Immigration Bill

[enigma2517]

What is the leftist stance on immigration?

On one hand we have the simple internationalism solution fo "No Borders". Thats pretty self-explanatory in itself. In a default situation, this is probably what I would go with too.

However, I recently read an article that basically said allowing a flood of cheap labor into a country at once cheapens labor for everybody and pits the incumbent middle class against the newly arrived. By competing amongst ourselves, the corporatists are now able to lower wages even more due to the dilutation of organized labor.

http://gnn.tv/articles/2193/Today_s_Immigr...ists_vs_Racists (http://gnn.tv/articles/2193/Today_s_Immigration_Battle_Corporatists_vs_Racists )

Is this a good or bad thing? Would an economic crisis improve class consciousness or rather would keeping foreign workers out of the US take away incentive to fight amongst ourselves and fight our bosses?

Interesting broader question: Does an increased amount of diverse culture strengthen or weaken the cohesion and power of the proletariat in a given country/place.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 03:34 PM
What is the leftist stance on immigration?

On one hand we have the simple internationalism solution fo "No Borders". Thats pretty self-explanatory in itself. In a default situation, this is probably what I would go with too.

However, I recently read an article that basically said allowing a flood of cheap labor into a country at once cheapens labor for everybody and pits the incumbent middle class against the newly arrived. By competing amongst ourselves, the corporatists are now able to lower wages even more due to the dilutation of organized labor.

http://gnn.tv/articles/2193/Today_s_Immigr...ists_vs_Racists (http://gnn.tv/articles/2193/Today_s_Immigration_Battle_Corporatists_vs_Racists )

Is this a good or bad thing? Would an economic crisis improve class consciousness or rather would keeping foreign workers out of the US take away incentive to fight amongst ourselves and fight our bosses?

Interesting broader question: Does an increased amount of diverse culture strengthen or weaken the cohesion and power of the proletariat in a given country/place.
what do you mean by "competing amongst ourselves", if the middle class is not proletarian? Those immigrants are real proletarians. And yes, they might lower wages even more, but then they would start realizing that they are being fucked, and become class-conscious. There's 12 million or so undocumented immigrants here: that amounts to a greater revolutionary communist army! :lol:

[321zero]

'No borders' is utopian - it would mean the end of the nation-state, that is, it's not a possibility this side of world revolution. More sensible to demand an end to immigration controls and full citizenship rights for anyone who's made it to where-ever they've made it to.

[LoneRed]

then just hold on to your bourgeois notions of land, and nationality, as it seems you are rather fond of nation-states and separating people

[C_Rasmussen]

Question about the idea of allowing illegal immigrants into this country, what happens to the jobs?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

See the interesting thing about immigration is that it's the one issue that doens't really effect politicians. No one that they're barring/allowing into the nation would vote for them so they're free to make a desicion based on morals.

The left, I think views this issue from two different stand points. The workers standpoint is that they are taking our jobs and we can't compete, while the humanitarian stand point is that these people come from unspeakably and unthinkably poor areas and we need to help them.

My compromise is this. We go ahead and build an electrical, barb wired fence. Add more border patrol and cameras but allow 1-4% of the current immigrant population into the nation after background checks each year. Also, enforce our minimum wage laws. This will please about everyone. We'll be safe from a potential terrorist attack, people seeking a better life will be aloowed in, and workers will most likly get their jobs.

[RedCeltic]

If you had the opportunity to go back in time and ask any worker in 1906 what they thought the biggest difficulties workers in the United States had to face was, they would without a doubt that the consistent flood of immigration meant that employers can lower wages as they see fit, and employees were expendable as there was always another fresh shipment of cheep labor huddled in steerage fleeing from Italy, Ireland, Poland, Romania, etc..

When Labor laws and regulations were put into place however, many employers found ways around these governmental “constraints” by hiring illegal immigrants. Now while the republicans and democrats debate over the immigration issue, some calling for criminalization, some calling for “guest worker programs” and others for amnesty, few seem to be speaking of what I would see as a more humane and logical solution.

Criminalizing, and massive deportation seems to be the most inhumane and illogical approach to the problem. Even if they could round up thousands of illegal workers, they would be sending them back to a desperate situation that they have risked everything to overcome. Amnesty, or guest worker programs, while being slightly more logical and perhaps more humane on the surface, are also inhumane in that it seeks to legitimize the ongoing exploitation of these workers.

A better solution I would like to see at least proposed (the overthrowing of capitalism would naturally be the best solution) would be sort of a labor version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In other words, a labor agreement in which all nations that sign on to it would agree to abide by set labor standards, and employers of any of these said nations would be free to employ workers from any other of these nations as long as these labor laws that have been put into place are followed. This would mean that workers would be able to go where the work is and be afforded the same rights under the law as any other worker in that nation.

