Immigration

[Global_Justice]

this is a hot topic in the Uk right now.

in capatalism, who does immigration benefit? obviously, anyone emigrating does so to make a better life for them and their families, that is understandable. and in a international socialist world, immigration would not be a problem and would be a wonderful thing. there would be no unemployment, and no poverty or economic migration, so the problems of immigration would, well, be no problem.

but in capatalism, who does it benefit? only the rich. the so called, left and liberal media (independant, guardian) always say about the benefits to the economy of mass immigration. but who does that benefit, only the rich. if it increases unemployment and lowers wages it is the have-nots that lose out, and the rich and business owners that benefit. if it boosts the economy it means fuck all to people who can't pay the rent.

but it's not immigration thats the problem, it's the system. but should the left bo so opposed to open discussion about it? the liberal media puts us to shame but calling anyone who criticises immigration as racist. but the left should be criticising the immigration system, because it's all wrong.

[Phugebrins]

Large-scale economic migration is a fix for an unfair system. It's a fix that creates problems of its own, but it's better than the alternative. Those who migrate do benefit, even though those at the top benefit more.

Of course socialism would mean there would be far less migration, and migration would be voluntary, not wage-extradition, but opposing migration now neither brings us close to socialism, nor aids those in most need.

[TedGrant]

Capitalism is international.The working class is international.Therefore Capitalism needs the free movement of labour as a tool to keep wages and conditions at a level that doesnt interfere with profit.
Its gone on periodically over the last 150 years or so.
In the UK the most cost sensitive industry is the construction industry where up until a few years ago workers could earn a minimum of £8-£10 per hour minimum. Construction bosses are now using Polish labour to drive these conditions down. The minimum wage in the UK is £5.05 ph. Some Poles are happy to earn this or less in some instances because with 40% unemployment in some parts of Poland and an average income less than half of what Uk workers earn, UK construction bosses know they are on to a good thing. There is evidence that UK construction and engineering bosses have set up employment agencies in Poland helping immigration.Similarly some Uk industries are upping sticks and setting up in Poland or further afield where they can pay the much lower rates.

Blair shrugs his shoulders and says 'thats globalisation for you'!!

[Global_Justice]

also, while immigration helps our economy and other rich countries economies, surely it equally hurts the poor countries ecnomy, because they are losing skilled workers?

[TedGrant]

Yes thats true.
The UK govt is now stopping the use of foreign nurses under the excuse that there isnt a shortage anymore and that local workers are being recruited as nurses with the improved wages that have been introduced since 1997.
What happens to the foreign nurses then?
They go back /are deported!!

Thanks a bunch!

[Vanguard1917]

but in capatalism, who does it benefit? only the rich. the so called, left and liberal media (independant, guardian) always say about the benefits to the economy of mass immigration. but who does that benefit, only the rich. if it increases unemployment and lowers wages it is the have-nots that lose out, and the rich and business owners that benefit. if it boosts the economy it means fuck all to people who can't pay the rent.

but it's not immigration thats the problem, it's the system. but should the left bo so opposed to open discussion about it? the liberal media puts us to shame but calling anyone who criticises immigration as racist. but the left should be criticising the immigration system, because it's all wrong.

Placing any such conditions on immigration simply undermines international working class solidarity. It's social-chauvinism - i.e. placing the supposed interests of your nation's working class above those of other nations.

Socialists must demand an unconditional open-door immigration policy.

[CheRev]

I´ve been thinking about this a lot recently as well. It seems that in a capitalist society it benefits a few groups to different degrees and it also has negative effects on some groups, also to different degrees.

The real winners are the employers. They get cheap and often well educated labour - they make a killing.

The government looks good because it is the immigrants that are often left to do the menial jobs that people from the 1st world country feel they are too good to do and then the people that are voting put the reason for them doing well down to the current government.

