

Your comparison with women entering certain trades is intelligent observation. Bears striking similarities. When I joined London Transport '75 ,there was not one female driver. We changed that situation. No rational argument could be found to counter their acceptance.
Okay, here's one. Women get paid lower wages, ergo the more women are employed in a given field the lower the average wage becomes. A bit crude I know, but essentially true. Or rather, just as true as the argument you are trying to make against immigration as the cause for social dumping.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Many who have not grasped these fundamentals are doomed to bobbing around like corks in the ocean. Just drove my daughter in law to the airport. She is off to Quatar for 2/3 years. Working as a domestic. Her 3 daughters 9/5/3yrs will live at her mothers. Me in the 4x4with 8 females and new boyfriend. An hours journey. After 5 mins in the car the eldest started to cry, soon all the children were sobbing. Their mother erupted followed by Wifey. Mother sisters. I looked over at the chap rolling my eyes, bugger me wasn;t he wailing too. Even when they ate every one of my boiled sweets I kept in the glove compartment I never dropped a single tear. Niagra Falls, the volume of tears all the way to the airport. Dropped them all off at departure parked the car, slowly, very slowly made my way over. I got a light off the security guard. The kids were pulling on Ma's clothes. She was saying" i CAN'T LEAVE THEM!"...The security guy whispered"SHE'LL GO--THEY ALWAYS DO!" He laughed "20th one TODAY!" Told me his Missus was over there too. It wasn't much better on the way back. The wailing did subside. I have not cried since I was 4 yrs old..Ma said I was a stoic. What's more I completely forgot to ask her whether immigration was her personal responsibility- zounds it completely slipped my mind.

It obviously sounds like your daughter-in-law wouldn't go to Qatar if she felt she had any better choices, so why is it so fucking hard for you to realise that other migrant workers are similarly likely to find themselves in such a situation?


Another relative is working in a Home for Mentally Handicapped, in UK, a domestic. University trained radiologist. Doing well she said, until £ dropped a 1/3 against the peso. Her 2 siblings education went down the toilet. Even with 2 jobs..

OK, so the subject of another anecdote got screwed over by changing macroeconomic conditions... it happens to all of us, immigrant or not. That's why the capitalists are the appropriate ones to bear the blame.


Another relative, police Major working uk , Mc Donald's. Ditto...though this fellow had style, he sent his wife and step daughter out on the game to make up the shortfall. Hope they take, care London is the VD capital of Europe now.

What the fuck does this particular anecdote have to do with immigration?


The Filipinos I worked with on the Tube prospered, they had a grasp at least how to survive. I recall their views on mass immigration they stuck solidly to the view it was a race to the bottom.

So what was their proposed solution, eh? Was it the Daily Mail standby of "kick out all dodgy forrin types"? Somehow I doubt it unless they were all massive hypocrites.


Your comparison with women entering certain trades is intelligent observation. Bears striking similarities. When I joined London Transport '75 ,there was not one female driver. We changed that situation. No rational argument could be found to counter their acceptance. On the other hand social dumping, mass immigration supranational trade deals all are increasingly on the workers agenda. Both here and further afield, an international current is flowing. Lets SEE WHAT COMES OF IT. Fascists or ultra left will not frame the debate or block agenda,,,they don't have the numbers or the ear of people. Unless of course, if we withdraw from debate.

Come straight out with it you smug, self-regarding piece of shit. Claiming to have done shit over two decades ago should not exempt you from the question: Should workers be free to cross borders or not?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Interesting. Another communist view belowWell it's another view, I wouldn't call it communist - more like the rank depths of wherever more than half a century of justifying reformism with Marxist quotes leaves one.

Migration doesn't "flood the labor force" it only really exists as a labor trend when there are JOBS in the destination! California has seen a huge drop-off of non-permanent labor migration since the hosing collapse and the drying up of construction work along with many other jobs.


