For the capitalists

[Labor Shall Rule]

What is your solution to the "broken borders" problem? What do you think we should do to solve the 'problem' of "illegal immigration"?

[colonelguppy]

revised legal immigration policy. as much as i don't like it, amnesty is probably the only realistic way to deal with the illegals already here. oh yeah and militarized border.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 09:41 pm
revised legal immigration policy. as much as i don't like it, amnesty is probably the only realistic way to deal with the illegals already here. oh yeah and militarized border.
A 'militarized' border? Operation Gatekeeper, instituted by President Bill Clinton in 1996, has claimed the lives of hundreds of workers through concentrating armed forces along traditional crossing routes on the border to seal them off. The ultimate result has not been to curb or reduce immigration, but to create a more deadly situation for migrant workers. A deadly militarized border force at the traditional crossing points has forced the majority of workers to cross through dangerous terrain -- such as the Otay Mountains and Yuma Stretch. In 2000 alone, there was over 700 migrants found dead, often from dehydration, sickness, being injured from accidents and unable to seek medical attention, shooting from border patrols that mistake them as 'drug smugglers', and even being froze to death at certain mountainous areas.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by RedDali+June 10, 2007 05:07 pm--> (RedDali @ June 10, 2007 05:07 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 09:41 pm
revised legal immigration policy. as much as i don't like it, amnesty is probably the only realistic way to deal with the illegals already here. oh yeah and militarized border.
A 'militarized' border? Operation Gatekeeper, instituted by President Bill Clinton in 1996, has claimed the lives of hundreds of workers through concentrating armed forces along traditional crossing routes on the border to seal them off. The ultimate result has not been to curb or reduce immigration, but to create a more deadly situation for migrant workers. A deadly militarized border force at the traditional crossing points has forced the majority of workers to cross through dangerous terrain -- such as the Otay Mountains and Yuma Stretch. In 2000 alone, there was over 700 migrants found dead, often from dehydration, sickness, being injured from accidents and unable to seek medical attention, shooting from border patrols that mistake them as 'drug smugglers', and even being froze to death at certain mountainous areas. [/b]
sounds like a good reason not to come here illegally

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+June 10, 2007 09:49 pm--> (colonelguppy @ June 10, 2007 09:49 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:07 pm

[email protected] 10, 2007 09:41 pm
revised legal immigration policy. as much as i don't like it, amnesty is probably the only realistic way to deal with the illegals already here. oh yeah and militarized border.
A 'militarized' border? Operation Gatekeeper, instituted by President Bill Clinton in 1996, has claimed the lives of hundreds of workers through concentrating armed forces along traditional crossing routes on the border to seal them off. The ultimate result has not been to curb or reduce immigration, but to create a more deadly situation for migrant workers. A deadly militarized border force at the traditional crossing points has forced the majority of workers to cross through dangerous terrain -- such as the Otay Mountains and Yuma Stretch. In 2000 alone, there was over 700 migrants found dead, often from dehydration, sickness, being injured from accidents and unable to seek medical attention, shooting from border patrols that mistake them as 'drug smugglers', and even being froze to death at certain mountainous areas.
sounds like a good reason not to come here illegally [/b]
Fuck you. The problem is, they're going to come here no matter what because the places in which they live are piles of shit due to policies spearheaded by the very place that they are trying to go to.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Colonelguppy, do you support free trade?

(yes, I'm going somewhere with this)

[Demogorgon]

It has always been a great irony that while capitalists for obvious reasons like their capital and goods markets as open as possible, they don't like their labour markets open. Of course ask your average businessman if he would like open borders, he will say yes, because he wants to exploit the cheapest labour he can get, but the capitalists as a whole seem to have decided that dividing workers through racism is more important to them than that.

As I say, ironic.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:37 am
It has always been a great irony that while capitalists for obvious reasons like their capital and goods markets as open as possible, they don't like their labour markets open. Of course ask your average businessman if he would like open borders, he will say yes, because he wants to exploit the cheapest labour he can get, but the capitalists as a whole seem to have decided that dividing workers through racism is more important to them than that.