The immigrants themselves are in a win-lose situation. Yes, they get far more money than they ever could in their own country, and yes, with this money they can also provide a level of security for their famillies back home. However, they are still amongst the poorest in the 1st world country, they are expected to do menial, unrewarding jobs, and in many cases (I can only speak from examples in Ireland) they were being paid well below the minimum wage. Although I´ve noticed in Italy and Spain (where I´ve been travelling recently) many of the immigrants are in an even worse situation and are forced into illegal street trading just to make a living. How does this help their image to the local community?

The real loser is the country that these people have left. The brain-drain effect. Take for example Poland. In Ireland, and I think Britain also, there are a lot of people from Poland. And they are mostly young. So the effect is that the young people, that are the most productive, leave their home country. I suppose you could argue that they bring back new skills if they return to their country, but realistically how many of the 200,000 Polish people in Ireland would return home? I doubt it would be enough to make a difference.

Just my thoughts on the issue...

[Vanguard1917]

This is a very good recent article that deals with some of these issues, and criticises the idea 'that indigenous British workers should have a privileged position in the British labour market'. (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1564/)

[Janus]

Immigration is something that will always occur in our globalized world these days.

It generally benefits the employers or the capitalists by providing a cheaper source of labor. The key problem is that natives like to blame the foreigners for their problems rather than the society which is causing these problems in the first place.

[Global_Justice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 12:52 AM
This is a very good recent article that deals with some of these issues, and criticises the idea 'that indigenous British workers should have a privileged position in the British labour market'. (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1564/)
that is a very good article :)

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Ive heard that immigration can lower the overall wages of working class people who dont really have any skills?

Is that true?

[TedGrant]

Dispute from March this year (notts Indy media)

In support of the strikers at Cottam power station, near Lincoln
John Shemeld | 06.03.2006 22:11 | Social Struggles | Workers' Movements | Nottinghamshire

What Is Happening At Cottam?
An inspiring all-out unofficial strike is taking place at Cottam power station, near Lincoln, in protest against the exploitation of migrant workers.


PUBLIC MEETING

IN SUPPORT OF THE STRIKERS AT COTTAM POWER STATION

In the International Community Centre (ICC), 61b Mansfield Road (near the Victoria Centre) Central Nottingham.

At 7:30pm on Thursday, 9 March 2006.

Speakers from Cottam and the local Trade Union Movement.

Supported by the International Committee of East Midlands Region of Unison; the Environment, Transport and Regions, Nottingham Branch of the PCS (Civil Service) union; Mansfield Trades Council; Central-Networks Shop Stewards for the GMB and Amicus; E.ON UK Joint Trade Union negotiating team; East Midlands Amicus Unity Gazette.


What Is Happening At Cottam?

An inspiring all-out unofficial strike is taking place at Cottam power station, near Lincoln, in protest against the exploitation of migrant workers.

50 construction workers, members of the GMB and Amicus unions, have already spent two weeks outside the gate. Some of them have now been sacked.

The issue is very simple: multinational companies are moving workers round the EU to undercut wages - in this case, as agreed in the construction industry Blue Book.

At Cottam Austrian company SFL has been sub-contracted to build a de-sulphurisation plant. SFL hired British workers under standard Blue Book conditions and Hungarian and Austrian workers. Everybody was told not to talk to anyone else about wages and conditions.

In particular the Hungarians and Austrians were told not to talk to the English as they were troublemakers who had "silly little tea breaks". Weekend overtime was only allocated to Hungarians and Austrians.

Divide and rule didn’t work this time. Workers did talk to each other and, if they had trouble with each other’s languages, they could understand each other’s pay slips. The Hungarians discovered they were on nothing like the Blue Book rates.
The Hungarians joined Amicus, but found that they were mysteriously transferred back to the Continent.

Last Thursday (16 February), Hungarian welder Barnabas Bito paid for his flight back to the UK to explain to the British workers that the Hungarians had not been transferred to other jobs, but sacked.

19 British GMB construction workers immediately walked out. They were joined by Amicus scaffolders and laggers.

Magnificent.

John Shemeld

:) :P :D

[Global_Justice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 06:05 PM
Ive heard that immigration can lower the overall wages of working class people who dont really have any skills?

