the lefts stance on immigration

[SocialismIsCentrist]

The worker has a vote in an election. the worker chooses which party to vote for and they can feel torn.

The left, a kinder, gentler sort of people seem to in the west come out with policies which are good for workers, but good for would be economic migrants.

anti-immigration feeling is tainted with the sort of racism that the left distances itself from.

The worker is basically at the moment fucked in england and probably the rest of the western world.

Vote rightists in to stop immigration (they wont really) the motiviation to vote that way is i think deeper than simple hate - it is fundamentally a fear of loosing ones job. so the right seem to offer a hope in that regard..

..but the left offer good things for workers like more trade union rights and NMW and other good stuff. But all that seems to be undone by the issue of economic migrants that the left seem soft on.


economic migration is a business friendly policy, its what the rightists want, no matter what they say. it is a splendid way for them to devide and conquer the worker in a developed country. it all part of the race to the bottom. unregulated trade and migration is part of this.

For the left to suceed in britain, it should recognise this concern. it would make their case more coherent to the currently torn worker-voter. overall, it would sidestep a fundamental cause of racism - the inflow that destablises peoples jobs and keeps wages down whilst fat cats are seen to get ever richer.

as yoda from star wars said: Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering..

...there is a fear that the left is soft on jobs because they are weak on the issue of immigration. the worker is trapped without hope because no faction will deliver the worker what they want. And i think this leads to the anger and hate. kill the root fear, remove the racism and gain votes and influence in britain and other countries like mine.

[slim]

Judging from your post i assume that you are also from the UK.

Everything you said is just about right. For the past few years i have told people about the evils of capitalism and now it is coming true. My Mum worked at Allders before it changed hands to Debenhams; now she is doing all the work, the rotors, paperwork etc because her bosses are incompetent fools who are treading on the workers. She is not a manager yet finds herself doing the work. There are no unions because of general ignorance of the people in such matters, there is no-one to complain to because the manager is always off site and there are no other jobs to go to.
The system is failing and i think my right wing mother is starting to see the truth the hard way.

I think nationally the people will vote in the far right because they feel underrepresented and exploited by New Labour. There will be harsh consequences for this election and the people may suffer.

It is our duty to educate the people on how to bring back democracy.

[Bugalu Shrimp]

You cannot legislate for others ignorance, when working class individuals blame lack of jobs or homes etc.. on immigrants legal or otherwise - they are missing the point. It is easy for the far and centre- right to exploit as we saw the Tory's do in the recent election, the thing is most people aren't quite as stupid as they estimated - and see beyond the effect to the root cause and through their lies.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

it is difficult to unionise when the job market is under constant disruption and manipulation. unions will not save a company from bankruptsy if it faces labour cost based competition.

The best way to solve such problems is to eliminate the competition. this is achieved in two ways. protectionism towards trade, protectionism towards labour movement.

[bolshevik butcher]

scotland needs immigrnats. There is a labour shortage here!

[SocialismIsCentrist]

labour shortage is a mechanism to gain higher wages.

[romanm]

Anti-Mexican chauvinism is on the rise.

Most of the so-called working calss are a bunch of white chauvinists who want to kick the Mexicans out of land which was stolen from Mexico. Every time the do a poll about the border issues or "immigration" the vast majority of the settler-nation vote to continue the tradition of depopulaing occupied Mexico. Yet more evidence proving that MIM is right and there is no white Amerikkkan proletariat and that Amerikkkans as a whole are the class enemy.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 07:27 PM
Anti-Mexican chauvinism is on the rise.

Most of the so-called working calss are a bunch of white chauvinists who want to kick the Mexicans out of land which was stolen from Mexico. Every time the do a poll about the border issues or "immigration" the vast majority of the settler-nation vote to continue the tradition of depopulaing occupied Mexico. Yet more evidence proving that MIM is right and there is no white Amerikkkan proletariat and that Amerikkkans as a whole are the class enemy.


Most of the so-called working calss are a bunch of white chauvinists who want to kick the Mexicans out of land which was stolen from Mexico.

a dangerous line of thinking that might be. my view of history: After world war 2 history started again - everything else water under the bridge and loose ends. generational held vendetta is invalid. But i doubt you hold strongly to that view.

if people were not loosing their jobs to mexican immigrants in the USA, then there probably would be a lot less anti-mexican sentiment. Fear leads to scape goats and disharmony.

I see no reason why the left should be on the side of big business in this. The left I think has been clumsy on this issue, its softer kinder intincts harming the overall objectives. An own goal.

Taking a stiffer attitude to migration would play well in the minds of workers fearing job losses due to competition from developing nations. the approach can be different than how the far right do it.

The far ultra-nationalists, a fast rising faction in most of the developed world says, "look, hard working people of our land, you're loosing yours jobs, your way of life to foreign scum who are bad people. vote for us." and the message is working.

the right want immigration because its good at undermining job security, pay and conditions.

the left wants immigration because it wants to be kind. however it is still possible to be against disruptive economic migration and be kind. Perhaps this is how:

the fundamental message could be - restrict disruptive economic migration thus fostering job security- resist the ultra-nationalist message of hating people who just want to work hard - instead focus all anger upon the ruling classes that seeks to devide and conquer the worlds labour by exploiting the hopeless and dissrupting regions that have achieved some level of worker protection.

--
fundamentally i think leftists should seek to guard what has been achieved, and spread this further.

One form of activism should be, the relatively rich trade unions of the developed nations being even more involved in spreading worker rights to were there are none.

[codyvo]

Romanm is right, the current american working class, as far as factory jobs go, is full of white, overly patriotic americans. These are not the workers we should be representing, they claim they are already represented by the republicans, we should be representing the true working class, the immigrants. The immigrants and foreign laborers fuel the economy and revieve nothing from the country in return. Even other workers and worker unions are now against them because the they have been brainwashed into thinking that the immigrants are the cause of the problems. We need to end this dispute within the working class, and show them that their problems are not race or nationality based, but caused by the rich. After we do this their won't be an immigration issue, the rich will want them to come work, and the poor will want more comrades for the fight, and will hopefully realize that lack of jobs is caused by outsourcing not immigration.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

so what do you think of the response to this immigration thing?

there are two response, radicalism towards nationalism. and since these white workers that you seem to hate will be loosing their jobs -well, they'll respond by competing harder for those jobs, eventually nullifying the need for immigrant labour..

..and then what have you got - a radicalised working population that hates immigrants and remebers the good old days, when there was none.

it is the immigrants who will be the scapegoats, not the ruling class who wanted them in to do the jobs they took. the left has to rethink this if it was to suceed in places other than desparately poor and near broken states.

[Black Dagger]

SocialismIsCentrist, so you support immigration restriction?