As I say, ironic.
lol yeah - i was gona start a topic on this as well -

i suppose you could define it as:

Capitalism in one country :lol:

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:37 pm
It has always been a great irony that while capitalists for obvious reasons like their capital and goods markets as open as possible, they don't like their labour markets open. Of course ask your average businessman if he would like open borders, he will say yes, because he wants to exploit the cheapest labour he can get, but the capitalists as a whole seem to have decided that dividing workers through racism is more important to them than that.

As I say, ironic.
It is the "capitalists" who are supporting such open immigration policies.

[pusher robot]

The solution is to craft reasonable laws that permit plenty of immigration, and then enforce the laws. The real problem is one of enforcement.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 10, 2007 11:06 pm
Colonelguppy, do you support free trade?

(yes, I'm going somewhere with this)
yeah sure

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by ZX3+June 11, 2007 01:15 pm--> (ZX3 @ June 11, 2007 01:15 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 11:37 pm
It has always been a great irony that while capitalists for obvious reasons like their capital and goods markets as open as possible, they don't like their labour markets open. Of course ask your average businessman if he would like open borders, he will say yes, because he wants to exploit the cheapest labour he can get, but the capitalists as a whole seem to have decided that dividing workers through racism is more important to them than that.

As I say, ironic.
It is the "capitalists" who are supporting such open immigration policies. [/b]
I suppose if you live in a fantasy world where al the governments clamping down on immigration are not capitalist.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+June 11, 2007 11:42 am--> (Demogorgon @ June 11, 2007 11:42 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:15 pm

[email protected] 10, 2007 11:37 pm
It has always been a great irony that while capitalists for obvious reasons like their capital and goods markets as open as possible, they don't like their labour markets open. Of course ask your average businessman if he would like open borders, he will say yes, because he wants to exploit the cheapest labour he can get, but the capitalists as a whole seem to have decided that dividing workers through racism is more important to them than that.

As I say, ironic.
It is the "capitalists" who are supporting such open immigration policies.
I suppose if you live in a fantasy world where al the governments clamping down on immigration are not capitalist. [/b]
No, the real world where the capitalists do not control the governments.

Yet another example of socialisms faulty analysis of capitalism.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by ZX3+June 11, 2007 04:51 pm--> (ZX3 @ June 11, 2007 04:51 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:42 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:15 pm

[email protected] 10, 2007 11:37 pm
It has always been a great irony that while capitalists for obvious reasons like their capital and goods markets as open as possible, they don't like their labour markets open. Of course ask your average businessman if he would like open borders, he will say yes, because he wants to exploit the cheapest labour he can get, but the capitalists as a whole seem to have decided that dividing workers through racism is more important to them than that.

As I say, ironic.
It is the "capitalists" who are supporting such open immigration policies.
I suppose if you live in a fantasy world where al the governments clamping down on immigration are not capitalist.
No, the real world where the capitalists do not control the governments.

Yet another example of socialisms faulty analysis of capitalism. [/b]
Where do you think the governing parties get a large proportion of their funding from?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by ZX3+June 11, 2007 04:51 pm--> (ZX3 @ June 11, 2007 04:51 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:42 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:15 pm

[email protected] 10, 2007 11:37 pm
It has always been a great irony that while capitalists for obvious reasons like their capital and goods markets as open as possible, they don't like their labour markets open. Of course ask your average businessman if he would like open borders, he will say yes, because he wants to exploit the cheapest labour he can get, but the capitalists as a whole seem to have decided that dividing workers through racism is more important to them than that.

As I say, ironic.
It is the "capitalists" who are supporting such open immigration policies.
I suppose if you live in a fantasy world where al the governments clamping down on immigration are not capitalist.
No, the real world where the capitalists do not control the governments.

Yet another example of socialisms faulty analysis of capitalism. [/b]
So it is in fact Socialists who rin the Governments?