Is that true?
no i don't think it is. the right wing will say it is the case, but what is it lowring the wages, the immigrants, or the bosses? don't forget, the capitalists are always trying to lower wages, they want to pay as little as possible, immigrants may be used as an excuse, but it is the capitalists lowering the wages not immigrants.

[gilhyle]

I think the anti-migration argument is a bit like 'luddism' (anti-industrial machines in 19 cent.)

The question is not who benefits but is it 'progressive' ...and it is : migration helps to create an integrated world economy (a good thing) and helps to internationalise the contradictions of capitalism which is arguably a pre-condition for the end of capitalism.

It also gives a better life to a lot of people.

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 03:33 PM
Socialists must demand an unconditional open-door immigration policy.
Absolutely. If people are concerned about some of the negative effects commonly associated with immigration, then people must stand in principled solidarity with immigrant communities.

Look at the downward pressure on wages and benefits among certain job sectors in the u.s. This is very much a product of the limited and arduous pathways for legal immigration into the u.s., which forces people into illegal methods. Once in the u.s., people without papers, i.e. without a legal status, can be terrorized by their employers into concessions. The bosses, either implicitly or explicitly, can threaten to have the migra -- i.e. the immigration and border cops, which I think are now under the control of the bureau of homeland security – bust any undocumented workers who try to organize a union, agitate for wage increases, protest unsafe working conditions or overwork, and so on.

This can apply as well to legal immigrants, whose status in the u.s. will, in many cases, depend upon whether or not they’re employed. If a person loses a job, and then cannot find further work within a specified amount of time, their legal status is revoked. A worker will therefore be less inclined to demand more money or move from one position to another, if being fired means that they would have to leave the country. (Getting a new job is sometimes key to higher compensation, but that can be risky: you can’t be sure that you’ll get along with the new boss or tolerate the new company, etc.)

This tends to keep wages down – and tends to maintain bad working environments -- in those job sectors where there are a high proportion of immigrants. This in turn harms all workers, who have to compete in those sectors and sell their labor power in a capitalist market. To minimize this effect, we should work to eliminate the conditions that lead to this situation in the first place: make immigration unrestricted and unconditional; where that is not possible, challenge anti-immigrant raids and roundups by the migra; and so forth.

In the u.s. at least, unions historically have had an extremely backwards approach to this question and essentially called for further restrictions on immigration: the traditional u.s. labor base within heavy industry, like automotive or steel, was generally of people with papers, i.e. “citizens”. However, that base has eroded badly since the late sixties, primarily because of downsizing and offshoring, and the total percentage of private-sector workers who are actually unionized has dropped precipitously. Organizing drives among immigrant workers – predominantly Mexicano/a and central American -- in the service sector have become more common, particularly since the nineties, and this has led unions to increasingly take a progressive position on the immigration question.

I would also note, to wrap this up, the immigrant rights movement which erupted at the end of last year in the u.s. – around proposed new federal laws that would have basically made anyone with an illegal status guilty of a felony and subject to imprisonment for years. This movement, which is still percolating – further national demonstrations are scheduled for labor day – is easily one of the most important struggles the country has seen since probably the thirties. It has a social weight and strategic centrality which likely eclipses that of even the movements of the sixties, like the struggles against the Vietnam war and for black liberation. Just in terms of the numbers of people, ten million were mobilized for the May Day demos. Furthermore, the movement is overwhelmingly working class – in tejas, it is predominantly Mexicano/a, central American, and Chicano/a – and has a higher level of class consciousness than most struggles I’ve seen. Employers and bosses in the u.s. were freaked out by the economic boycott which occurred on May Day and in which millions participated – activists had called for immigrants and allies to stay home from work for a day and not to shop.

Progressives should be supporting these kinds of struggles, and not buying into the divisive, anti-immigration politics being put forth by the ruling class.

[TedGrant]

I read this article in todays Guardian. It raises a number of good points relevant to this discussion.

