illegal immigration

[ponymaruni3]

I know that communists really dont believe in the concept of illegal immigration and the concept of nationalism but where should the line be crossed. Can too much illegal immigration in to a country harm it in any way? Or are there no repercussions of illegal immigration? In the dominican republic for example there are around 2.5 million haitian immigrants in a very small but overpopulated country. Could this be an example of illegal immigration being harmful? Im confused about this topic, please enlighten me.:confused::confused::confused:

[GPDP]

Would it matter if those Haitian immigrants had immigrated there legally?

In any case, you miss the key issue here, that being the fact that workers have no country and should be allowed freedom of movement. Also the fact that if workers move to another country, especially if they do so illegally, it's because they are seeking a better life than they would get in their home country, which is usually in dire straits due to imperialism and other shit they have to deal with.

[helot]

There's really only two issues around immigrants that concern me... the first of which is xenophobia and the second is immigrants being used as a cheap source of labour compared to the population at large. None of these are the fault of the migrants who as GPDP points out are merely seeking better conditions. How can we fault them for that? I'd do the same. I think that the key to solving both is for migrants and non-migrants organising together and fighting for better conditions.

[Blake's Baby]

The American army moving into your country is a sort of illegal immigration leftists often oppose.

Poor people moving from one place to another? Does that harm 'the country'? Fuck 'the country'. Workers have no country.

[Lardlad95]

As far as the US is concerned, the current illegal immigration "crisis" wouldn't even exist if it hadn't been for NAFTA. Globalization and "Free Trade" actually fucked over American and Mexican workers in a multitude of ways. It displaced millions of Mexican farmers, encouraged rapid outsourcing in America, and ultimately put underemployed American workers in a position where they felt threatened by "illegal" immigrants who are only coming to America as a result of the same policies that eroded the American manufacturing base in the first place.

[brigadista]

the issue is not immigration its exploitative bosses

[Grenzer]

The American army moving into your country is a sort of illegal immigration leftists often oppose.

Except that's not immigration by any stretch of the imagination. Military occupation =/= immigration. This is common sense.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Most people would never leave their homes, families, friends, etc. unless they were in a situation that was out of their control. My family would have never left Sarajevo had there not been a war. Had the war never happened, I'd probably be in Sarajevo right now doing whatever it is I would be doing. The vast majority of people leave their nations of origin due to circumstances beyond their control.

We have a saying here in the former Yugoslavia, "Trbuhom za kruhom" or "The stomach follows the bread." I think that explains people's migrations very well. People move because there is a genuine reason to move. As most wouldn't leave their life behind unless they felt it would better their life substantially.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As far as the US is concerned, the current illegal immigration "crisis" wouldn't even exist if it hadn't been for NAFTA. Globalization and "Free Trade" actually fucked over American and Mexican workers in a multitude of ways. It displaced millions of Mexican farmers, encouraged rapid outsourcing in America, and ultimately put underemployed American workers in a position where they felt threatened by "illegal" immigrants who are only coming to America as a result of the same policies that eroded the American manufacturing base in the first place.

Well and not to mention there is no "crisis" to begin with. Declining US manufacturing, changes in the models of employment, and so on all happened independantly of immigration trends. As have employment rates - in fact the only connection the last few recessions in the US had with immigration, is that each recession saw a decline in immigration as jobs dried up. When there was a big influx of immigration to the US in the 1990s, there was also 3% unemployment.

So employment trends and the power or lack of power on the job by workers has nothing to do with immigrants and everything to do with the balance of class forces. Ironically, the more the bosses can scapegoat immigrants, the more they can repress immigrants by propping up these fears, the more the balance is in the favor of the bosses because it's harder for workers to organize but also by accepting that workers are the cause of employment or lack of employment, means that the bosses are off the hook and workers have already constrained themselves to fighting over what is offered by the bosses.