Best call off the revolution comrades, seems we have already won. We just failed to notice :lol:

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 11, 2007 05:28 pm
Where do you think the governing parties get a large proportion of their funding from?
Labor unions, for one, who tend to be notoriously anti-immigration.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+June 11, 2007 12:46 pm--> (Demogorgon @ June 11, 2007 12:46 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:51 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:42 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:15 pm

[email protected] 10, 2007 11:37 pm
It has always been a great irony that while capitalists for obvious reasons like their capital and goods markets as open as possible, they don't like their labour markets open. Of course ask your average businessman if he would like open borders, he will say yes, because he wants to exploit the cheapest labour he can get, but the capitalists as a whole seem to have decided that dividing workers through racism is more important to them than that.

As I say, ironic.
It is the "capitalists" who are supporting such open immigration policies.
I suppose if you live in a fantasy world where al the governments clamping down on immigration are not capitalist.
No, the real world where the capitalists do not control the governments.

Yet another example of socialisms faulty analysis of capitalism.
So it is in fact Socialists who rin the Governments?

Best call off the revolution comrades, seems we have already won. We just failed to notice :lol: [/b]
Indeed call it off comrades- we make no sense! :lol:



Socialists keep telling us that capitalism drives the wages of the workers down in order maximise profit for the capitalists. Its why capitalists troll the earth, looking for cheap labor to exploit. Now we are supposed to believe capitalists are against cheap labor, so as to support the socialist theory that the capitalists run the governments.

Pusher Robot is absolutely correct in his comments. And to add, In the USA, labor unions have far more latitude in political campaigning and funding than do the capitalists.

[pusher robot]

Let me clarify a little.

Capitalists, as a rule, should not have a problem with immigration. If someone wants to come and voluntarily participate in a market, it benefits everybody. So you might expect to see capitalist support for a very liberal immigration solution.

However, for capitalists, the rule of law is fundamental. It is the rule of law that, to a capitalist, represents the difference between civilization and the state of nature. Immigration has been such a problem because the laws have not been enforced. They were crafted, passed, published, and promptly ignored even by the very people charged to uphold them. This is disastrous to a rule of law. If law is to have any meaning or any use, it must be enforced. To the extent capitalists are taking a harder line on immigration, it is because they simply want the laws enforced. If it is illegal to cross the border without following procedure, then some effort should be made to ensure that the procedure is followed. Right now, little is.

Frankly, most capitalists would be happy to throw open the doors on legal immigration; let anyone come who is willing to support himself. But while that policy is not the law, the law should prevent that policy.

Also, many capitalists objected to the attempt by the government to push the burden of enforcing immigration policy on the employers. Employers are not the government's slaves; if the government with all its power and resources can't enforce the law, how can they reasonably expect business owners to do it for them?

[Labor Shall Rule]

For the capitalists, Latinos have became more integrated into and central to the economy; between April 2000 and July 2004, the Latino population of the United States grew by 17 percent, while the overall population increased by 4.3 percent. By pitting native workers against migrant workers, it assists in driving down the standard of living for the migrant workers, making it easier for employers to impose lower wages on all workers. It's a classic case of "divide and conquer".

[luxemburg89]

For the capitalists, Latinos have became more integrated into and central to the economy; between April 2000 and July 2004, the Latino population of the United States grew by 17 percent, while the overall population increased by 4.3 percent. By pitting native workers against migrant workers, it assists in driving down the standard of living for the migrant workers, making it easier for employers to impose lower wages on all workers. It's a classic case of "divide and conquer".

Great Post! Yeah I agree with that. I also think it hinders any revolutionary aspirations in the workers. By imposing reactionary nationalist beliefs in them they create a culture in which it is deemed foolish to support a movement that favours internationalism. That is not to say workers are idiots who soak up everything, rather that indoctrination is a powerful tool that can work on the smartest of us. Also, there are many workers who do not soak up these beliefs; but, to me, it seems there are certainly a fair few.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+June 11, 2007 06:42 pm--> (pusher robot @ June 11, 2007 06:42 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 11, 2007 05:28 pm
Where do you think the governing parties get a large proportion of their funding from?
Labor unions, for one, who tend to be notoriously anti-immigration. [/b]
Have you ever heard of Rupert Murdoch or Bernie Ecclestone?


Anti immigration trade unions?
I take it you're not familar with British trade unionism then.