Of course this would never be agreed upon in the US government because the corporations that are influencing legislation benefit from a mobile immigrant work force only when it allows them to circumvent labor laws.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

So it seems the question is how should we as Marxists view illegal immigration. First of all, internationalism is key. As Marxists(or Anarchists) we are fighting for the emancipation of working peoples over the entire globe, as a class, and we should focus on what is best for the working class as a whole worldwide, not merely in our home country. With this in mind, we should not succumb to the "us vs. them" mentality that tends to portray immigrants as foreigners or invaders. Contrary to the image that the ruling class tries to give, immigrants tend not to come here because they view the US as some shining beacon of greatness, it almost always is because the US offers greater economic opportunities. They do NOT take away any other worker's jobs. Immigrants tend to immigrate to countries that are experiencing economic growth and labor shortages, thus they are taking jobs that have been newly created or have remained un-filled by the current labor pool. We should see them for what they are: fellow workers who have migrated to another region in search of work and sustenance, the fact that they had to cross some bourgeois-invented border means nothing. Capitalists use these national-borders to their advantage by making it illegal to migrate but tacitly letting them into the country anyway. This in effect creates a second-class of workers. This greatly benefits the capitalists because they can exploit these workers and pay them shitty wages, they prevent the new workers from organizing, they keep the working class divided by pitting "immigrant vs. worker", and finally they can use the immigrants as scape-goats whenever the capitalist economy that they run experiences trouble or a recession. Immigration is natural and a good thing as the mobility of people across the world is important not only for the successful growth and running of economies, but also for human freedom. We should argue that immigrants should be allowed into our borders and that "illegal" immigrants should be granted amnesty and basically equal rights to that of the greater society. Such a legalization will mean that the price of produce in your market might slightly go up, but it will also mean better wages for all workers, and a united working class, more importantly it will serve our greater goal - the destruction of the nation-state and of all borders, which will greatly aid the realization of class-consciousness in the world-wide working class.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

See the interesting thing about immigration is that it's the one issue that doens't really effect politicians. No one that they're barring/allowing into the nation would vote for them so they're free to make a desicion based on morals.

It does effect them. Marx's whole point was that the power of the working class comes in the production process, not as consumers or participants in bourgeois politics. The vast majority of those illegal immigrants are workers, and thus they hold massive labor power, the power to strike, to organize etc. which are a far greater threat to the stability of capitalism than the possible election of any "leftist" politician.


The left, I think views this issue from two different stand points. The workers standpoint is that they are taking our jobs and we can't compete, while the humanitarian stand point is that these people come from unspeakably and unthinkably poor areas and we need to help them.


I've never seen any genuine Marxists take the "workers standpoint" that you present. That is the view of "economists" and vulgar Marxists.


My compromise is this. We go ahead and build an electrical, barb wired fence. Add more border patrol and cameras but allow 1-4% of the current immigrant population into the nation after background checks each year. Also, enforce our minimum wage laws. This will please about everyone. We'll be safe from a potential terrorist attack, people seeking a better life will be aloowed in, and workers will most likly get their jobs.

So your compromise is the re-inforcement and support of nation-states and allegiance to your domestic bourgeoisie vs. fellow workers? Very revolutionary.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

If you had the opportunity to go back in time and ask any worker in 1906 what they thought the biggest difficulties workers in the United States had to face was, they would without a doubt that the consistent flood of immigration meant that employers can lower wages as they see fit, and employees were expendable as there was always another fresh shipment of cheep labor huddled in steerage fleeing from Italy, Ireland, Poland, Romania, etc..

What workers would these be? The same Second Internationalists that decided to side with their home countries in WWI instead of staying internationalist? The same ones that eventually lost all Marxist viewpoint and became shells of social-democratic parties? Those are the only groups I can see espousing such a viewpoint. Although I cant speak for 1906, I can say that most determined Marxists in the 1920s and 1930s actively embraced the recent influx of immigrants and often formed their base around immigrants from Europe who had been Marxists at home. Regardless, the revolutionaries that existed in 1906 failed to succeed in revolution, I suspect possibly in large part due to their lack of internationalism, and thus their opinion doesn't seem highly relevant today.


When Labor laws and regulations were put into place however, many employers found ways around these governmental “constraints” by hiring illegal immigrants. Now while the republicans and democrats debate over the immigration issue, some calling for criminalization, some calling for “guest worker programs” and others for amnesty, few seem to be speaking of what I would see as a more humane and logical solution.

They didn't "find" ways around these constraints. It was always there. If a capitalist economy like the US's is going to grow rapidly, it NEEDS immigrants to do so. That is why most immigration labor laws were never enforced. Yet they were kept illegal, as 2nd-class citizens, because it benefited the ruling class in a myriad of ways. We should fight against this illegalization which only seeks to divide us from our fellow members of the working class. Any wage decrease due to immigraton should be corrected by a wage increase following the legalization of immigrants and the enforcement of labor laws.