[blake 3:17]

I'd encourage RevLefters to support the drop the I word campaign:


Drop the I-Word is a public education campaign powered by immigrants and diverse communities across the country that value human dignity and are working to eradicate the dehumanizing slur "illegals" from everyday use and public discourse. The i-word opens the door to racial profiling and violence and prevents truthful, respectful debate on immigration. No human being is "illegal."

http://colorlines.com/droptheiword/

[Tim Cornelis]

I'd encourage RevLefters to support the drop the I word campaign:



http://colorlines.com/droptheiword/

It's rather common amongst far-leftists already to speak of 'undocumented migrants' instead of 'illegal immigrants,' I'd say.

[hetz]

Illegal or legal are, well, legal categories.
How should illegal immigrants be called?
Paper-less immigrants?

Sorry didn't see T. C.'s reply.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah "illegal" is propaganda. Most immigrant organizations and the left in the US say "undocumented" - and it's more accurate in legal terms too.

[Will Scarlet]

why even make the distinction at all?

[blake 3:17]

It's rather common amongst far-leftists already to speak of 'undocumented migrants' instead of 'illegal immigrants,' I'd say.

ColorLines has been organizing a the Drop the I Word campaign. It asks to take a personal pledge (easy for some of us), but also puts pressure on media to drop this racist term. There are regular petitions and mass email campaigns. Please support these.

Thanks and solidarity!

[TheOther]

Humans are like dogs, cats, in that they have a natural survival-mechanism. From my own personal point of view, the real reason of why people from poor countries migrate to wealthier countries is basically hunger, and/or extreme physical, mental, emotional, political persecution, high levels of crime in their poor original country (caused by plutocratic-governments) and other forms of extreme pain. So they move as a survival mechanism to their own selves and loved ones, wether that migration is legally or illegally. Remember that laws have been created by humans. Laws do not really exist, laws only exist if you get caught, all laws are fake, including borders and immigration laws, and have been created by oligarchic corrupt governments for their plutocratic corporate goals.





I know that communists really dont believe in the concept of illegal immigration and the concept of nationalism but where should the line be crossed. Can too much illegal immigration in to a country harm it in any way? Or are there no repercussions of illegal immigration? In the dominican republic for example there are around 2.5 million haitian immigrants in a very small but overpopulated country. Could this be an example of illegal immigration being harmful? Im confused about this topic, please enlighten me.:confused::confused::confused:

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

In the US, the people complaining loudest about "illegals" are people whose own ancestors arrived in North America and settled without the permission of those already living there.

[ponymaruni3]

Do illegals take jobs away from the natives or is this just bourgeoisie propaganda? please explain

[TheOther]

I would like to add to this debate about immigration in general. Not just illegal immigration but also legal immigration. That we also have to point out that in many small poor countries, exists a type of plutocratic oligarchical fascist pseudo-feudalist, pseudo-nepotist, pseudo-slavery political-economic systems, and not really normal capitalist systems. In which the monthly income of the majority of people is around 100 dollars to 800 dollars per month (no more than that). Compared with the monthly basic needs which are around 1000 dollars a month in most neoliberal poor nations like Honduras, Panama, Guatemala etc. So that creates a lot of street crimes, delincuency, immorality, lack of solidarity between people, extreme levels of individualism, narcissism. And a very very weak left. In many poor countries like Honduras and Colombia most people are very ultra-right wing catholics, very obsolete, very traditional. There is not an organized left like in USA, and Europe. So, because not even social-democrat welfare parties have chance to win election in many plutocratic dictatorships in small nations. Poor people are necessarily forced to migrate as a survival mechanism. Because they don't have any hope within the capitalist plutocratic system of their own countries. And they don't have any hope of a solution with the socialist parties of their own countries. Which most of the times are corrupt leftist parties, and leftist labor union leaders who most of the time betray the poor people of their own country by allying their socialist party with traditional parties. So that they can get tax exemptions on new cars, new apartments, a monthly check without working, and many other benefits.

The world out there is not a piece of cake, humans are very evil and corrupt, there are tons and tons of socialist parties of this whole world, that are in politics as a business. Many socialist parties in poor nations are as corrupt and evil as right-wing parties.