[SocialismIsCentrist]

no restrictions for refugees.

but I am for restrictions on business friendly migration. It undermines the solidarity of the workforce it is factor breaking the unions.

in south american they send thugs after union members - in the richer countries they send in workers from poor countries to break up such orgs.

consider a region like europe. this is how the world should be - though things can and must be improved. in europe you have a high level of social-economic freedom. you're chance of sucess in some countries in particular denmark, have little or no bearing on your origin class.

This was achieved through socialistic principles. These must not be eroded by ultra-capitalist immigration. Instead what has been achieved in the world must be protected and defended - and what has yet to be achieved must be pushed forwards.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:43 PM
but I am for restrictions on business friendly migration. It undermines the solidarity of the workforce it is factor breaking the unions.
I see...so the way to build solidarity among workers...is to deport some of them!

Not exactly "workers of the world, unite!" What you recommend is not a pro-worker policy but a policy of seeking to preserve privileges of part of the working class. Which were not achieved "in a socialistic way", but by winning partial concessions from the capitalist class..which can afford them because of its exploitation of the rest of the world.

And the policy you recommend is not a particularly effective one, even on its own terms. Migration is a fact in the modern world. A permanent one.

I just heard some academic expert on the radio talking about the U.S.-Mexico border...he was asked whether there was any way to stop the migration there and he said no, no matter what you do migrants and people-smugglers will find a way around it. Even though the UK is an island that'll be true there too, if there's no legal migration there'll be illegal migration.

Which is in fact better for the bosses; illegal migrants can be more easily kept in line through the thread of deportation. This helps keep their wages down; and thereby everybody's.

That's why even the notoriously bureaucratic AFL-CIO, in the U.S., has adopted a position in favor of immigrants' rights...they've realized all the immigration cops accomplish is to keep immigrant workers too intimidated to join unions.

Which fact should serve to refute: " Romanm is right, the current american working class, as far as factory jobs go, is full of white, overly patriotic americans". Even the labor bureaucracy is not as reactionary as you seem to assume all workers are (and believe me, the labor bureaucracy is worse than the workers.)

I might point out, incidentally, that plenty of Black, Latino, and Asian people work in factories. A disproportionate number, even, of Blacks and Latinos at least. I have to wonder if Codyvo's ideas about the working class come from watching Archie Bunker reruns.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

socialism shouldnt be about aiding the elite in dragging everybody down to the lowest common denominator.

[h&s]

This issue is raised far above where it should be. People fail to realise that if a country like the UK has had a successful revolution the world revolution will be widespread, and it would not be long (relatively speaking) until the whole world is under working class control.
This control creates jobs. Once the revolution is completely spread, there will be no economic migrants. Until then the revolution will just have to grin and bear any slight changes these migrants will bring.

[romanm]

Border issues is one place where we can make a difference. We need fight to keep the border open and we need to expose fascist pigs like Tom Tancredo, Bill Oreiley, Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, and Samul Huntington.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 15 2005, 03:50 PM
This issue is raised far above where it should be. People fail to realise that if a country like the UK has had a successful revolution the world revolution will be widespread, and it would not be long (relatively speaking) until the whole world is under working class control.
This control creates jobs. Once the revolution is completely spread, there will be no economic migrants. Until then the revolution will just have to grin and bear any slight changes these migrants will bring.
Also the immigration isn't really major, it's only so because the daily mail and sun want it to be.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

i would say it is major. 100k-200k per year. its not just jobs they take, because they end up on benefits payed for by a fairly regressive tax system. this leads directly to resentment of ordinary workers. further resentment emerges when people realise that immigration enhances other social-economic problems like housing costs, etc.

the immigrant becomes the scape goat - now some of that is over exhagerated, some of it is quite justified, but the only people are saying, lets stop this cause of some problems - like job losses, like increased costs of living - are the ultra-nationalists.

it is working class people who vote for these ultra-nationalists in ever greater numbers - so it is wrong I think, for the left that claims to represent the worker to have policies that would deliver them into economic slavery.

i hope many of you recognise the point, that leftist generally advocate policies on immigration that are in complete alignment with the wishes of big business.

why is this?

I see two possible reasons -
1) the leftist movement has been co-opted at the highest levels. this would seem odd because leftists tend to be more grass roots types in my opinion, leadership more from below - but still there are hierarchies in any organisation.

2) the leftist movement thinks with its heart too much. taking a line against immigration, kinda-sorta sounds like what the ultra-nationalists want for their own perverse reasons. so the leftists may take a polarised position. for sake of clear blue water - a symbollic expression of their abhorance to ultra-nationalist causes.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:27 PM
Yet more evidence proving that MIM is right and there is no white Amerikkkan proletariat and that Amerikkkans as a whole are the class enemy.
This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard, of couse there is a white American proletarian, regardless if they are class conscious or not.

[xnj]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 09:18 PM
its not just jobs they take, because they end up on benefits payed for by a fairly regressive tax system.
In the US, undocumented immigrants pay billions INTO the Social Security and Medicare systems, through payroll taxes deducted from wages, without ever receiving a cent of the benefits.

Illegal [sic] Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security with Billions (NYTimes) (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_040505G.shtml)


i hope many of you recognise the point, that leftist generally advocate policies on immigration that are in complete alignment with the wishes of big business.
Not really. Big Business wants immigrants to come into the imperialist metropoles while keeping them undocumented and unequal and maintaining a police apparatus to control them, in order to superexploit them above and beyond documented workers. Undocumented workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage, don't have to be given legal working conditions, and can't unionize easily (if at all).

I know what you're getting at, but it's not right. The way to prevent the "race to the bottom" isn't to restrict immigration (which is going to happen anyway), but to fight for the full equality of all workers, documented and undocumented, by demanding amnesty for all. It's to promote class unity around the lowest stratum against the bosses.


the leftist movement thinks with its heart too much.
It's not about being nice or bleeding hearts, it's about class solidarity. Immigrants, both documented and undocumented, are PART of the working class. Often, they're even the most militant and class-conscious section. They bring traditions of struggle with them that contribute positively to the labor movement in imperialist countries.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

yes, i am for the amnesty thing too. I see your point about them wanting undocumented unofficial labour. but even if its official - it will be in supply.

theres that supply and demand argument again. unions will strike, restrict supply of labour - remind the bosses of the value of labour. but if you've got an influx of supply both official and unnofficial - it tames the possibilites for class struggle.

backing economic migration can be seen as labour market manipulation in favour of the elite.

but still, an amnesty is needed probably in britain too. the problems too big to fix, to go round catching and deporting people - better to say, right, now, enough! but you resourceful lot can stay.

rotmutter:

i think the american dream is dead now. americans surely nolonger believe that they have equal opportunity? they are now more class ridden than britain - 4 generations to get from poverty to 80% average wealth.