Criminalizing, and massive deportation seems to be the most inhumane and illogical approach to the problem. Even if they could round up thousands of illegal workers, they would be sending them back to a desperate situation that they have risked everything to overcome. Amnesty, or guest worker programs, while being slightly more logical and perhaps more humane on the surface, are also inhumane in that it seeks to legitimize the ongoing exploitation of these workers.

I agree 100% that guest worker programs legitimize the exploitation, but how would amnesty do so?


A better solution I would like to see at least proposed (the overthrowing of capitalism would naturally be the best solution) would be sort of a labor version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In other words, a labor agreement in which all nations that sign on to it would agree to abide by set labor standards, and employers of any of these said nations would be free to employ workers from any other of these nations as long as these labor laws that have been put into place are followed. This would mean that workers would be able to go where the work is and be afforded the same rights under the law as any other worker in that nation.

I think thats what will happen. The past 50 or so years has been the globalization of capital, the globalization of labor seems like it will follow suit to make capitalism more efficient. It would allow the capitalists to become more efficient and possibly greater exploit workers, but it would also be a great leap forward towards class consciousness.



Of course this would never be agreed upon in the US government because the corporations that are influencing legislation benefit from a mobile immigrant work force only when it allows them to circumvent labor laws.

No they don't, in an economic upturn they greatly benefit from mobile immigration labor regardless of whether labor laws are enforced or not, they need it for growth and profits, the fact that the labor happens to be illegal is just like icing on the cake for them. With major global corporations becoming a greater and greater mode of organizing production, I suspect that it will become increasingly more beneficial to capital to tear down nation-based laws that curb economic efficiency, including possibly immigration.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

It does effect them. Marx's whole point was that the power of the working class comes in the production process, not as consumers or participants in bourgeois politics. The vast majority of those illegal immigrants are workers, and thus they hold massive labor power, the power to strike, to organize etc. which are a far greater threat to the stability of capitalism than the possible election of any "leftist" politician.

You're right but that wasn't my point. I'm saying that the government can take whatever stand point they wish on this issue because no one it affects will vote for them thus this couldn't care less.




I've never seen any genuine Marxists take the "workers standpoint" that you present. That is the view of "economists" and vulgar Marxists.

No dude there's actually a political party out there called American Socialists, I think, that take this view. I was just using logic to explain how different leftist factions would face the issue.



So your compromise is the re-inforcement and support of nation-states and allegiance to your domestic bourgeoisie vs. fellow workers? Very revolutionary.

??? revolutionary ??? I'm just testing out a solution that'll fit everybody well. It protects the people, the American workers, and allows people seeking a better life a chance at it. Nothing about the bourgeoisie.

The post was merely a way at portraying the situation and how it can be resolved.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 05:34 PM
However, I recently read an article that basically said allowing a flood of cheap labor into a country at once cheapens labor for everybody and pits the incumbent middle class against the newly arrived. By competing amongst ourselves, the corporatists are now able to lower wages even more due to the dilutation of organized labor.
Well, of course it does. And this is not new. The exploitation of immigrant labor has been used to lower wages in the U.S. off and on for over a century. The labor movement has been wrestling with the questions involved all that time.

Black and women workes have also been brought into industries in order to increase competition for jobs and lower wages, also.

I think the rest of your post asks the wrong question, as Lefty Henry does also. The question is, how do workers respond to this objective reality of capitalism.

Do you try to defend the "job trust" of the more privileged, white male workers by keeping out the competition of Black, female, or immigrant workers? This is neither possible nor desirable.

The ruling class is not going to deport milliions of people, or keep anyone else from sneaking in! Even if they wanted to, which they don't.

The purpose and effect of immigration restrictions is to keep immigrants low-paid, so they can be more thoroughly exploited - and too intimidated to fight back. The fight against deportations, and for the legalization of all immigrants, weakens that intimidation. And by joining that fight, native-born workers say "We're on your side" and help unite the working class.

Even the AFL-CIO - the main council of union bureaucrats in the U.S. - now realizes this. (Has since 2000.) They have a policy of supporting immigrants' rights, including their right to organize unions. And immigrant workers have shown more interest and willingness to join unions than U.S.-born workers, actually.

U.S. unions have supported the recent immigrants' rights protests. Some - the ones with more immigrant members - have even built them and encouraged workers to take off work for them. But even such predominantly U.S.-born unions as the United Mine Workers have taken a pro-immigrant rights stand.

I'd hope that self-proclaimed leftists could at least not fall behind the union bureaucrats, but that may be hoping for too much.