A study released Tuesday by the Pew Hispanic Center has documented a change in trend: After years of rapid growth, illegal immigration is slowing down in California, with the state's share of the nation's estimated 11.9 million undocumented migrants dropping to 22% from 42% in 1990, the study showed.


The state still has the largest concentration of illegal immigrants in the nation, with 2.7 million -- a figure that has nearly doubled since 1990.
But, in a trend that began with California's recession in the 1990s, more migrants are bypassing the state for other areas of the country. The number of illegal immigrants outside the nation's six traditional "first stop" states of California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey and New York has increased sevenfold, to nearly 5 million in 2008 from 700,000 in 1990, according to Jeffrey S. Passel, the study's coauthor and a Pew Center senior demographer.


In fact, in US history anti-immigrant sentiment and deportations have nearly always come after an economic crisis with sentiment being organized by newspapers, Industrialists, and politicians - followed shortly by sections of the general population, specifically right-wing movements of some workers and some petty-bourgeois. So rather than being a tool for reducing wages through surplus labor, immigrants scapegoating has been a tool for dividing the class over crumbs in times of economic crisis. Where immigrant labor comes into play regarding wages and the power of workers is not in NUMBERS but in their 2nd class labor status. This is what drives down wages, not the number of workers - afterall if it was "labor overpopulation" then native and migrant workers would both be equally a part of "the problem" and one could just as logically blame immigrant labor as they could blame 18 year olds entering the labor pool. Those damn 18 year olds will never assimilate, they refuse to use the slang of my generation!


So since it is their staus as a second class workforce often excluded from the same rights as native workers, excluded from organizing and joining unions (at least this is the case in the US) that creates any downward pressure on the class. So logically the issue is not the immigrants, their numbers, but their staus and lack of standard rights and workplace protections that is the issue.


The fucking shameless gall of the CP article adapting to anti-immigrant sentiment and then ending with "workers of the world unite!":cursing: The class can't stand and unite when sections of it are having their legs kicked out from under them.

[Paul Cockshott]

Of course immigrants will move to where there are jobs, but that does not mean that employers do not use immigants as cheap labour.

[rednordman]

I think was most of the posters on this tread need to get into their heads its that: Its not about what we think, its about what the rest think. Sure for the most part, we are right - and we know it, but try telling that to your next door neighbors...and there lies in the problem, which sadly, NO-ONE on this tread has an idea how to answer. You may be all high and mighty on here, but your preaching to the choir. Try putting your opinions across to a crowd of normal folk...i think you will rapidly become aware that they are stubborn as rock.:(

[fug]

That's the thing. I wouldn't know about immigration first hand but when I read internet comments I get the impression that many people are against it and so on.
Read the comments on DailyMail on the deportations of immigrants in Greece for example.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think was most of the posters on this tread need to get into their heads its that: Its not about what we think, its about what the rest think. Sure for the most part, we are right - and we know it, but try telling that to your next door neighbors...and there lies in the problem, which sadly, NO-ONE on this tread has an idea how to answer. You may be all high and mighty on here, but your preaching to the choir. Try putting your opinions across to a crowd of normal folk...i think you will rapidly become aware that they are stubborn as rock.:(

I say pretty much the same thing to people I meet as I have been saying in this thread, although sometimes suitably re-worded for those unfamiliar with Marxist terminology.

For example, I've yet to receive a typical prepackaged tabloid-style soundbite whenever I have pointed out that nobody "takes" jobs, they are given by employers, therefore the animosity towards immigrants is, at best, entirely misdirected.

In my experience the best way to counter the right-wing talking points promoted by the mainstream media is to come back with a similarly snappy retort, one that cuts out the foundations from underneath the original complaint, which is based on a false political consciousness.

[#FF0000]

Please post more about this, thanks.

I don't know about "communists" actually but there were plenty of self-described socialists and trade unionists and other "pro-labor" folks who were extremely anti-immigrant, especially in the union movement. The AFL, for example, has always had an extremely strong anti-immigration (in general) stance, up until they became the AFL-CIO.