[romanm]

As comrade Stalin said, social democrats do the spade work of fascism.

Agitating for some imaginary Amerikkkan so-called "working class" fans the fires of fascism. Pat Buchanan will thank you for all your help.

[Black Dagger]

in south american they send thugs after union members - in the richer countries they send in workers from poor countries to break up such orgs.

Latin-American workers are coming to the US because they live in poverty, it's not a sinister plan to 'steal' american jobs, they're trying to support themselves, their families, communities etc. Your arguments are national-chauvinist.



its not just jobs they take, because they end up on benefits payed for by a fairly regressive tax system

Who do these jobs 'belong' to? That they are 'taking'. You realise that 'illegals' still pay taxes right? They take all of 'your' benefits?

http://www.ailf.org/pubed/pe_articles_nw062102a.htm
"There are great misperceptions that immigrants are a drain on our economy, but many studies have confirmed that the opposite is true. Even undocumented workers - commonly referred to as 'illegal' contribute more than their fair share to our great country." (Alan Greenspan Federal Reserve Board chairman, congressional testimony, July 2001.)

Alan Greenspan informed Congress that immigrants, including undocumented workers, in essence donate $27 billion to state and local economies. This is the difference between what they pay in taxes ($70 billion) and what they use in services ($43 billion). In Illinois alone, he testified, "Illegal workers pay $547 million in taxes yearly, compared to $238 million in services used." This is a net "profit" for Illinois of $309 million. This phenomenon is the norm, not the exception, in states where undocumented workers pay taxes. Indeed, rather than take money from, undocumented workers donate money to the American economy and thus to Americans.

A recent (February) study by the University of Illinois found that even as undocumented workers paid federal and state income taxes (one study pegs the amount of taxes paid at $90 billion per year), they did not claim the tax refunds for which they were eligible. These unclaimed refunds amount to the donation of billions of dollars to the public coffers.

Another study by the Urban Institute found that undocumented workers contribute $2.7 billion to Social Security and another $168 million to unemployment insurance taxes. Because of their legal status, these workers will not be able to access these programs even if they wanted to. These contributions amount to outright donations to the country's economy. In essence, undocumented workers are subsidizing, to a significant degree, American recipients of these benefits.

In addition to the above tax donations, undocumented workers pay billions of dollars in local and state sales taxes when they purchase appliances, furniture, clothes and other goods. The diatribists are also addicted to the falsehood that undocumented workers come here to get on welfare and utilize other government services.

The reality, as documented by the UI study, is that the overwhelming majority of undocumented workers "do not receive any assistance under government safety-net programs," a fact that was reinforced by Greenspan in his congressional testimony.

No matter how hard the hate-mongers try to distort things, "mooching" simply cannot be squeezed out of these realities. Yet another falsehood to which the poison-penners are addicted is that "them Mexicans" take away jobs from Americans. We don't need Greenspan for this one. This is easily refuted by a simple eyeball test. Drive by the fields where stoop labor in 12-hour shifts for less-than-minimum-wage pay is performed. You'll see no line of Americans clamoring to be hired. Nor is there a single instance of white folks suing growers for "reverse discrimination" for not allowing them the opportunity to be exploited shamelessly. Ditto for the other industries that exploit these workers, primarily by paying less than the minimum wage.

A recent U.S. Department of Labor study noted that the notion that immigrants take jobs away from American workers is "the most persistent fallacy about immigration in popular thought." The reality is that undocumented workers create jobs.

The UI study found that as a result of the immense spending by undocumented workers (their purchasing power in Illinois alone is $18.7 billion, according to Greenspan) and of the founding of small businesses by this group, they create jobs. In Chicago alone, undocumented workers generated 31,000 jobs in the local economy."


i hope many of you recognise the point, that leftist generally advocate policies on immigration that are in complete alignment with the wishes of big business.
why is this?

False. 'Big business' wants to exploit workers, period. They dont care if those workers are national citizens or not, their motivation is to maximise profit, so they want the cheapest workers possible (without sacrificing much in quality). Where as the homogenised 'leftist' position you refer to emphasises the right of people to work, to not be excluded based on national chauvinism or racism. Moreover that 'we' demand the same 'rights' for everyone, but at the same time it would be illogical to deny workers, their families and communities (US dollars sent back 'home' are vital to many Latin-American economies), money to survive. This position is the pro-worker, anti-racist position, your position is in "complete alignment with the wishes" of the 'minute men', national chauvinists and racist labour groups.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

oh dear, you seem quite convinced. you even follow what that degenerate greenspan says. you also seem to have a view when it doesnt suit, that you dont have a right to keep a job. one of the fundamental justifications for the far lefts view on things like workers owning means to production sort of comes from the saying, "Possession is nine tenths of the law"

these workers occupied those position had certain pay levels for those conditions - then the business friendly right brings in an army of 3rd world workers to devide and conquer the local workforce. directly taking their jobs, and indirectly through the effect of supply and demand on the workforce as a whole, bringing everybodies wages down..

..and you just agree with it!

greenspans nonsense about taxes and services - well what would benefit the worker more, would be having that job back/pay rise that your suggested policies continue to deny for the benefit of the elite.

[Black Dagger]

you also seem to have a view when it doesnt suit, that you dont have a right to keep a job. one of the fundamental justifications for the far lefts view on things like workers owning means to production sort of comes from the saying, "Possession is nine tenths of the law"

Can you please re-phrase that? I dont understand what your point is.

As far this part of that section, "you also seem to have a view when it doesnt suit, that you dont have a right to keep a job"- that's not my view at all. All workers should have the 'right' to work, but 'keeping' a job is out of their control- because in a capitalist society workers do not own the means of production- therefore they have no control of these outcomes. So asserting anyone has a 'right' to something they have no control over is meanginless/wrong.

People dont 'own' jobs, different people sell their labour to a company- who buys their labour. The company decides which labour they will buy, based on cost and skills. For low-paying jobs the criteria is usually reduced to just cost. Everyone has the 'right' to a job, but no one has ownership over their job in a capitalist society, they dont 'own' the means of production- so the fact that they have that job (not 'their' job) is up to their employer.

Your position is to deny jobs to people who are not US citizens, because 'these people' are taking 'their' jobs [jobs of generally, wealthier people]. ok. So US citizens have a 'right' to a job, and the 'right' to keep it, but non-US citizens dont have a right to a job at all? Why? Is is it because they are not US citizens? How is that not national chavunist bigotry? My position is to support the 'right' of all workers to have a job, how can you justify saying that some workers 'deserve' jobs more than others based on what country they were born in? :angry:



these workers occupied those position had certain pay levels for those conditions - then the business friendly right brings in an army of 3rd world workers to devide and conquer the local workforce.