LeftyHenry:

The workers standpoint is that they are taking our jobs and we can't compete, while the humanitarian stand point is that these people come from unspeakably and unthinkably poor areas and we need to help them.

Both wrong; one is the "job trust" standpoint and the other a pity-based liberal standpoint. As I've shown above, these are not the alternatives.

RedCeltic:

A better solution I would like to see at least proposed (the overthrowing of capitalism would naturally be the best solution) would be sort of a labor version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

This already exists; labor and environmental "side agreements" were part of NAFTA when it was passed. You could wish for stricter ones, of course, but:

In the hands of capitalist governments, these are nothing but additional clubs for the U.S. to use against Mexico. The lower "labor standards" of Mexico are the product of its historic imperialist-imposed underdevelopment; they will not be changed overnight, but only through economic development - and massive workers' actions.
Today, and for a long time to come, "international labor standards" can be nothing but another excuse for imperialist economic warfare against the Third World.

[321zero]

LoneRed


then just hold on to your bourgeois notions of land, and nationality, as it seems you are rather fond of nation-states and separating people

Are you talking to me LoneRed? Because if you are then you should realise that these "bourgeosis notions of land and nationality" are not my notions but are notions or rather realities about how capitalism organises itself.

Capitalist states are tied to territories which is why capitalist globalisation causes so much tension between the various centres of bourgeois power. The demand for 'no borders' is utopian in the same sense that the argument that capitalist globalisation can or will overcome international rivalry between states is utopian. It ignores the fact that capital is territorial.

I'm all for no borders, but until workers revolution has smashed the capitalist state in this country, and the capitalist state in the next country, and in the country after that etc, etc, that is until world revolution is victorious there will be borders that we don't control and therefore cannot simply 'wish away.'

Now what I proposed up-thread - opposition to all immigration controls and full citizenship rights for immigrants, wether they intend to eventually become citizens or not, pretty much covers the bases for what is needed by working people. Immigrants will not be 'illegal', subject to harrassment and deportation, and vulnerable to super-exploitation, and the borders will be open to migrants who want to cross over (no immigration controls).

You've said "it seems you are rather fond of nation-states and seperating people" - but made no argument to justify this. Care to make either an argument or a retraction??

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by @--

My compromise is this. We go ahead and build an electrical, barb wired fence. Add more border patrol and cameras but allow 1-4% of the current immigrant population into the nation after background checks each year. Also, enforce our minimum wage laws. This will please about everyone. We'll be safe from a potential terrorist attack, people seeking a better
what the fuck? you really need to consider your postition as a communist or socialist. Those compromises that you are making are reactionary and fascist! Those people come over here, the country that fucked them in the first place, and you talk about pleasing everyone when these immigrants are extremely exploited for their lack of rights! they are proletarians directly affected by this system and you go around sayin shit like that?

By the way, they use the war on terro as a pretext to make a wall. Terrorists wont cross the US-Mex border! get real!

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 11:34 PM
What is the leftist stance on immigration?

On one hand we have the simple internationalism solution fo "No Borders". Thats pretty self-explanatory in itself. In a default situation, this is probably what I would go with too.

However, I recently read an article that basically said allowing a flood of cheap labor into a country at once cheapens labor for everybody and pits the incumbent middle class against the newly arrived. By competing amongst ourselves, the corporatists are now able to lower wages even more due to the dilutation of organized labor.

http://gnn.tv/articles/2193/Today_s_Immigr...ists_vs_Racists (http://gnn.tv/articles/2193/Today_s_Immigration_Battle_Corporatists_vs_Racists )

Is this a good or bad thing? Would an economic crisis improve class consciousness or rather would keeping foreign workers out of the US take away incentive to fight amongst ourselves and fight our bosses?

Interesting broader question: Does an increased amount of diverse culture strengthen or weaken the cohesion and power of the proletariat in a given country/place.
Infighting between the working class is always going to happen under capitalism. I think if anyone takes the message of left-wing politics to heart, then they'd realize that borders are imaginary, we're all one people, and we all have a common ground.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

what the fuck? you really need to consider your postition as a communist or socialist. Those compromises that you are making are reactionary and fascist!

Woah dude relax! No need to spaz! I'm just displaying a solution to this scenario. What do you think? Socialists are going to get there way and only there way? No, we have to share. I'd think you guys would like this because Mexicans still get to come here AND GET PAID MORE THAN A CENT. It also helps THE AMERICAN WORKER



Those people come over here, the country that fucked them in the first place, and you talk about pleasing everyone when these immigrants are extremely exploited for their lack of rights! they are proletarians directly affected by this system and you go around sayin shit like that?

This helps them dude. They'll get paid more! BTW 1-4% is about the same amount of people that come every year any way and this will give them a safe passage away from crackers with shotguns ready to bust on them.