Communists and anarchists were actually the only ones willing to organize immigrants because 1) A lot of communists and anarchists were immigrants, and 2) that's where a good chunk of the unorganized, unskilled labor was anyway. You had people working the toughest jobs in the worst conditions, so why wouldn't you try to organize them?

And to be honest it still goes today.

[brigadista]

unemployment and inflation

are not caused by immigration

BS come off it!!

the enemy is profit.... :):):)

[dodger]

t obviously sounds like your daughter-in-law wouldn't go to Qatar if she felt she had any better choices, so why is it so fucking hard for you to realise that other migrant workers are similarly likely to find themselves in such a situation?

I have an all round view of why people migrate, just need ears. People I have found at work, socially, only too happy to share their experiences, good or bad.

OK, so the subject of another anecdote got screwed over by changing macroeconomic conditions... it happens to all of us, immigrant or not. That's why the capitalists are the appropriate ones to bear the blame.
It occurred to me it was a loss of a valuable skill to the country. Along with teachers nurses and industrial workers. A cheap source of recruitment for capitalists.

What the fuck does this particular anecdote have to do with immigration?

Simply that many migrants turn to prostitution to pay for commitments back home. If exchange rates drop hours cut or cost of living changes."Agents to pay. I have seen it at work. Rmt has highlighted it. A female member gave accounts at an international conference. I have more than one anecdote, sad to say.

So what was their proposed solution, eh? Was it the Daily Mail standby of "kick out all dodgy forrin types"? Somehow I doubt it unless they were all massive hypocrites
When I was privy to the debates going on at work, the overwhelming view 5yrs ago was block mass immigration. That view was widespread at work and at home.., In Buckinghamshire. It cut across all sexes, ages, any 'race' category. status, you care to mention. Hardly surprising to me.with 50% black youth unemployment, NOW, they obviously had some inkling what was in store. Certainly illegal immigration grated on people and it was felt they should be unceremoniously booted out, so as not to encourage others. In short it was debated as a class issue. Notwithstanding the odd "bleedin' Poles comment.

Clearly we do not think it is good for us. Others may have other experience of peoples views. I have been away a few years. The opening up of borders is a disaster, globalization must be fought. Here with American pressure, if the government gets its way foreigners will be able to buy land, an Exodus. Children are being taught at school about how to migrate what skills to engage. Below info on the subject:
http://bulatlat.com/main/category/migrants/

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bulatlat.com%2F&ei=7sBMUMf2CO-hmQW38YGgDw&usg=AFQjCNE5EO6yUfMmYAb94BGlPRLEJwyZ2Q


Come straight out with it you smug, self-regarding piece of shit. Claiming to have done shit over two decades ago should not exempt you from the question: Should workers be free to cross borders or not?

The women I worked with were quite capable of fighting their own battles and articulating their demands and doing any job a man did. We took the view that an injury against one was an injury against all. Whether it was things like Sikhs being allowed to wear Turbans instead of uniform hat!! Flexible annual leave arrangements for those who had family overseas. All seen as good old fashioned trade union issues. Seniority for promotion. A queue for transfers.
The issue of borders, the answer I hope it is clear. It is the business of every nation to decide who enters and leaves their country. Sovereignty. A matter of control. A matter for the working class-capital - labour -goods, movement cross borders all need to come under the microscope. Workers need to take control., not be imposed by EU. in Brussels.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I have an all round view of why people migrate, just need ears. People I have found at work, socially, only too happy to share their experiences, good or bad.

I thought it was a conspiracy to conduct "social dumping" that was the cause of "mass immigration"(:rolleyes:)? Get your story straight.


It occurred to me it was a loss of a valuable skill to the country. Along with teachers nurses and industrial workers. A cheap source of recruitment for capitalists.