Blinded by the cold war

We can no longer deny the link between the eastern Europe exodus and economic 'reform'

Neil Clark
Tuesday August 29, 2006
The Guardian


As the entry of Bulgaria and Romania into the European Union edges closer, condescension towards eastern Europeans and their countries of origin grows into a crescendo. The double standards could not be more glaring. Both Bulgaria and Romania are routinely portrayed as backward, mafia-ridden hell-holes that will infect the rest of the continent come January 1. But is the political system in either country so much more corrupt than in Berlusconi-tainted Italy or cash-for-honours Britain?

We can also witness this unappealing chauvinism in the way eastern European migration is covered in the tabloid press. Eastern Europeans are castigated for flooding into Britain, yet very few people stop to ask why so many people (427,000 have left for Britain since 2004) are leaving the region where they grew up and have friends and family. On the rare occasions they do, the "pernicious legacy" of 40 years of communism is usually held responsible.

But communist rule ended more than 16 years ago - can it really still be blamed for the problems of today? What the people of the region are in fact escaping from are the consequences of the neoliberal economic policies of the early 90s, which led to what economist Laszlo Andor has called "Europe's great depression", the biggest economic slump in the continent since the 30s.

Away from the glitzy, globalised centres of Budapest, Prague and Warsaw, millions face poverty and hardship in the former communist bloc. GDP in the region fell between 20% and 40% in the decade after 1989, and, while a minority have seen real wages rise since the millennium, for the majority the "transition" process has witnessed a spectacular fall in living standards and a massive rise in unemployment and inequality. Western politicians laud the countries of "new" Europe for their "dynamic, flat-rate tax" economies, but deny there is any link between the economic reforms and the massive exodus.

The condescension shown towards eastern European migrants is, in many ways, the real, lasting legacy of the cold war. It is essential for western neoliberals to deny any achievements of the system that half of Europe lived under: hence the vogue for equating the 40 years of postwar eastern European socialism with the horrors of Nazi Germany.

It needn't - and shouldn't - have happened like this. Had the eastern countries not thrown out the baby with the bathwater in the early 90s by adopting the massively deflationary IMF/EU prescription, their economies would now be in better shape and much of the current wave of migration could have been avoided. The large-scale labour exodus we are witnessing may benefit the CBI and western multinationals but certainly not most western workers, who are seeing their wage rates depressed. But the biggest losers are the eastern countries, deprived of so many young, talented and productive people.

The irony is that far from being backward, eastern Europe, thanks to the residual effects of 40 years of socialism, still puts much of western Europe (particularly Britain) to shame when it comes to the quality of its education, public transport and healthcare. Children of the former socialist countries regularly come top of European studies of comparative education systems: in the latest International Maths Organisation competition, Bulgaria finished fifth, Hungary seventh and Romania 10th.

The people of the east have been bombarded by more than 15 years of relentless propaganda extolling the need for further "reforms" and "modernisation". The view that "west is best" and "there is no alternative", encouraged by political leaders with one eye on an EU commissioner's job or World Bank posting, has proved disastrous.

In Britain we are told ad infinitum that "our way" is the best and the east irredeemably backward. Why, then, do we need to import railway engineers from Romania? Why, if our dental system is so superb, are we flying out to use the services of Hungarian dentists? And why are English teacher-training establishments showing videos of Hungarian maths classes?

The east-west divide and the xenophobia that accompanies it will only end when there is a more honest, balanced appraisal of the legacy of communism and an acknowledgment that despite the lack of political freedoms there were also solid achievements. At the same time, we need to recognise that the economic "reform" process has created far more problems than it has solved. Global capital and its political spokes-people will of course do all they can to ensure that neither happens

[emma_goldman]

Umm it benefits the capitalists of course. They can get work cheaper and without benefits (it's easier than outsourcing!) and not only that, more tax revenue. Win-win.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 09:21 PM
I read this article in todays Guardian. It raises a number of good points relevant to this discussion.

Blinded by the cold war

We can no longer deny the link between the eastern Europe exodus and economic 'reform'

Neil Clark
Tuesday August 29, 2006
The Guardian


The same situation is going on in the U.S. NAFTA destroyed 1.5 million agricultural jobs in Mexico. Guess where these people went to find new jobs?

Migration is caused by capitalist neo-liberal "reform." Closing the borders isn't going to address anything.