By the way, they use the war on terro as a pretext to make a wall. Terrorists wont cross the US-Mex border! get real!

No one ever thought terrorists would hijack those planes and drive them into the towers and kill a friend of mine! Get real? They could do it in a flash if they wanted to!

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Woah dude relax! No need to spaz! I'm just displaying a solution to this scenario. What do you think? Socialists are going to get there way and only there way? No, we have to share. I'd think you guys would like this because Mexicans still get to come here AND GET PAID MORE THAN A CENT. It also helps THE AMERICAN WORKER

People are "spazzing" because you are arguing on the terms set by the bourgeoisie. Of course leftists wont always get what they want, it doesn't mean we shouldn't vigourously argue for it and present our opinions.


No one ever thought terrorists would hijack those planes and drive them into the towers and kill a friend of mine! Get real? They could do it in a flash if they wanted to!

It's sad that your friend died in 9/11, it really is. But its important to realize that if we really want to stop terrorism the answer isn't simply to put a fence on our borders, its to have the imperialist countries change their foreign policy and to support the people in the countries where terrorism originates that are fighting against the religious nutjobs that perpetrate that shit. I don't think any of the 9/11 terrorists illegally crossed the Rio Grande or anything like that, they came in here legally. The war on terror is being used as a pretext for a lot of unjustified action by the US government, including the criminalizaton of the certain segments of the working class.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 07:33 PM








People are "spazzing" because you are arguing on the terms set by the bourgeoisie. Of course leftists wont always get what they want, it doesn't mean we shouldn't vigourously argue for it and present our opinions.It's sad that your friend died in 9/11, it really is. But its important to realize that if we really want to stop terrorism the answer isn't simply to put a fence on our borders, its to have the imperialist countries change their foreign policy and to support the people in the countries where terrorism originates that are fighting against the religious nutjobs that perpetrate that shit. I don't think any of the 9/11 terrorists illegally crossed the Rio Grande or anything like that, they came in here legally. The war on terror is being used as a pretext for a lot of unjustified action by the US government, including the criminalizaton of the certain segments of the working class.

hey look this is the only reasonable plan that I think the nation as a whole would agree on. The fence is just basically to prevent terrorists from coming in and to stop the crime that many people on the border are angry about.

I'm not saying that the terrorists came here through mexico, I'm just saying that if Al Queda wanted to, they could easily do it. Besides I don't think 1-4% of the immigration population (about 12 million here, so the plan would allow about half a million immigrants to come each year.) come to this nation anyway. Also, this plan like I said before, gives immigants a saer passage than before when they risked getting shot at. If it was up to me I'd let everyone in but unfortunatly it's not up to me.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:16 PM
hey look this is the only reasonable plan that I think the nation as a whole would agree on.
That's your problem. "The nation as a whole" includes both workers and bosses. Trying to get "the nation as a whole" to agree on anything...leads in exactly the wrong direction.

[LSD]

The problem with trying to come up with an "answer" to the "immigration" problem is that in doing so you tacitly accept bourgeois legitimacy.

There is no "solution" to "immigration" because the problem isn't "Mexicans" or "border security", it's capitalism. And as long as econ

As revolutionary leftists, our only concern must be what we can do within the confines placed on us by capitalist society. Imagining "perfect models" is nice fun, but it doesn't get us anywhere and it doesn't account for the fact that we are not the ones in charge.

Our "reaction" to immigration has to be pragmatic. We need to recognize that immigrants are not "terrorists" or "foreigners", they are proletarians and they are some of the most oppressed proletarians out there.

Supporting them in any fight for rights or recognition weakens the power of the bourgeoisie and strengthens the working-class position. It also helps to integrate immigrants into the general working population which serves to simultanteously improve immigrants' class position and remove a key tool from the bourgeoisie's political arsenol.

We are fighting class war here, not crafting bourgeois legislation. Anything that hurts the capitalists helps us!

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Ok LSD, So basically you're saying that if Al Queda crosses the mexican border and creates anthother 9/11 it's okay because its only hurting capitalists and that's good for us.

Are you guys reading what I'm posting? immigrants will still be able to come here in numbers like they did before! I just want to keep people safe! Do you guys like hate fences or something?

[bezdomni]

Yes. Fences are a means of bourgeois oppression.

Marx was actually mistranslated. What he meant to say was "worker's of the world, tear down your fences".

[LSD]

Ok LSD, So basically you're saying that if Al Queda crosses the mexican border and creates anthother 9/11 it's okay because its only hurting capitalists and that's good for us.

No, I'm saying that supporting immigrants rights hurts the capitalists and is good for us.

I don't recall mentioning "Al Quaeda" whatsoever.

And in terms of "terrorists", I would remind you that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States legally and that none of them crossed the Mexican-American border.

Making immigration a "terrorism" issue is just rightist fear-mongering nothing more.