Workers have no country. Women get paid less and work more so that is also a "cheap source of recruitment" for the capitalists. Do you want to ban women from the workplace? If not, then explain your logic for opposing immigration.


Simply that many migrants turn to prostitution to pay for commitments back home. If exchange rates drop hours cut or cost of living changes."Agents to pay. I have seen it at work. Rmt has highlighted it. A female member gave accounts at an international conference. I have more than one anecdote, sad to say.

How does closing the borders fix this? It doesn't. It merely means people get more of a chance to be destitute in their country of origin.


When I was privy to the debates going on at work, the overwhelming view 5yrs ago was block mass immigration.

But that is not fucking happening, so... :rolleyes:


That view was widespread at work and at home.., In Buckinghamshire. It cut across all sexes, ages, any 'race' category. status, you care to mention. Hardly surprising to me.with 50% black youth unemployment, NOW, they obviously had some inkling what was in store.

High levels of black youth unemployment are down to institutional racism, not immigration. The answer is to fight racism, not the ability of black youth to get a job like you want to do for immigrants.


Certainly illegal immigration grated on people and it was felt they should be unceremoniously booted out, so as not to encourage others. In short it was debated as a class issue. Notwithstanding the odd "bleedin' Poles comment.

A class issue? While they were endorsing the use of bourgeois state authority against their fellow workers? Please tell me you are taking the piss!


Clearly we do not think it is good for us.

Who is this "we"? Are you claiming to speak for all workers now?


Others may have other experience of peoples views. I have been away a few years. The opening up of borders is a disaster, globalization must be fought.

It is the bourgeoisie that must be fought. Starting at home!


Here with American pressure, if the government gets its way foreigners will be able to buy land, an Exodus.

They can already buy land in the UK, if they are rich enough. Or are you just concerned about poorer foreigners buying parts of British soil?


Children are being taught at school about how to migrate what skills to engage.

Horrors!


The women I worked with were quite capable of fighting their own battles and articulating their demands and doing any job a man did. We took the view that an injury against one was an injury against all. Whether it was things like Sikhs being allowed to wear Turbans instead of uniform hat!! Flexible annual leave arrangements for those who had family overseas. All seen as good old fashioned trade union issues. Seniority for promotion. A queue for transfers.
The issue of borders, the answer I hope it is clear. It is the business of every nation to decide who enters and leaves their country. Sovereignty. A matter of control. A matter for the working class-capital - labour -goods, movement cross borders all need to come under the microscope. Workers need to take control., not be imposed by EU. in Brussels.

Does the sovereignty of bourgeois nation-states trump the freedom of workers to go where they wish?

[brigadista]

if people in the UK dont want immigration maybe they should do more to protest the UK invasions and meddling in other countries leading to those countries people coming and claiming asylum because they have been led to believe that when their countries are destabilised and they are endangered , they can get protection in the UK -
[they don't].

Also the disgusting nonsense going on at metropolitan university at present shows that the UK doesn't object to foreign students paying a lot of money on their fees and accommodation , books etc but for political capital will chuck them out before they gain their qualifications for a cheap political point .

new immigration rules introduced this July, in addition are making it practically impossible for anyone outside of europe to get visas to the uk and will lead to families being split in two-

the doors are banging shut on fortress UK- really pisses me off all this nonsense talked about immigration

It is really difficult to get here legally and EXTREMELY difficult to live here illegally - and that includes work illegally

[fug]

if people in the UK dont want immigration maybe they should do more to protest the UK invasions and meddling in other countries leading to those countries people coming and claiming asylum because they have been led to believe that when their countries are destabilised and they are endangered , they can get protection in the UK -
[they don't].
When did the UK invade Poland?:laugh:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

When did the UK invade Poland?:laugh:

Not a lot of Polish people claiming asylum in the UK...

[brigadista]

Not a lot of Polish people claiming asylum in the UK...

lol Noxion you got there first...