Actually, most '3rd world workers' migrate to the US in search of work, ' the business friendly right' doesn't 'bring in an army of 3rd world workers to devide and conquer the local workforce', they travel to the US in search of a means of survival. Capitalists recognise this vulernability and exploit it, offering them jobs at lower rates of pay than they would offer US workers, knowing that they are desperate, and will thus work for whatever that can get,

can the US workers losing their jobs say the same?

You seem to be blaming migrants for this situation, when it is capitalism that is creating these problems, poverty driving migration, profit driving exploitation.
Your response is, 'look! foreigners! they took ma job!' And you claim that i support the 'right business' position, ok, well then you support the 'right nationalist racist' position, because the 'arguments' you're using are in essence identical to those of the US anti-chinese labour movement of the late 19th century.

Would you endorse a 'Mexican [or Latin American] Exclusion Act'? In order to prevent 'illegal' migrants 'taking' 'american jobs'?



directly taking their jobs, and indirectly through the effect of supply and demand on the workforce as a whole, bringing everybodies wages down..

Again, why do US workers 'own' these jobs? Because they are US citizens? 'Bringing everybodies wages down'? Who is 'everyone'? The entire workforce? 'Illegal' migrants work in industries were wages are generally, already low- so their influence is relatively- not that great, and moreover some of these jobs are specifically created for sweat-shop-type workers/conditions, because capitalists know that US citizens would never 'lower' themselves to such work, and historically- these jobs have gone to the most opressed minorities within society- So they're not necessarily 'stealing' US-worker jobs, they could be 'stealing' the jobs of other 'illegal' migrants.

To assert that their prescence supresses the wages of the 'workforce' as whole- is plainly idiotic. Any jobs that requires more than rudimentary skills or requires a certain standard of education, or how about this english speaking skills? Will not be affected by the 'pressure' of 'illegal' labour, because they are not competing for the those jobs, there is no 'race to the bottom' between high-school teachers and plantation workers because their industries, skill requirements, and practical work are not comparable.



..and you just agree with it!

Yes, i agree with labour exploitation :rolleyes:
And don't forget i'm a traitor to my national working class! :lol:

If by 'agree' you mean that i'm not a labour-patriot such as yourself, then yes, i agree that i shouldnt deprive people of work because of their nationality, that does not mean that i condone their exploitation, because guess what? If they didnt work they'd starve, so would their families, failing that they could find another job, or another job, they will find someone to exploit them, but in a capitalist society this is the lot for most people. People should not be 'punished' because they are from an empoverished country, or because they are not a US citizen, i support every workers right to work, not just the workers of the country i live in. The strategy should be organise 'illegal' workers, to fight for higher wages- but the problem is, there will always be more, desperate, poor people arriving looking for work. So until Latin-American poverty is eliminated, i dont really see how can you 'stop' this 'problem', unless,

Do you favour a 'Mexican [or Latin American] Exclusion Act'? To stop the migration of Mexican and/or Latin American citizens from entering and working in the country?

And besides, US citizens can still access US social welfare and other benefits for that come from being US citizens,they still have the capacity to find a new job- they have extensive social connections in society (family, friends etc)- that new migrants dont usually have, they have english-speaking skills, and probably more 'skills' generally than non-citizens- but that may not always be the case.



greenspans nonsense about taxes and services

'greenspans nonense about taxes and services', so you've abandoned your classic racist-anti-immigration argument, "its not just jobs they take, because they end up on benefits payed for by a fairly regressive tax system" ? Did the 'nonsense' i posted debunk this? Or are 'illegals' still taking 'free-riding' on your 'tax dollars'?


well what would benefit the worker more, would be having that job back/pay rise that your suggested policies continue to deny for the benefit of the elite

What would benefit the worker more would be to abolish the capitalist system that exploits them. You have nothing but nationalist bigotry to justify why US workers 'deserve' or 'own' jobs more than non-US workers (please, tell why they 'deserve' these jobs any more than non-citizens? Iif anything non-US citizens need jobs much more than US citizens do, they are on average much poorer than US workers, and come from poorer families/communities that could greatly benefit from the injection of US dollars provided by their labour.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

when it suits, when it doesnt - rephrasing - I am suggesting that you care for one sort of worker than another. you support policies that under scrutiny just fit in with rightist capitalism. there may be fine and reasonable justifications but you have to look at the effect of policy not the inspiration.



Your position is to deny jobs to people who are not US citizens, because 'these people' are taking 'their' jobs [jobs of generally, wealthier people]. ok. So US citizens have a 'right' to a job, and the 'right' to keep it, but non-US citizens dont have a right to a job at all? Why? Is is it because they are not US citizens? How is that not national chavunist bigotry? My position is to support the 'right' of all workers to have a job, how can you justify saying that some workers 'deserve' jobs more than others based on what country they were born in?

if you disagree with me you're a racist. - is the metatext behind your argument. I dont agree because I believe that socialistic principles include right of self determination. I think right of self determination is also part of marxist theory.

in america there are popular movements of border patrols to stop illegals - this activity required and popular because the rightist state does nothing.

overall it seems to me an odd sort of politics of jealousy. for whatever reasons you are behind the poor of undeveloped nations far more than the poor of developed nations - you would see their social-economic freedom brought down to the lowest common denomenator.

instead you need to defend workers where they've achieved high levels of worker rights and environment protections, and agressively spread that around. It is stupid and counter productive what you advocate, goes straight into rightist planning. its what they frigging want.

ignore that greenspan fool. theres no point grabbing a fragment of the picture and declaring the whole.

these are the effects I would expect from a global reposition on this issue with regards to the lefts really, rightist capitalist stance on economic migration:

you would end up with stronger less subverted western trade unions. The rich trade unions should then support trade unionisation of the rest of the world. This could make a massive difference. Normally what happened in the struggle for workers in the west was they'd save up, then the union would target some company and finance the pickets - pay the workers what they nolonger earned. It was a long struggle but now the west, in paticular the EU is well off with the greatest social-economic equality in the world.

now the rich unions could then finance strike actions and pickets and all sorts in developing nations. a living wage in the UK is quite high. Dont let simple currency conversion fool you - UK workers, work as many hours as many rather undevelopped nations, the US case they really do compete with the most undevelopped for hours worked. In the UK its pretty bad though, cost of basic living, food, clothing, housing requires considerable effort again. we're sinking back towards the necessity for class struggle.

anyway - the point is, strengthen the position of nations that have achieved good things, and spread that around by way of enlighted self-interest. The cost of living low in comparion to union dues in the west means that trade unions in the west should be able to afford to back foreign worker strike actions and demands.


this is how I want to see the left behaving - not dragging everybody down to a desparate circumstance where they revolt when being dragged down wasnt necessary.

[Black Dagger]

when it suits, when it doesnt - rephrasing - I am suggesting that you care for one sort of worker than another.