As long as the US remains an imperialist oppressor, those it oppresses will try and fight back. Occassionaly, they will be spectacularly successful (e.g., Septermber 11th), but most of the time they will fail miserably.

"Building a wall" along the Mexican border, however, will not boost your chances. The US is simply too large a landmass to "insulate". And as long as your rulling class continues in its colonialist ways, the American people will unfortunately bear some of the costs.

The only real solution, of course, is to kick out your rulling class!


Are you guys reading what I'm posting?

You mean your "plan" for "solving immigration"? Yeah I read it. But since you have absolutely no ability to effect your will, it's completely meaningless.

All that "supporting" such a plan would do is strengthen the power of the bourgeois state and justify their anti-immigrant measures.

Again, we need to approach this question from a class position, not a legislative one. Accepting that the state has the "authority" to address these issues only weakens our position.


Do you guys like hate fences or something?

Well, actually we hate capitalism with all the petty paranoid, nationalistic, patriotic crap that goes with it these days.

[phragit]

I wrote this for my blog a while back, seams an adaquite first post:

The reason the United States has strict immigration laws is the price of labor. You see to the bourgeoisie class workers are nothing but a comodity. Thus with that they will do two things. First they will search for the most efficient source of this commidity, the more lowly regulated third world. The second thing they do is to seak to conserve this commodity, by forcing workers to stay in third world countries such as Mexico.

Now that we have stated that the proletariat, to the capitalist class at least, is nothing but a comodity. This is shown several ways, first being the working condition of union vs. non-union labor. A perfect example of this would be the American miners, in the first seven weeks of 2006, 21 coal miners died while working in mines, of the 21 dead miners only 1 was a union worker. The second way this is blatent to us is the class devide. It is a proven fact that 1% of the American population, the bourgeois capilist class, controls 95%-99% of the nations wealth. This would emply we were lower than surfs who kept approximately 20% of their crop, thats correct we are basically slaves in a more developed world, where a slave can afford more than just food.

Onto the next subject, how the capilist class makes the most efficient, for them, use of this commodity. The obvious way to do this would be to make the resource in question, human beings, do two things, take less and reproduce more. That would mix well with the fact that their are times when a country is short on other comodities and cannot fead its people, and thus brings in the corperations, so they can sell the comodity they do have in order to gain the comodities needed to survive. This is why the corperations force governments to rely upon them even after they are truely needed, when the seasons produce a surplus of crop versus a deficit. So in effect, at one point a government can be unprepared for a deficit of needed resources then allows corperations to pay the country's workers only what is needed for them to survive. The corperation, no longer willing to hire workers in the first world country at a higher cost attempts, and normally succeeds, to gain hegemony, and pays government officials to keep the price of the comodity of labor low.

That to the true point of this essay, they do not want to grant the workers whom they give a lower percent of their profit to the ability to move to another state in which they would have a greater standard of living. Then since the hegemons already have a great deal of power in the homelands, first world countries, they would be able to get laws passed to prevent their cheaper labor from immigrating to a first world country and in turn being a more costly and less efficient source of the comodity of labor.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 12:46 AM




No, I'm saying that supporting immigrants rights hurts the capitalists and is good for us.

I don't recall mentioning "Al Quaeda" whatsoever.

And in terms of "terrorists", I would remind you that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States legally and that none of them crossed the Mexican-American border.

Making immigration a "terrorism" issue is just rightist fear-mongering nothing more.

As long as the US remains an imperialist oppressor, those it oppresses will try and fight back. Occassionaly, they will be spectacularly successful (e.g., Septermber 11th), but most of the time they will fail miserably.

"Building a wall" along the Mexican border, however, will not boost your chances. The US simply too large a landmass to "insulate". And as long as your rulling class continues in its colonialist ways, the American people will unfortunately bear some of the costs.


Wow just because they didn't enter before doesn't mean thye won't do it now. They're not fucking idiots and in a snap they could just send a guy over,


The only real solution, of course, is to kick out your rulling class!

My ruling class lol that's why I joined this forum right? It's call being realistic. I'm all for workers rights but the last thing I want is another 9/11 you don't no shit about what happened that day and how I saw a building full of people collapse so I'd shut up about hurting capitalists because believe it or not they're humans.




You mean your "plan" for "solving immigration"? Yeah I read it.


Then you'd realize that the protaleriat workers would be allowed to come here in numbers higher than before and that they'd have a safe passage here.



All that "supporting" such a plan would do is strengthen the power of the bourgeois state and justify their anti-immigrant measures.


No it wouldn't it would allow more of the same but stop a potential terrorist attack.