[fug]

Including dependants, 25,455 asylum applications were made to the UK in 2011. There were 1,277 applications from unaccompanied minors and 186 were recognised as refugees.
The top ten countries of origin are as follows: Pakistan (3,945); Iran (3,045); Sri Lanka (2,125); Afghanistan (1,525); Libya (1,185); Nigeria (1,055); China (920); Eritrea (835); Sudan (790) and Zimbabwe (735)

Of course asylum seekers are just a small part of immigrants.

[brigadista]

Including dependants, 25,455 asylum applications were made to the UK in 2011. There were 1,277 applications from unaccompanied minors and 186 were recognised as refugees.
The top ten countries of origin are as follows: Pakistan (3,945); Iran (3,045); Sri Lanka (2,125); Afghanistan (1,525); Libya (1,185); Nigeria (1,055); China (920); Eritrea (835); Sudan (790) and Zimbabwe (735)

Of course asylum seekers are just a small part of immigrants.

yeah but they are the ones govs like to use as a reason to restrict immigration in the last 15 years anyway- disinformation in the media regularly such as a lack of information about how many AS win their appeals and the incorrect information about the support they receive- people are misled- the difference between immigrants as a whole and there are quite a few differences - have been deliberately muddled up to infer "Scrounging" and "Illegal immigrants" mainly coming from the asylum seeker disinformation

[fug]

yeah but they are the ones govs like to use as a reason to restrict immigration - disinformation in the media regularly such as a lack of inforamation about how many AS win their appeals and the incorrect information about the support they receive- people are misled
I don't understand what you're talking about, sorry. Reiterate please.

[brigadista]

I don't understand what you're talking about, sorry. Reiterate please.

im saying fug that in recent years the incorrect [disinformation] publicity about
asylum seekers has led to a stereotype in the public mind about immigrants in general which has added to pre existing racist ideas about immigration generally to the uk

[fug]

im saying fug that in recent years the incorrect [disinformation] publicity about
asylum seekers has led to a stereotype in the public mind about immigrants in general which has added to pre existing racist ideas about immigration generally to the uk
Yes but what about the strong anti-Polish sentiment in the UK? That doesn't have anything to do with race.

[brigadista]

Yes but what about the strong anti-Polish sentiment in the UK? That doesn't have anything to do with race.

no not race - but stereotyping , prejudice and colonial mindset - same way with the Irish historically-same old same old divide and rule

[Jimmie Higgins]

Of course immigrants will move to where there are jobs, but that does not mean that employers do not use immigants as cheap labour.

Then eliminate the cheapness of the labor and bat-a-ba-bah: no more downward pressure on wages from a 2nd-class group of workers. Temp and contract-company labor were categories designed to laower labor costs: in effect to carve out some non-union or at least cheaper labor from the larger unionized labor force that might have done those tasks in the past. It creates a downward pressure on wages and benifits as does right-to-work states in the US south. But the problem in none of these situations is the labor as people, it's the way the bosses have been able to structure labor that's the issue.

They want us to fight over crumbs because first we are too busy fighting for what they offer us rather than a bigger piece of the surplus and second when we can't even when that, people are much more willing to fight for the crumbs by offering concessions in order to keep out temp or contracted or immigrant or US southern labor. This is why often when the bosses give into demands, they will create a tiered benefit scheme: you can get this, but people hired after get this and so on. It splits the labor force and creates some who need to fight more and others who want to just keep what they have. In a larger sense, this is what happens with immigration or any other scapegoated section of labor.

Our strength is in uniting all these groups in solidarity with each-other. In the US, it has been a pre-condition for successful labor battles that some of these divisions, between craft and industrial worker, seasonal migrant and permanent, immigrant and native, black and white, have to be taken on and at least attempted to be mended.