No, that's what you're doing.

I am asserting that everyone should have the 'right' to work, and that no one should should be denied that 'right'. So i 'care' about ALL workers, they should all be able allowed to work, to survive. Moreover, i'm an anti-capitalist, so i advocate the abolition of capitalism, and thus in turn wage slavery.

You on the other hand are asserting that only US workers deserve to have jobs. And that non-US citizens should not be able to work in US society, because this is 'taking' jobs away from 'americans'. You only 'care' about US workers, and actively deny the 'right' of non-US workers to have jobs. If anyone 'cares for one sort of worker than another' it is clearly you. You also do not support support the abolition of capitalism, further mystifying your claim to 'care' about workers.

Moreover, by way of your nationalist bigotry, 'Americans' [US citizens] matter more than Latin-Americans (are more 'deserving'), or any other peoples who are not US citizens, that is a nationalist stance, no? That is an anti-Latin American stance, no?



you support policies that under scrutiny just fit in with rightist capitalism.

You support 'policies' that clearly fit within anti-Mexican/Latin American racist/nationalist groups, no?

Again, i've already stated this several times, so please read this part carefully.
I do not support labour exploitation. I support the right of every worker, regardless of nationality to have a job and try to 'make a living', avoid starvation and support their family- i dont support the conditions imposed on them by capitalists, i support the abolition of these conditions. If US workers so desire, they can work for lower wages, but for the most part they do not. Why? Because they (for the most part) dont live in absolute poverty like people migrating to the US.

Moreover, stop referring to my position as a 'policy' or 'policies'. I don't support the exploitation of capitalism or such 'economic policies', i'm supporting the 'right' of ALL workers to a decent standard of living, that is one above absolute poverty, and with no reference to their nationality.

I support the abolition of capitalism, you support its 'reform'. Therefore, if anyone 'supports' the 'policies' of 'rightist capitalism' it's you



there may be fine and reasonable justifications but you have to look at the effect of policy not the inspiration.

Which are what? Comparatively 'better off' US citizen loses job, empoverished migrant escapes poverty and supports self/family?

What is the effect of your 'policy'? Racism

'Foreigners out!' :rolleyes:

You didnt answer my previous question,

Would you endorse a 'Mexican [or Latin American] Exclusion Act'? In order to prevent 'illegal' migrants 'taking' 'american jobs'?



if you disagree with me you're a racist. - is the metatext behind your argument.

It's not a 'metatext', i stated it explictly. You are a racist. You support US workers over Latin-American workers because of where they come from, and you have yet to justify this position. You dont support 'workers', you support US workers, that is national 'socialism'.

Yet again i ask,

Why do US workers 'own' these jobs? Why do they 'deserve' them more than non-US citizens?



I dont agree because I believe that socialistic principles include right of self determination. I think right of self determination is also part of marxist theory.

What's your point?



in america there are popular movements of border patrols to stop illegals - this activity required and popular because the rightist state does nothing.

And you support them?



for whatever reasons you are behind the poor of undeveloped nations far more than the poor of developed nations -

I'm not 'behind' any one of over the other, that is your position is it not? Your position is the exact inverse of that statment. My position is that everyone has a 'right' to a job, and thus that no one should be excluded from work.



you would see their social-economic freedom brought down to the lowest common denomenator.

No. I would see capitalism abolished. What's your alternative? Let Latin-Americans starve? I'm glad to see you embrace the internationalist tenets of socialism :rolleyes:



instead you need to defend workers where they've achieved high levels of worker rights and environment protections, and agressively spread that around.

You're over-playing two things, the amount of jobs that are 'taken' by 'illegal' migrants, and the wages pre-migrant arrival. Not only is 'illegal' labour highly concentrated in to physical/unskilled industries, these are also the poorest paid jobs historically. Industries already lacking in 'worker rights' and 'environmental protections', and decent wages, before 'illegal' migants arrived.



It is stupid and counter productive what you advocate, goes straight into rightist planning. its what they frigging want.

You're manipulating my position. I'm first and foremost an anti-capitalist, which does not go 'straight' into 'rightist planning'. I advocate that capitalism is abolished so that no worker is exploited.

Second of all, i'm not supporting wage-slavery, or the lowering of wages, i'm supporting the 'right' of any worker to have a job, regardless of nationality.

You on the other hand insist on US workers keeping 'their jobs', based only on the fact that they are US citizens, and moreover that non-US citizens should be denied work. You in effect demand non-US citizens remain in poverty, because US workers 'deserve' to keep 'their jobs', despite the fact that living standards between migrant workers and US workers are not comparable. A US worker



ignore that greenspan fool. theres no point grabbing a fragment of the picture and declaring the whole.

Actually i think i would prefer to ignore you. You tried to assert that they 'free-ride' on 'your' taxes (do you even pay taxes?) and i refuted your point. You tried to assert that they supress the wages of the entire workforce, and i refuted your point.

I will take statistics gathered by top-level economists, university studies and by government departments and congressional testimony, over your poorly informed 'national socialist' anti-immigration ramblings. Even if you claim to be 'socialist'.

Just in case you 'forget' to read all of the above, please answer these questions (which i have asked numerous times already)


How and why do US workers 'own' their jobs?
Why do they 'deserve' them more than non-US citizens?
Why do they have the 'right' to work but non-US citizens do not?
Do you support a 'Mexican Exclusion Act'?
Do you support the 'minute-men' and other non-government border patrol groups?

EDIT


you would end up with stronger less subverted western trade unions.

United by a nationalist, and racist opposition to 'foreign' workers and other 'scabs'.



The rich trade unions should then support trade unionisation of the rest of the world.

'Rich trade unions'? :blink:
And where is the motivation for them to 'support' trade unions in the 'rest of the world'? Why not just use their resources for the workers in their own country? 'Supporting' trade unions in the 'third world' is great, but people are leaving Latin America because they cant find work, remember? This is does not change that situation at all, people will still need to migrate to the US to make a living.



It was a long struggle but now the west, in paticular the EU is well off with the greatest social-economic equality in the world.

Ah, your politics come to the fore. You don't give a shit about wage-slavery, you just want to raise peoples living standards. The capitalists can stay as long as workers get paid better? That's not what the 'struggle' should be about.



we're sinking back towards the necessity for class struggle.

OH NOES! Not CLASS STRUGGLE! :o

Class war? We wouldn't want that now would we?! Workers might actually get to control their own lives! The horrors! :lol:



anyway - the point is, strengthen the position of nations that have achieved good things, and spread that around by way of enlighted self-interest.

But in your national-'socialist' paradigm there is no motivation for unions to help the 'foreigners' that they have rallied to keep out. You cant condition a racist response then expect international solidarity.