Again, we need to approach this question from a class position, not a legislative one. Accepting that the state has the "authority" to address these issues only weakens our position.[QUOTE]

Do you go out every night and do graffiti on walls? No? Than you're accepting "authority". All that would change if the plan I had happened is that terrorists would have a harder time getting into this nation (They wouldn't be able to just walk in) and the protaleriat workers coming across would be given green cards and a safe passage that doesn't involve getting shot at by rednecks, run over by cars, or dying from lack of water. And apparently you don't want this. You just want more AMericans to die.


[QUOTE]Well, actually we hate capitalism with all the petty paranoid, nationalistic, patriotic crap that goes with it these days.


I hate capitalism too. That's why I joined this forum. But I expected realistic people who had solutions to our problems, not a bunch of pot smokers screaming "Burgeouis" "Bourgeouis".

[LSD]

Wow just because they didn't enter before doesn't mean thye won't do it now.

No, it just means that they have plenty of other means of entry and that "closing the border" won't solve anything.

Again, there is simply no way to "close" America. If your priority is stopping another 9/11 from occuring, your focus should be in foreign affairs. There's simply no domestic policy that will have a significant impact.


I'm all for workers rights but the last thing I want is another 9/11

Well, you need to decide which is more important to you, workers' liberation or "national security" because they are not compatible aims.

Supporting the proletariat means opposing the government in all its "executive" facets. And if defying "law and order" is troubling for you, then you really need to reconsider your politics.

Bourgeois governments are our enemy, make no mistake. We have no "common ground" with fascists and exploiters. We do not seek to "strengthen America", we seek to tear America down!


Then you'd realize that the protaleriat workers would be allowed to come here in numbers higher than before and that they'd have a safe passage here.

I think our problem here is that you are speaking in terms of hypotheticals and I am not.

Yes, perhaps if your plan was "adopted" it would lead to exactly the scenario you outline. The thing is, that plan is not going to be adopted!

There is simply no material incentive for the bourgeoisie to allow the mass integration of millions of immigrants as national policy. There may come a time when social pressure forces them into the position where they will have no choice but to accept such an idea, but that time is not remotely here.

For the present, therefore, we must focus on increasing that pressure and unequivocably supporting the rights of immigrant proletarians wherever they are.

Endorsing the US government in "building a wall" not only does not contribute to that aim, it actively hurts it. Even if you support a "wall with exceptions" plan, the practical reality is that that's not what's going to happen.

Any support given to US convervatives in radical anti-immigrant measures (i.e., a wall), even "gaurded" support is nescessarily against our interests as revolutionary leftists.


All that would change if the plan I had happened is that terrorists would have a harder time getting into this nation

Unfortunately that's not true.

While your "plan", if enacted might result in all sorts of fantastical things, supporting such a plan in reality will only help the American right in oppressing immigrants.

It's an unfortunate state of affairs, but there it is.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Apr 17 2006, 12:36 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ Apr 17 2006, 12:36 AM)Ok LSD, So basically you're saying that if Al Queda crosses the mexican border and creates anthother 9/11.... [/b]

The likelihood of that scenario is so close to nil that it can't really stand as a point.

To start with, most of the 9/11 hijackers were of "Saudi" Arabian" descent, with the 4 (?) others being of Middle Eastern descent. The probability that a group of Middle Eastern "terrorists" could manage to travel through Mexico and into the United States when they'll likely have no knowledge of how to do this, is, well....very low.

Firstly, you'd have to speak a decent amount of Spanish in order to communicate with the Mexican populace, then you'd have to find someone who would get you across the border....I doubt the people smugglers would be that willing to smuggle a group of Middle Eastern men across the border, they'd be better off just killing them and stealing their money! :lol:

Then, if they get across the border, they'd need to somehow find accommodation, food and so on. Which would, among other things, require them to also have a fluent English speaker in their group and, on top of that, some knowledge of how to successfully avoid the attention of the American authorities.

Entering America through Mexico, is not the best method to use....indeed it's probably the worst.

As LSD said, none of the 9/11 hijackers entered through Mexico, rather, as far as I'm aware, most entered legally via student visas. And in case you're starting to worry about student visas not being properly checked, rest assured, the authorities are very zealous when it comes to checking students who are from, well....somewhere other than Texas.

I've read about one student who spent two nights in jail because he changed his major....so you don't need to worry, massive oppression is being directed towards "foreign students".

Personally, if Al Queda HQ hired me to plan a "terrorist attack", I'd say the best place to enter would be via Canada through Detroit....there's certainly less in terms of border patrols there.

So you needn't worry, the American State is over zealously targeting everyone already....but frankly, if anyone seriously thinks that is going to significantly reduce the risk of a further terrorist attack, then they are deluding themselves.


321zero
'No borders' is utopian....

Maybe, maybe not.

The epoch of capital certainly could create a "no borders" scenario with regards the movement of people....it already exists to some extent within the European Union.