I think was most of the posters on this tread need to get into their heads its that: Its not about what we think, its about what the rest think. Sure for the most part, we are right - and we know it, but try telling that to your next door neighbors...and there lies in the problem, which sadly, NO-ONE on this tread has an idea how to answer. You may be all high and mighty on here, but your preaching to the choir. Try putting your opinions across to a crowd of normal folk...i think you will rapidly become aware that they are stubborn as rock.:(First, immigrants aren't normal folk? But I get your meaning - there's a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment. Well there's a lot of sexism racism and support of capitalism too. This shit flows from the top - I can prove this with evidence from California anti-immigrant movements of the last 150 years showing how the "spontaneous populist rebellion against immigrants" often reported in the press, is just as often in fact the result of campaigns by these same news companies to demonize that group. The "yellow peril" comes from politicians and right-wing media tycoons of the early 20th, not some spontaneous popular hysteria. I don't know the specific history, but I would be very surprised if this wasn't also the case in the UK.

At any rate, this is a real question from time to time when anti-immigrant sentiment does take hold (which I think is a reflection of the weakness of the left to popularize an accurate view pointing the fingers at the bosses, not the most powerless people in society) among some workers. How do you deal with it? Well certainty not by bending and adapting to it, apologizing for supporting full equal working brothers and sisters who happen to have been born across some invisible line created by powerful wealthy people, all claiming the riches and labor within those lines. And yes I do organize on this, I do go out and talk to people at the subway station and street-corner. I'm old school like that, I do the one-on-one propagandizing. And so maybe one out of X scores of people who pass gives me some anti-immigrant shit. So? At least I do deserve getting that shit because I do want to see a world without borders... so much nicer than when some crank attacks you based on misconceptions of radical politics. But anyway, fuck em. There's probably no changing their mind, but sometimes when you can make a more concrete argument even stubborn ideas like this can be changed. I know of several accounts of strikes where issues of oppression within the class came up and people worked-through them partially just out of necessity because they saw that they had the same enemy and more to gain from solidarity than from competition.

It's better to use our time an organize people who already see that union strength is hurt by anti-immigrant policies or immigrants themselves who want allies and are often radicalized by the experience of fighting to defend themselves in these kinds of situations. The US revolutionary movement really would not have been the same without the early Irish, Jewish, Italian, Polish etc. immigrants... who sometimes organized because they needed to defend themselves both on a social level and on the job.

So I'm not too bothered if I encounter some opposition on this. I think it's an Achilles heel for the class if these attitudes go un-challenged and so if I were in the UK I would see this as one of the prime tasks of the radical movement. Just as in the US anti-black racism as well as anti-immigrant sentiments are a weight around the neck of the class.

[brigadista]

interesting research from the TUC about Polish workers in the UK

http://www.tuc.org.uk/international/tuc-9472-f0.cfm

[Paul Cockshott]

One rest day each week or legal ban on employers imposing work more than six days out of seven. - Legal reduction of the working day to eight hours for adults. - A ban on children under fourteen years working in private workshops; and, between fourteen and sixteen years, reduction of the working day from eight to six hours;
Protective supervision of apprentices by the workers' organizations;
Legal minimum wage, determined each year according to the local price of food, by a workers' statistical commission;
Legal prohibition of bosses employing foreign workers at a wage less than that of French workers;
Equal pay for equal work, for workers of both sexes;
Scientific and professional instruction of all children, with their maintenance the responsibility of society, represented by the state and the Commune;
Responsibility of society for the old and the disabled;
Prohibition of all interference by employers in the administration of workers' friendly societies, provident societies, etc., which are returned to the exclusive control of the workers;
Responsibility of the bosses in the matter of accidents, guaranteed by a security paid by the employer into the workers' funds, and in proportion to the number of workers employed and the danger that the industry presents;
Intervention by the workers in the special regulations of the various workshops; an end to the right usurped by the bosses to impose any penalty on their workers in the form of fines or withholding of wages (decree by the Commune of 27 April 1871);
Annulment of all the contracts that have alienated public property (banks, railways, mines, etc.), and the exploitation of all state-owned workshops to be entrusted to the workers who work there;
Abolition of all indirect taxes and transformation of all direct taxes into a progressive tax on incomes over 3,000 francs. Suppression of all inheritance on a collateral line [8] and of all direct inheritance over 20,000 francs.