[Vanguard1917]

Umm it benefits the capitalists of course. They can get work cheaper and without benefits (it's easier than outsourcing!) and not only that, more tax revenue. Win-win.

What does 'win-win' mean? Does it mean that you support anti-immigration laws?

[gilhyle]

With international migration of labour (and capital), there must come truly international trade unions - otherwise workers will loose. The national focus of trade unions is the greatest weakness of the working class.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:21 PM
Neil Clark
Tuesday August 29, 2006
The Guardian
But communist rule ended more than 16 years ago - can it really still be blamed for the problems of today? What the people of the region are in fact escaping from are the consequences of the neoliberal economic policies of the early 90s, which led to what economist Laszlo Andor has called "Europe's great depression", the biggest economic slump in the continent since the 30s.
of course an economy which was utterly destroyed will take longer than 17 years to fix. (that's if we take the date from 1989 when the Russians were ousted - the "communists" remained in power until Kaczynski last year!)


actually, surprisingly, the rest of the article is sound. I'm so fucking sick and tired of all the anti-polonism which seems totally acceptable in the UK at the moment because Poles are white so it's apparently not racist! :angry: People are coming here trying to better their lives. Wages are ridiculously low in Poland, unemployment is massive. If they come here and work they get attacked, if they come here and sign on they get attacked - just blatant disgusting xenophobia. Poles are getting attacked in Ireland and Scottland (probably in England but I haven't remembered reading stories about this because the papers are too busy degenerating the Poles). It actually makes me really angry that British people (of course, not all british people) can do this to other people who are only trying to make a bit of money for their families.


Look at this disgusting bit of racism:
"We work too hard. More than any nation in Europe, British lives are wasted in offices, leaving only a couple of waking hours each day for us to call free, even if they are spent on journeys to and from the workplace, frequently with one's nose pressed into the unwashed underarm of someone speaking Polish - though those of us who drive to work might consider returning their car to the dealership if this becomes a persistent problem."

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1832952,00.html

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 03:53 PM

Umm it benefits the capitalists of course. They can get work cheaper and without benefits (it's easier than outsourcing!) and not only that, more tax revenue. Win-win.

What does 'win-win' mean? Does it mean that you support anti-immigration laws?
No, of course not. I mean it's win-win for the capitalists. Sorry for the ambivalence. :)

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by emma_goldman+Aug 31 2006, 07:58 PM--> (emma_goldman @ Aug 31 2006, 07:58 PM)
[email protected] 31 2006, 03:53 PM

Umm it benefits the capitalists of course. They can get work cheaper and without benefits (it's easier than outsourcing!) and not only that, more tax revenue. Win-win.

What does 'win-win' mean? Does it mean that you support anti-immigration laws?
No, of course not. I mean it's win-win for the capitalists. Sorry for the ambivalence. :) [/b]
I know that's what you meant. My point is, if opening up the borders is a 'win-win' situation for the capitalists, then the implication is that anti-capitalists should not oppose anti-immigration laws.

However, we do oppose anti-immigration laws and we demand an open-door policy. Why would we bother doing this if it was 'win-win for the capitalists'? Surely it's because smashing anti-immigration laws benefits our movement more than it benefits the capitalists?

[Iseult]

Open borders benefits the capitalists. I oppose them.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 01:58 AM
Open borders benefits the capitalists. I oppose them.
Advances in productive technology 'benefits the capitalists'; do you oppose them?

A physically healthy workforce 'benefits the capitalists'; do you oppose free healthcare for workers? What about free education?

The free movement of labour may have immediate benefits for the ruling class - this is indeed arguable. However, in the long-term, its potential for the working class is enormous, not least in helping to foster greater international solidarity. Anti-immigration legislation can only have the opposite effect.

[D_Bokk]

We should probably look at the long-term effects. Marx claimed that capitalism will destroy itself by making wages too low for the working class to survive and consume leading to a revolution. Now, immigration means a larger workforce and therefore a greater need for jobs. Wages will gradually lower because the proletariat will become desperate and the capitalists want profit. Technically, this would lead to a revolution much quicker within the countries receiving immigrants. I guess immigration could inflict the deadly blow on the seemingly invincable West.