And if other continents develop some for of similar Union, then there's no reason to discount the possibility that the free movement of people, on a continental scale at least, would happen under the present epoch.

Certainly the more and more certain Corporations become effectively "stateless" (e.g. just rely on whatever state is suitable at a certain time to carry out their bidding rather than certain Corporations being specifically linked with certain countries), then the more likely it is that this scenario would be, to some extent, encouraged by sections of the bourgeois.

Indeed as more of the third world develops, then it may prove a sensible step by certain countries to give full legal status to immigrants in order to prevent them from returning to their "native" countries.

I wouldn't bet money on it, but I wouldn't say it's "impossible" either.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Armchair Socialist,

You bring about a very god point, however if you think about it what were the chances of 9/11 happening? very low yet it happened. Better safe than sorry I guess. I'm all for immingration. I think that these people should be able to come here since they have lived in unspeakable poverty and corruption all their life and deserve better, it's just that we should have so form of checking to make sure that the people aren't terrorists.

[dislatino]

however if you think about it what were the chances of 9/11 happening? very low yet it happened.

i'm sorry but i disagree highly, 9/11 was inevitable, it was the day it shook the world, and changed alot inside inside and out of american governments, since they dipped thier hands in even deeper shit ever since then.

[321zero]

it already exists to some extent within the European Union.

Fortress Europe? Whatever, what you describe is very far from no borders. Even if free movement of labour occurs on a continental scale, territorial states, on which capital depends, show no sign of withering away. The multinationals are not 'stateless', imagine the overheads they'd incur if they didn't have states to open markets for them.

If state, then borders.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+--> (LeftyHenry)....it's just that we should have so form of checking to make sure that the people aren't terrorists.[/b]

Well, you see such a "check" is probably impossible.

Despite how powerful the various branches of the American Secret Service look, in reality, they don't function all that efficiently....they have far too much information to process for a start.

So, if you're going to try and stop future terrorist attacks, you really only have two options.

1) Don't allow anyone into the United States from a potentially hostile area....nobody from the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are probably the four most hostile places at the moment.

Then, if you really wanted to make sure, I'd suggest blocking people coming from Vietnam, Indonesia, Timor, Chile, Guatemala, Columbia, Cuba, etc. etc....someone from those countries is likely to pissed with the actions of the American State.

Then, you'd probably need to deport all resident Native Americans, a large portion of the African-American community and of course, the main source of terrorist attacks in America, Christian fundamentalists.

There are more groups that could pose a risk, so a proper list would be a lot longer....and even if you wanted to deport all these people, it would be almost impossible.

2) And this is the easy option....withdraw support for the Saudi Royal family, withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, give billions in compensation to the people of various South American countries and apologise for Pinochet, Batista and so on.

That, would be the sensible option....but the American ruling class isn't going to do that.

So really, until their overthrown, you just going to have to live with the possibility of future terrorist attacks....not the ideal situation I know, but there's just no practical way to eliminate the sources of a future attack at the moment.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Whatever, what you describe is very far from no borders.

In a communist sense, yes....but in the way that I understand the present demands for no borders, the way Continental Europe operates is pretty close to that.

As long as your a citizen of an EU country, you can travel pretty much freely around the rest of the EU.


321zero
The multinationals are not 'stateless'....

Some Corporations rely heavily on a certain state, others just cosy up to whatever state they need at that particular time.

Something like 50 of the 100 biggest economies are Corporations....so they do have more power than many Nation States. And therefore, they don't necessarily need a State to do their bidding.

Chevron, as far as I know, hasn't asked for the hep of the American State in Nigeria, they've just hired mercenaries and death squads to help ensure they make a profit....where as the same company has needed the American State in Iraq.

The big bourgeois, won't always tie itself to a specific Nation State....especially when they can make profits without having to rely on those States.

Indeed, the market for professional mercenaries is growing....and I wouldn't be surprised if in a few decades we find that 5 to 10 of the World's biggest Corporations have their own Armed Forces. And then, they won't really need a State to back them up like they do now.

[Janus]

Well, you see such a "check" is probably impossible.
Despite how powerful the various branches of the American Secret Service look, in reality, they don't function all that efficiently....they have far too much information to process for a start.
Right, especially if people snuck into the US through Canada or Mexico. Besides, a better option is simply to get domestic people to commit the acts so that there is less suspicion. That is what some of the 9/11 hijackers were, they were accustomed to the US and could attract much less attention. Therefore, this "check" would be impossible against "sleepers".


then you'd have to find someone who would get you across the border
A lot of people simply walk across the border on their own. In some places, it's simply a fence or a small stream. They would need someone to pick them up of course but it could be done. Either way, it's not the best option as they could be picked up.

[bayano]

check out my blog or the delete the border blog for lots of stuff on borders and immigration.

May Day is resurrected!