Programme of the French Workers Party, drafted by Marx

[Lowtech]

The problem is it's been shown to be is that unrestricted immigration breeds racism and xenophobia amongst the population

no. being a pansy ass and blaming your problems on foreigners is what breeds racism and xenophobia. also, saying that these things are "breed" from something happening is the attempt to justify idiocy.

[Juche]

marx's answer to this was to demand punitive laws against employers who paid immigrants less than the going wage for native workers.

That's brilliant. Employers would have no incentive to hire non-natives.

[Juche]

I sympathize with immigrants. I understand why they come. But eventually it does cause problems. I think part of what would help is cooperation with neighboring countries. Say such as Mexico. If there nation was self reliant they wouldn't need to immigrate.
I'm not sure if this is contradictory to my views, but if we helped mexico build it's economy then that would solve the problem wouldn't it?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I sympathize with immigrants. I understand why they come. But eventually it does cause problems. I think part of what would help is cooperation with neighboring countries. Say such as Mexico. If there nation was self reliant they wouldn't need to immigrate.
I'm not sure if this is contradictory to my views, but if we helped mexico build it's economy then that would solve the problem wouldn't it?

Well first, I don't think there are problems created by migration - or maybe I should ask, what problems are created by migration itself? Migration doesn't set labor policies or control wages or anything, so I don't see how in the abstract migrant labor is any different from native labor. How they fit into the system, however, is very different, but there the blame is on the people who control and organize production, not the people they do or do not hire. The problem isn't in the labor or the laborers themselves, but with the way labor has been organized and the laws which set both undocumented workers and often documented immigrant workers apart from the rest of the labor-force, making them easier to exploit and often mistreat.

As far as the Mexico example goes, well in a way this is true. If rural Mexico's population wasn't being upended and forced to find work in Mexico City, border manufacturing areas or US cities, then there would probably be less migration to all these areas. I also think it's important to point out that part of the reason people have been traveling from Mexico and Central America to the US, as a specific example of migration, has a lot to do with the toll that US-led neoliberalization schemes has taken. But for "Mexico to become self-sufficient" even in capitalist terms, it would basically take a revolution in the US to neutralized the ability of the US to have imperial influence in it's North American neighbors or other parts of the Americas or a revolution in Mexico of a populist-nationalist sort if not a socialist revolution (which would also probably also need at least a large anti-imperialist movement in the US to prevent US interventions to stop a worker's revolution at their doorstep).

So I think in the meantime, we should try and work to defend migrant and undocumented workers where they are being attacked or where they are fighting back and we should also try and organize native-born workers to also see attacks on migrant labor as an attack on all labor and possibly organize labor militants to fight for unions to accept and defend undocumented members. This would help build an opposition to scapegoating and racism/nativism while also helping workers to organize in a way that helps build solidarity and a sense of our power as a class.

[feather canyons]

A lot of the problem is just religion. Many immigrants are very religious, and worship a different god than natives. Cultural clashes are bound to arise, such as has just occurred over the Innocence of Islam film. You don't have to view this as bad though. These kind of conflicts are dialectical - they result in new synthases, improved discourse etc. It's evolution gentlemen.

[feather canyons]

I'm not sure if this is contradictory to my views, but if we helped mexico build it's economy then that would solve the problem wouldn't it?

Possibly. But it's pretty had to help it now that we've so irreparably fucked it.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The Wall Street bailout was Socialism for the rich perhaps, certainly not Marxist Socialism, which is the only type of "socialism" that is relevant to us. Fuck anything else.

yea no
"socialism for the rich" is an intellectually bankrupt liberal slogan