We should support open borders for this reason alone. If the West is going to exploit the third world - the third world should be able to come to the West. Eventually the capital will even out with regards to the working classes (West vrs. Third World) and lead to the self-destruction of capitalism.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 04:38 AM
We should probably look at the long-term effects. Marx claimed that capitalism will destroy itself by making wages too low for the working class to survive and consume leading to a revolution. Now, immigration means a larger workforce and therefore a greater need for jobs. Wages will gradually lower because the proletariat will become desperate and the capitalists want profit. Technically, this would lead to a revolution much quicker within the countries receiving immigrants. I guess immigration could inflict the deadly blow on the seemingly invincable West.

We should support open borders for this reason alone. If the West is going to exploit the third world - the third world should be able to come to the West. Eventually the capital will even out with regards to the working classes (West vrs. Third World) and lead to the self-destruction of capitalism.
that's a good theory, but I think it could raise problems - won't the working classes blame the immigrants for their lower wages, therefore direction their hate at the wrong people and playing right into the hands of the bnp?

[Global_Justice]

Originally posted by Okocim+Sep 1 2006, 01:18 PM--> (Okocim @ Sep 1 2006, 01:18 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 04:38 AM
We should probably look at the long-term effects. Marx claimed that capitalism will destroy itself by making wages too low for the working class to survive and consume leading to a revolution. Now, immigration means a larger workforce and therefore a greater need for jobs. Wages will gradually lower because the proletariat will become desperate and the capitalists want profit. Technically, this would lead to a revolution much quicker within the countries receiving immigrants. I guess immigration could inflict the deadly blow on the seemingly invincable West.

We should support open borders for this reason alone. If the West is going to exploit the third world - the third world should be able to come to the West. Eventually the capital will even out with regards to the working classes (West vrs. Third World) and lead to the self-destruction of capitalism.
that's a good theory, but I think it could raise problems - won't the working classes blame the immigrants for their lower wages, therefore direction their hate at the wrong people and playing right into the hands of the bnp? [/b]
yeah thats what i worry about. thats why the left needs to start telling people the real problem is capitalism not immigrants.

but at the moment, leftists in this country are simply going down the PC route. whenever anyone questions immigration the liberal papers simply say "it benefits the economy" the other day, the independant ran a front page with quotes from big businesses saying how immigration had benefited the economy. this seems to be the only argument being put forward by 'the left (not really, but as left as a mainstream paper is going to get) and it isn't very convincing, especially to the working class.

we need to put forward the argument that vanguard1917 just mentioned, and we need to educate people and tell them that the problems they are facing are not being caused by immigration, but by capitalism. but this seems to not even be a debate in society anymore. it used to be the working class turned to the anti-capitalist left, but with the absence of any real organisation they are turning to the right for support instead. when the BNP become the loudest voice for the working class there is a big problem.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 03:20 PM
yeah thats what i worry about. thats why the left needs to start telling people the real problem is capitalism not immigrants.

but at the moment, leftists in this country are simply going down the PC route. whenever anyone questions immigration the liberal papers simply say "it benefits the economy" the other day, the independant ran a front page with quotes from big businesses saying how immigration had benefited the economy. this seems to be the only argument being put forward by 'the left (not really, but as left as a mainstream paper is going to get) and it isn't very convincing, especially to the working class.

we need to put forward the argument that vanguard1917 just mentioned, and we need to educate people and tell them that the problems they are facing are not being caused by immigration, but by capitalism. but this seems to not even be a debate in society anymore. it used to be the working class turned to the anti-capitalist left, but with the absence of any real organisation they are turning to the right for support instead. when the BNP become the loudest voice for the working class there is a big problem.
exactly.

seen the video by the bnp? saying precisely how labour is helping big businesses and forgetting the working classes. (bnp tv: http://www .bnp-tv.com/labour.wmv). It's actually quite cleverly done - using humour along with outright racism and "scary stories" about big businesses benfitting whilst immigrants nick jobs and screw the working classes in order to bring them over to the bnp's side.

what are we doing on the left? .......not a lot. :(

[Iseult_]

Vanguard1917 -

I support advances in technology & of course a healthy work force is optimal. But, I do not support open borders. All that does is drive down wages for working people.