The cost of living low in comparion to union dues in the west means that trade unions in the west should be able to afford to back foreign worker strike actions and demands.

Except that they can nothing from doing so, and actively despise 'foreign' workers- who undermine their wages remember?



this is how I want to see the left behaving - not dragging everybody down to a desparate circumstance where they revolt when being dragged down wasnt necessary.

I'm not 'draggin everybody down', that is what capitalism is doing. Im advocating the abolition of capitalism to end these 'deseperate circumstances', you suggest maintaing the poverty of the 'third world' in order to help the 'first-world' get richer, no thanks.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:18 PM
i would say it is major. 100k-200k per year.
Is that all? The population of the UK is around 60 million. "Over the decade to 2002, 3.9 million people entered the country as migrants and 2.8 million left, giving a net inflow of over one million people". source (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=766)

In contrast, 10% of the U.S. population was born in other countries, and 20% of Canada's. I bet UK unemployment is higher than either.


its not just jobs they take, because they end up on benefits payed for by a fairly regressive tax system. this leads directly to resentment of ordinary workers. further resentment emerges when people realise that immigration enhances other social-economic problems like housing costs, etc.

So: if they're employed, their stealing your job; if they're not, they're sponging off welfare and raising your taxes. The last is a totally reactionary statement BTW; the employers and state will squeeze workers for as much as we'll put up with, if you're after-tax pay is low it's because of the bosses' greed and the labor movement's weakness not because of people on the dole.

In fact that resentment against people on the dole helps lower wages: social benefits are cut, people who lose their jobs are more desperate to get new jobs immediately and will take whatever crappy pay they can get.


the immigrant becomes the scape goat - now some of that is over exhagerated, some of it is quite justified, but the only people are saying, lets stop this cause of some problems - like job losses, like increased costs of living - are the ultra-nationalists.

That's right, they're scapegoats for unemployment and unionbusting perpetrated by the bosses, their government, and their system. So why are you helping scapegoat them?

You don't fight ultrarightists by imiitating them. Every time mainstream politicians, including social democrats, target immigrants, it helps the ultraright. The ultrarightists say, see everyone agrees this is the problem. But we're the only people willing to do what it would really take to solve the problem, to drive out the immigrants and make the country pure.

Blackdagger wrote:

No matter how hard the hate-mongers try to distort things, "mooching" simply cannot be squeezed out of these realities. Yet another falsehood to which the poison-penners are addicted is that "them Mexicans" take away jobs from Americans. We don't need Greenspan for this one. This is easily refuted by a simple eyeball test. Drive by the fields where stoop labor in 12-hour shifts for less-than-minimum-wage pay is performed. You'll see no line of Americans clamoring to be hired. Nor is there a single instance of white folks suing growers for "reverse discrimination" for not allowing them the opportunity to be exploited shamelessly. Ditto for the other industries that exploit these workers, primarily by paying less than the minimum wage.

A recent U.S. Department of Labor study noted that the notion that immigrants take jobs away from American workers is "the most persistent fallacy about immigration in popular thought." The reality is that undocumented workers create jobs.

First, thanks for the stuff on taxes. That's a definite refutation of that line of argument - those people are driving up our taxes - and I see Centrist has dropped it as if he never said it.

But I think this argument that "Americans don't want those jobs anyway" is a bourgeois argument. If cheaper labor wasn't available, the bosses would have to improve wages, benefits, and conditions to the point where someone did want it.

It also assumes that the rightful role of immigrant workers is to do the crappy jobs and be separated into the lowest layers of the working class.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

First, thanks for the stuff on taxes. That's a definite refutation of that line of argument - those people are driving up our taxes - and I see Centrist has dropped it as if he never said it.
i thought the point was so blunt that most here would consider it irrelevent.

oh well. Why i consider the point about immigrant labour being a net tax benefit is a blunt point:

because taxes arent at 100%, a worker born in the country whos upbringing in part paid for by the country - could earn more in the job than on benefits. a lot more.

i think many of you have become blinkered by your understandable abhorance to ultra-nationalist sentiment into selecting policies manifestly counter to working class needs and wants.



So: if they're employed, their stealing your job; if they're not, they're sponging off welfare and raising your taxes. The last is a totally reactionary statement BTW; the employers and state will squeeze workers for as much as we'll put up with, if you're after-tax pay is low it's because of the bosses' greed and the labor movement's weakness not because of people on the dole.

In fact that resentment against people on the dole helps lower wages: social benefits are cut, people who lose their jobs are more desperate to get new jobs immediately and will take whatever crappy pay they can get.

it becomes easier to break up worker solidarity if the value of labour decreases - if there is much spare capacity - if you bring in the desparate from abroad to devide and conquer your local workforce. for the sake of reason in this discussion, you have to admit that labour value falls when desparate immigrants are bussed in.

[Black Dagger]

SocialismIsCentrist, please stop evading my questions:

How and why do US workers 'own' their jobs?

Why do they 'deserve' them more than non-US citizens?

Why do they have the 'right' to work but non-US citizens do not?

Do you support a 'Mexican Exclusion Act'?

Do you support the 'minute-men' and other non-government border patrol groups?

Can the capitalists can stay as long as workers get paid better?

You support 'policies' that clearly fit within anti-Mexican/Latin American racist/nationalist groups, no?

You infer that 'Americans' [US citizens] matter more than Latin-Americans (are more 'deserving'), or any other peoples who are not US citizens, that is a nationalist stance, no? That is an anti-Latin American stance, no?

You said:

in america there are popular movements of border patrols to stop illegals - this activity required and popular because the rightist state does nothing.

Do you support these groups?

[xnj]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:15 PM
theres that supply and demand argument again. unions will strike, restrict supply of labour - remind the bosses of the value of labour. but if you've got an influx of supply both official and unnofficial - it tames the possibilites for class struggle.
The proletariat is an international class and class struggle is ultimately about state power, not restricting the supply of labor to boost wages.

Immigration breaks down national divisions between workers and fuses together all of their traditions of struggle. It's a progressive phenomenon.

If you look at US history, immigrants have often been the most militant and class-conscious workers, who engaged in political not just economic struggle, from the Eastern European immigrants who brought over anarchist and communist ideas to the millions from the semicolonial world who know what it's like to live under unrefined, naked capitalism.


backing economic migration can be seen as labour market manipulation in favour of the elite.
Capital has freedom of movement. Why shouldn't labor?

One huge point is being overlooked in this thread. Why do people migrate to the US from Latin America? Because the economies of their countries have been ruined by US imperialism!

The livelihoods of peasants in Mexico have been devastated by the flood of cheap US agribusiness products opened up by NAFTA. Their economic migration is forced. For the billions on the receiving end, market forces are just as real as the barrel of a gun.