Do illegals take jobs away from the natives or is this just bourgeoisie propaganda? please explain

[Yuppie Grinder]

I know that communists really dont believe in the concept of illegal immigration and the concept of nationalism but where should the line be crossed. Can too much illegal immigration in to a country harm it in any way? Or are there no repercussions of illegal immigration? In the dominican republic for example there are around 2.5 million haitian immigrants in a very small but overpopulated country. Could this be an example of illegal immigration being harmful? Im confused about this topic, please enlighten me.:confused::confused::confused:

I don't give a fuck about "the country". I care about the well being of the working poor.

[Jimmie Higgins]

why even make the distinction at all?There are practical reasons for the distinction as long as there is a "legal" process that migrants from other countries are subject to - and as long as non-permitted immigrant labor is demonized. It's easier than saying: those workers with expired visas or those workers who have not applied for citizenship.


Do illegals take jobs away from the natives or is this just bourgeoisie propaganda? please explain Definitely propaganda. Often literally - when there have been contractions in employment in the US, since the late 1800s, there have been attempts to blame immigrants for this sudden economic crisis or contraction. And often it's the owners of the LA Times or Hearst in the early 20th century - now it's the Rupert Murdoch's and the Lou Dobbs who whip up the scapegaoting only to be tailed by the rise of xenophobic organizations like the Minutemen.

The rhetoric of "taking jobs" makes no sense - workers have no control over who gets or doesn't get jobs... so to think that the most oppressed groups of workers somehow "take jobs" and have power over this process is absurd. If someone had a bad full of candy and said to a group of boys and girls, "I'll give out 5 pieces of candy - one each for those who draw the best pictures". Then the candy goes to 5 girls, is it "girls stealing candy from boys"?

Unless immigrants are puting guns to the heads of bosses, there's no way that immigrants can "steal or take away" jobs - the bosses hold all the surplus wealth and power to make these decisions. It would be like saying "temp workers" steal full-time jobs. In both cases an employer may begin to favor that work arrangement (because undocumented and temp workers are not able to have the same rights and protections as other workers) but strategically, it does no good to oppose the worker, rather oppose that newly created category of employment which is more easily exploitable.

So any attempt at further restricting immigration will only force migrants further underground where they will continue to work for California Agriculture or shipping or in warehouses and whatnot, but without the ability to raise grievances or challenge their bosses or even go to the police if there is physical abuse on the job.

Ironically the same people who complain about immigrants stealing jobs ignore how the economy and the logic of capitalism actually take people who are working and being productive and literally take their job from them unlike the figurative way they think immigration "takes jobs". For them it's "natural" for a boss to fire chunks of the workforce (even while there is demand for the product and profits coming in) just to squeeze more money out of the remaining workers. But somehow it's illegal or "unnatural" to cross an invisible line looking for work.

[ponymaruni3]

i understand you completely and agree with you but at the same time illegal immigration causes a lower probability of a native landing a job by increasing the pool of potential employees.

[Jimmie Higgins]

i understand you completely and agree with you but at the same time illegal immigration causes a lower probability of a native landing a job by increasing the pool of potential employees.So does birth. So does cutting back on social security and therby making people delay retirement. So does recession and a contraction of production/investing.

But immigrants and new-borns or native workers have no control over production or hiring. Why is the native job more important than the immigrant?

The only way we can begin to have control over these things that impact us, is if we organize - and in a situation where there are migrants, excluding or supporting laws and restrictions against those other laborers actually shoots us in the foot in regards to having a united and strong struggle.

[Blake's Baby]

...
But immigrants and new-borns or native workers have no control over production or hiring. Why is the native job more important than the immigrant?
...

It's not even that, though you are right of course. Why should someone's employment prospects depend on where their mother happened to be when she gave birth to them? It makes no more sense than monarchy or any of those outmoded medieval concepts of people's 'station'. The Commune proclaimed the Universal Republic in 1871. Here we are, 140 years later, still arguing about 'nations'. Fuck them. Destroy them.