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+Sep 1 2006, 01:46 AM--> (Vanguard1917 @ Sep 1 2006, 01:46 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 07:58 PM

[email protected] 31 2006, 03:53 PM

Umm it benefits the capitalists of course. They can get work cheaper and without benefits (it's easier than outsourcing!) and not only that, more tax revenue. Win-win.

What does 'win-win' mean? Does it mean that you support anti-immigration laws?
No, of course not. I mean it's win-win for the capitalists. Sorry for the ambivalence. :)
I know that's what you meant. My point is, if opening up the borders is a 'win-win' situation for the capitalists, then the implication is that anti-capitalists should not oppose anti-immigration laws.

However, we do oppose anti-immigration laws and we demand an open-door policy. Why would we bother doing this if it was 'win-win for the capitalists'? Surely it's because smashing anti-immigration laws benefits our movement more than it benefits the capitalists? [/b]
You misunderstood me.

I mean immigration IS good for the capitalists but I still do advocate an open border policy. Why we are contradictory to the capitalist is we want immigration because of altruism, they want immigration for profit so they can diminish labor rights here. We SHOULD both have open borders and have labor standards that apply FOR EVERYONE. You can't deny that there is benefit for them. It's glaringly obvious, they want temp slaves.

Noone should be illegal.

It's a complicated issue. Don't oversimplify. ;)

[Global_Justice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 03:09 PM
Vanguard1917 -

I support advances in technology & of course a healthy work force is optimal. But, I do not support open borders. All that does is drive down wages for working people.
it's the capitalists that drive down wages. capitalists always want to pay as little as possible and reduce wages. it's the employers who are lowering wages, not immigrants. and the immigrants coming in earn more than they do in there old country. it's the capitalists that are to blame for lowering wages, they don't have to lower wages because of immigration do they? they do it because they want to make as much profit and exploit the workers as much as they can. the only reason they pay a somewhat reasenable wage is because if they didn't people would strike. but then they get away with lowering the wage by telling people, "it's not out fault, it's the immigrants fault, blame them" surely as a leftist you understand its the capitalists lowering the wages?

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 01:18 PM
won't the working classes blame the immigrants for their lower wages, therefore direction their hate at the wrong people and playing right into the hands of the bnp?
Part - but not all - of the answer is to fight for parliamentary votes for all residents.

[Iseult_]

Originally posted by Global_Justice+Sep 1 2006, 05:30 PM--> (Global_Justice @ Sep 1 2006, 05:30 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 03:09 PM
Vanguard1917 -

I support advances in technology & of course a healthy work force is optimal. But, I do not support open borders. All that does is drive down wages for working people.
it's the capitalists that drive down wages. capitalists always want to pay as little as possible and reduce wages. it's the employers who are lowering wages, not immigrants. and the immigrants coming in earn more than they do in there old country. it's the capitalists that are to blame for lowering wages, they don't have to lower wages because of immigration do they? they do it because they want to make as much profit and exploit the workers as much as they can. the only reason they pay a somewhat reasenable wage is because if they didn't people would strike. but then they get away with lowering the wage by telling people, "it's not out fault, it's the immigrants fault, blame them" surely as a leftist you understand its the capitalists lowering the wages? [/b]
Immigrants are willing to work for lower wages - that undercuts what native workers earn. The more desperate the immigrant, the more the capitalist is able to exploit him/her.