Preventing the workers from seeking a better life through immigration controls is beyond hypocrisy when they are moving precisely because of US govt policies.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 10:35 PM
Immigration breaks down national divisions between workers and fuses together all of their traditions of struggle. It's a progressive phenomenon.

If you look at US history, immigrants have often been the most militant and class-conscious workers, who engaged in political not just economic struggle, from the Eastern European immigrants who brought over anarchist and communist ideas to the millions from the semicolonial world who know what it's like to live under unrefined, naked capitalism.
I agree 100%. Immigrant workers don't want to go on working jobs others wouldn't do, i.e. under conditions others wouldn't accept. They fight and bring to the movement, the experiences of working people's struggles in their home countries.

This can greatly strengthen the working class. From Skychefs strikers in London, (http://www.themilitant.com/1999/6343/634357.html) to these mostly Mexicano miners in Utah, (http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6736/index.shtml) who struck for 3 months and are still fighting to bring in the union today.

***

Centrist, I don't understand your "blunt point". Could you try to explain it more clearly?

[SocialismIsCentrist]

How and why do US workers 'own' their jobs? blimey, well because they have often worked in them all their lives, the company and owners grew rich on their labour - under naked capitalism nobody is every properly compensated so from a moral perspective its pretty clear that they have some come back at all time.



Why do they 'deserve' them more than non-US citizens? There is a term for those who cross the picket lines - it is 'scabs' - in effect massive migration backed by a naive radical left and well thought out logical rightist capitalist to undermine the potential for that sort of worker struggle - to make labour in such high supply that there will always be scabs to fill any niche.



Why do they have the 'right' to work but non-US citizens do not?
in the US not really if the majority of workers dont want them. likewise the other way round.



Do you support a 'Mexican Exclusion Act'? i am unfamiliar with this act.



Do you support the 'minute-men' and other non-government border patrol groups? it is is a little bit mad and sad. I can see it from two perspectives. On one side you've got people wanting to better themselves, on the other people not wanting to loose their standard of living through the working class being devided and conquered. The government border patrol is thought to opperate in collusion with big business -to be lacks about its patrolling.




You support 'policies' that clearly fit within anti-Mexican/Latin American racist/nationalist groups, no? By accident - different inspirations behind them. and ultimately different outcomes.



You infer that 'Americans' [US citizens] matter more than Latin-Americans (are more 'deserving'), or any other peoples who are not US citizens, that is a nationalist stance, no? That is an anti-Latin American stance, no?

its about self determination and things like that. you cant govern if you've got chaos. you cant have meaningful democracy if you apply policies that favour rightist capitalism.

your understandable abhorance to ultra-nationalist 'thinking' is blinding you and other leftists towards what needs to be done.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

Originally posted by Severian+Jun 17 2005, 09:28 AM--> (Severian @ Jun 17 2005, 09:28 AM)
[email protected] 16 2005, 10:35 PM
Immigration breaks down national divisions between workers and fuses together all of their traditions of struggle. It's a progressive phenomenon.

If you look at US history, immigrants have often been the most militant and class-conscious workers, who engaged in political not just economic struggle, from the Eastern European immigrants who brought over anarchist and communist ideas to the millions from the semicolonial world who know what it's like to live under unrefined, naked capitalism.
I agree 100%. Immigrant workers don't want to go on working jobs others wouldn't do, i.e. under conditions others wouldn't accept. They fight and bring to the movement, the experiences of working people's struggles in their home countries.

This can greatly strengthen the working class. From Skychefs strikers in London, (http://www.themilitant.com/1999/6343/634357.html) to these mostly Mexicano miners in Utah, (http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6736/index.shtml) who struck for 3 months and are still fighting to bring in the union today.

***

Centrist, I don't understand your "blunt point". Could you try to explain it more clearly? [/b]
The blunt point was the greenspan thing.

A mexican worker who is not benefit sponging earns a certain amount per week, i dont know, im just kind of guess now...

$600/week? well some of that will be taxed so the state gets maybe $200 for each worker - i dont really know the tax rates.

so the mexican gets $400, the state gets $200 for arguments sake - but has had probably no outward expenses. no cost in the characteres education and uppringing - the perfect worker drone, providing revenue for the treasury.

Oh how bloody wonderful :lol: - this is of course a fragment of the picture.

if it wasnt for the mexican taking an american guys job, and the resulting depreciation of the value of labour:

the america worker would have got over $400 per week and that is a lot better that eeking out on benefit.

I dont believe immigration breaks donw national division. in Europe we have a lot of culturally almost incompatables coming in and they set up their own little communities, isolated and angry and often jobless.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:14 AM
A mexican worker who is not benefit sponging earns a certain amount per week, i dont know, im just kind of guess now...

$600/week? well some of that will be taxed so the state gets maybe $200 for each worker - i dont really know the tax rates.

so the mexican gets $400, the state gets $200 for arguments sake - but has had probably no outward expenses. no cost in the characteres education and uppringing - the perfect worker drone, providing revenue for the treasury.
You complained when you thought immigrants were draining the treasury. Now you complain because the opposite is the case.

And then, when somebody is unemployed and manages to get something back from the state, they're not collecting benefits they have a right to, they're "benefit sponging."

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

C'mon, what's your real complaint? Don't like the smell of curry? You oughta be glad to have something besides English food.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

well I'm not fully familiar with the american situation. It seems the chief concern is not benfits sponging it is disruption of the labour market.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

so - what should be done next?

restrictions of movement have a social-economic benefit, in particular to those who are loosing their jobs - and possibly in a general, enlightened way (less brain drain) to all- yet are kind of at odds with todays world of travel and communications.

I think part of the solution should be enhanced aid for social relief. food and water, education, things of that nature. And this ought to be redistributive on an international scale.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

I continue to favour this notion.

the difference between an ultra-nationalist needed block on immigration and a sensible, pragmatic leftist block on immigration is like this:

the ultra-nationalist BNP in britain would after that go further, it would deport the undesirables and create a great deal of tension and unhappiness.

If the left does it, blocks immigration through the greater needs of national harmony and social-economic stability - the fear of loosing jobs to migrants. the desparate support that emerges for the ultra-nationalists will dwindle and the extreme policies not supported. Furthmore the worker will see that the left really does stick up for their interests. As it should do as it basically wants to do.

with the fear gone an emergent peace can be achieved because fires burn out as tension can if not fueled constantly by fear - very legitimate fear.

[xnj]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:00 AM
I continue to favour this notion.

the difference between an ultra-nationalist needed block on immigration and a sensible, pragmatic leftist block on immigration is like this:

the ultra-nationalist BNP in britain would after that go further, it would deport the undesirables and create a great deal of tension and unhappiness.