Open borders would be a disaster for native born workers and would only benefit business owners.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Iseult_+Sep 1 2006, 08:04 PM--> (Iseult_ @ Sep 1 2006, 08:04 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 05:30 PM

[email protected] 1 2006, 03:09 PM
Vanguard1917 -

I support advances in technology & of course a healthy work force is optimal. But, I do not support open borders. All that does is drive down wages for working people.
it's the capitalists that drive down wages. capitalists always want to pay as little as possible and reduce wages. it's the employers who are lowering wages, not immigrants. and the immigrants coming in earn more than they do in there old country. it's the capitalists that are to blame for lowering wages, they don't have to lower wages because of immigration do they? they do it because they want to make as much profit and exploit the workers as much as they can. the only reason they pay a somewhat reasenable wage is because if they didn't people would strike. but then they get away with lowering the wage by telling people, "it's not out fault, it's the immigrants fault, blame them" surely as a leftist you understand its the capitalists lowering the wages?
Immigrants are willing to work for lower wages - that undercuts what native workers earn. The more desperate the immigrant, the more the capitalist is able to exploit him/her.

Open borders would be a disaster for native born workers and would only benefit business owners.[/b]
Anti-immigration laws are in the interests of the capitalist class. You seem to have this idea that capitalists will open-up the borders if only it wasn't for those racist pesky 'native workers'. Anti-immigration laws serve capitalist interests:

'Immigration controls serve the capitalist system in two main ways. As stated above, they systematise the denial of rights as far as migrant workers are concerned. This allows them to become worst paid labour and suffer superexploitation. All of the abuses that Bridget Anderson details in her TUC report are made possible by this denial of rights.

The other purpose immigration controls serve is ideological. They are used to cut migrant workers off from their British brothers and sisters and turn them into scapegoats for crimes committed by the capitalist system itself. They encourage racism and national chauvinism in an attempt to divide and rule.'
(link (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/567/swp.htm))

Anti-immigration laws are also products of the imperialist era:

While capital is free to move across borders in the hunt for markets and sources of profit, the representatives of capital insist on their god-given right to tightly control the pool of labour they have available to exploit; and to keep those same borders sealed off to surplus labour of the ‘wrong’ type - whether that means workers with inadequate skills, unsuitable work culture or too great an instinct for class solidarity.

Border controls go hand in hand with the development of imperialism. It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that immigration controls were introduced in most European countries and the United States. Previously, whole peoples were expelled if considered undesirable, but there had been no organised attempt to prevent immigration. England, for example, expelled all Jews in the 13th century, but it was not until the 1905 Aliens Act that measures were adopted to keep ‘undesirables’ out in the first place.
(link (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/565/galloway.htm))

Anti-immigration laws are reactionary and are supported by every single reactionary/populist/opportunist organisation and individual in this country - from the Labour Party to the Green Party, from Nick Griffin to George Galloway.

Marxists are internationalists and do not recognise 'native workers' as having interests seperate from the rest of the working class. We should see workers from other countries coming into this country- the free movement of labour around the world - as a great opportunity with potentially explosive consequences for the capitalist order, one that can help break down the national barriers that divide the working class, and help unite 'native workers' with workers elsewhere against the common enemy.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Okocim
that's a good theory, but I think it could raise problems - won't the working classes blame the immigrants for their lower wages, therefore direction their hate at the wrong people and playing right into the hands of the bnp?
I don't think this problem could be solved by merely educating the masses, because as we all know - the masses, specifically in the West, don't tend to be interested in education (see: statistics on how many Americans think Iraq had something to do with 9/11).

Undoubtedly there will be anti-communist workers when capitalism finally collapses, and those very people will be dealt with by the proletariat, one way or another. As bad as that sounds, it will happen. Surely some of the bigots will assimilate, hell they'll have too - they're about to be overrun by first and second generation immigrants. FOX news a while back was literally yelling at white people to "make more babies" because Hispanic people were targeted to become the majority in, I think, 2025.

The 'native workers' would likely join the petit-bourgeois class since they likely have more wealth than the incoming immigrants. The rest would be a very small minority by the time capitalism collapses, so when communism has it's chance there would only be a few small paramilitary groups to deal with. I honestly don't think there's too much to worry about.

Oh and this is a great thread by the way, I've never actually took the time to think about immigration and it's effects on the world. Here I thought terrorism was the only way to destroy imperialism (and eventually capitalism), but immigration might do the trick if the capitalists don't control themselves.