If the left does it, blocks immigration through the greater needs of national harmony and social-economic stability - the fear of loosing jobs to migrants. the desparate support that emerges for the ultra-nationalists will dwindle and the extreme policies not supported. Furthmore the worker will see that the left really does stick up for their interests. As it should do as it basically wants to do.

with the fear gone an emergent peace can be achieved because fires burn out as tension can if not fueled constantly by fear - very legitimate fear.
First, there's no practical difference between the position you support and that of the Right. You're demanding the strengthening of the capitalist state and its repressive police apparatus, which is exactly what the Right is demanding. They're much more up front about it though.

Second, advocating an immigration block won't dwindle support for the Right. It'll only lend legitimacy and respectability to its ideas. Once you cede ground to them on this issue, shifting national politics further to the Right, they'll go on the attack on other issues as well.

Third, MIGRANTS ARE PART OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKING CLASS. They won't see "the Left" sticking up for their interests. They'll see "the Left" supporting police repression and vigilante terror against them and their families. And Britain-born workers, they'll see "the Left" leading them straight into the arms of the racist Right.

Yes, the fear of job-loss is legitimate. The way to address that fear isn't to scapegoat immigrant workers who're just looking for better lives like everyone else. Tell the Britain-born workers the truth. They're losing their jobs because the bosses will do anything to up their profits. They'll live with the fear of job-loss as long as capitalism is the dominant mode of production.

[redwinter]

SocialismIsCentrist: Here is the revolutionary communist position on the issue of immigration: (exercpts from the RCP Programme - "Ending Discrimination Against Immigrants" http://www.rwor.org/margorp/a-immigr.htm)


Ending Discrimination Against Immigrants

The world system of imperialism, with its crises and wars and its “normal workings,” uproots people from their homelands on a massive scale. It forces hundreds of millions to move from one end of the earth to the other in search of livelihood and survival.

In the U.S. today, there are millions of immigrants from Mexico and other parts of Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia/Pacific Islands, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and many other parts of the world. Their presence has greatly strengthened the internationalist character of the revolutionary movement in the U.S. The majority of immigrants are an integral part of the single multinational proletariat in the U.S., enriching the potential and forces for proletarian revolution in the belly of the beast.

In a country that is already highly stratified and segregated, whole groups of immigrants are shunted into caste-like conditions of employment, housing, etc. Immigrants are concentrated in low and unskilled jobs in manufacturing as well as in agriculture, and as janitors, busboys, servants, and so on. They are often herded and locked into menial jobs and the worst housing, and are denied decent health care, education, and other social services.

The bourgeoisie brags about its “great melting pot” as it lures immigrants into its cheap labor pools. At the same time it actively fans anti-immigrant and anti-*foreign hysteria throughout society to degrade and isolate immigrants and keep them in subhuman and superexploited conditions.

Immigrants are a key and dynamic factor in the U.S. economy, making up about 12 percent of the U.S. workforce. In addition to the majority of immigrants who are proletarians, there are significant numbers of immigrants who fill the need of the U.S. capitalists for trained professionals, educated abroad, who can be employed at lower cost than their counterparts educated and trained in the U.S. itself. Some immigrants are small business people and investors.

....

Throughout U.S. history, immigrants have been scapegoated and demonized to suit the changing economic and political needs of the U.S., domestically and in foreign policy, and this continues today. Japan*ese were put in concentrations camps during World War 2. Arabs are painted as “terrorist” suspects. Chinese are “model minorities” one day and “sneaky spies” the next. Haitians and Africans are cast into “America’s most wanted” along with the African-American population in this racist country. And Mexican workers are abused as “freeloaders” and “criminal aliens” for coming to El Norte to work.

The Stand and Policies of the Revolutionary Proletariat

The uncompromising stand of the proletariat and its vanguard Party is to build fierce resistance against all the attacks on immigrants—against attempts to dehumanize immigrants and deny them rights, and against racist attacks on non-European immigrants.

Upon seizing power, the proletariat will forcefully and immediately end the many abuses that immigrants had been sub*jected to under U.S. imperialism. No human being will be “illegal” or “alien.” No longer will anyone have to “live in the shadows” for fear that contact with any authority figure—from school and hospital personnel to the police—could result in being jailed or deported.
....

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 10:06 AM



Do you support the 'minute-men' and other non-government border patrol groups? it is is a little bit mad and sad. I can see it from two perspectives. On one side you've got people wanting to better themselves, on the other people not wanting to loose their standard of living through the working class being devided and conquered. The government border patrol is thought to opperate in collusion with big business -to be lacks about its patrolling.



the minute men arent trying to protect their standard of living. if they were they wouldnt support globalization and wage slavery. they would be presuring the american government not to sell out jobs to other countries

[Hefer]

I just don't understand why many americans(not all) are to lazy to go to college and earn a degree to get better paying jobs. I can't stand how much people ***** about immagrants taking LOW paying jobs. It's so easy, especially in the U$ to go to school almost free and become a doctor, engineer, lawyer and other highly paid jobs. Or maybe not those careers, but other good paying jobs that require 2-4 years of school. What about all the people who are U$ citizens and are on welfare doing nothing; but just living off the system and are capable of working. History keeps on repeating it self right before our eyes. First it was the native americans, then the Irish, Jews, Italians and so on. Maybe the U$ should bring down the statue of liberty or rephrase "Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses" since it has no meaning anymore.

[Severian]

Now that is a profoundly snobbish and anti-working class comment.

[bolshevik butcher]

I read soewhere that immigrnats int he UK are more liley to be in work than the average UK citizen.

[SocialismIsCentrist]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 24 2005, 12:45 PM
I read soewhere that immigrnats int he UK are more liley to be in work than the average UK citizen.
you're probably correct. however, in the end, they end up in immigrant communities which have a higher than average unemployment rate. unemployment creates tension and unhapiness.

I have some sympathy with what is being said about the international worker, and that many suffer today as a hangover from imperialism. but:

1) people in this generation cannot be held accountable for crimes of the past.
2) its about the idea of chaos. when you have moment of people, you do get tension. good governance should be about amonst other things, reducing tensions, increasing fairness.

without catastrophic changes - redistribution of wealth should occur on a global scale.

The left today finds itself claiming to be anti-capitalist but supporting with no practical difference, ultra-capitalist policies. and it is hypocritical. the so called left on this forum seems to want the poor to be devided and conquered - to take from the poor of one community and give to another - and thereby in effect, weakend the position of the local poor.

you're basically saying towards these america workers who loose their jobs/pay and conditions - tough. no wonder people turn towards ultra-nationalist scapegoatism when nobody will stand up for them - not the right, not the left - just the ultranationalists.

this just wont do at all. which is why I will continue to argue for a left that seeks global redistribution of wealth and good government for all regions.

whats wrong with taxing the rich people of rich nations to pay for sanitation, education etc, in undeveloped nations who wish for such things?