How would socialism deal with "illega immigration"

[R_P_A_S]

lets say that in the next 10 years or so countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil and others managed to form a legit socialist union. and it looks better than the one in Russia a few years ago.
and all the sudden some people start returning back to their countries. or maybe moving to new socialist countries all together... "illegally"

how would the new socialist union handle illegal immigration?

[Janus]

Decriminalize it.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Janus is correct.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:49 am
Decriminalize it.
ok.

so anyone that comes in is not require to check in or nothing?

[Janus]

so anyone that comes in is not require to check in or nothing?
In the system which you describe, there would probably still be some sort of border and thus regulations would most likely still exist but that doesn't mean that immigration laws need to be extremely strict or that "illegal" immigration would be criminalized.

[apathy maybe]

Most "illegal immigration" happens because people cannot access the immigration officials of the country they are trying to get to, or else because they are somehow otherwise restricted in their "legal" movement.

In the event of a future "socialist" country (or federation), there probably still would be border controls and so on. Because the capitalist countries would still exist.

Movement may or may not be easier into and out of such a place. Take a look at the USSR and tell me how easy it was to get in and out.

The final thing to remember, it might be illegal in the capitalist countries to travel in (or even through...) such a federation, just as it is currently for US citizens to visit Cuba.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There would still be border controls on the socialist federation's border with capitalist countries - in other words, people going in our out would still be checked to make sure they don't carry bombs or something - but unless one is physically carrying weapons, one should be free to enter and exit at will.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Would any of you allow Nazis in, as immigrants??

[Tatarin]

Uh, why would nazis want to live in a socialist union?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 12:11 pm
Would any of you allow Nazis in, as immigrants??
As long as they don't bring in any weapons - or other means of violence - why not? Nazis can only do damage in two ways:
1. Physically, through violence. We already covered that.
2. By spreading their propaganda. But in the socialist federation, all means of disseminating information will be in the hands of workers' collectives or other democratic organs. Unlike in capitalism, Nazis cannot buy control of the media. So, what exactly can they do? Stand at a street corner and rant, I suppose...

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 28, 2007 09:10 am
Most "illegal immigration" happens because people cannot access the immigration officials of the country they are trying to


Yeah, so most likely there wouldn't be any reason to illegally immigrate (unless one was hiding from the law)

[Ander]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 28, 2007 12:22 pm
As long as they don't bring in any weapons - or other means of violence - why not? Nazis can only do damage in two ways:
1. Physically, through violence. We already covered that.
So that means we have to cut off their hands and legs?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What, are we dealing with Shaolin Nazis here? I trust that a modern, industrial society - particularly a socialist one - would not be seriously threatened by a band of lunatics armed with nothing but their fists. The people's militia will carry guns, no?

[RGacky3]

If there is a genuine socialist country thats doing well what the hell are Nazis going to do, first of all the conditions that breed racism and totalitarianism won't be there, second how would they be a threat at all, no one will listen to them, and if they try and beat up any one they are gonna have a hard time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tatarin:


Uh, why would nazis want to live in a socialist union?

1) We do not live in such a union yet,

2) And if we did, they just might want to undermine it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Edric O:


As long as they don't bring in any weapons - or other means of violence - why not? Nazis can only do damage in two ways:
1. Physically, through violence. We already covered that.
2. By spreading their propaganda. But in the socialist federation, all means of disseminating information will be in the hands of workers' collectives or other democratic organs. Unlike in capitalism, Nazis cannot buy control of the media. So, what exactly can they do? Stand at a street corner and rant, I suppose...

This is a novel way to write a suicide note....

[Kwisatz Haderach]

As I see it, any socialist federation will have much more to worry about from its own native ex-ruling classes than from anyone who comes in from the outside. One's counter-revolutionary potential in a socialist society depends mostly on the networks of connections and "insider knowledge" that one accumulated before the revolution. Deprived of their control over the means of production, the former bourgeoisie can only fight socialism through mafia-like structures.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Edric O:


As I see it, any socialist federation will have much more to worry about from its own native ex-ruling classes than from anyone who comes in from the outside. One's counter-revolutionary potential in a socialist society depends mostly on the networks of connections and "insider knowledge" that one accumulated before the revolution. Deprived of their control over the means of production, the former bourgeoisie can only fight socialism through mafia-like structures.

Well, that may or may not be so, but how would we deal with this now, not then?

Now the original poster queried how "socialism" would deal with this, not how we woul deal with this in a future socialist society.

Of course, you could read it either way, hence my query: how should we deal with Nazi immigrants now.

[Tatarin]

2) And if we did, they just might want to undermine it.

Yes, but why go to the union itself? They would most likely get more support in the US or any other nation not in the union. Besides, the capitalist overclasses in capitalist nations would probably be more than likely to aid these "national liberation movements".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tatarin:


Yes, but why go to the union itself? They would most likely get more support in the US or any other nation not in the union. Besides, the capitalist overclasses in capitalist nations would probably be more than likely to aid these "national liberation movements".

Look, as I said, you might be right, you might not be, but your answer does not help if you are wrong.

And even worse, it doesn't tell us what we should do now.

[I.e, read my last post before this one.]

[Janus]

Now the original poster queried how "socialism" would deal with this, not how we woul deal with this in a future socialist society.
The original question was how a future socialist state would deal with illegal immigration.


As I see it, any socialist federation will have much more to worry about from its own native ex-ruling classes than from anyone who comes in from the outside. One's counter-revolutionary potential in a socialist society depends mostly on the networks of connections and "insider knowledge" that one accumulated before the revolution. Deprived of their control over the means of production, the former bourgeoisie can only fight socialism through mafia-like structures.
In that case, the counter-revolutionary forces will most likely depend on aid from foreign nations; such an intervention would probably be the most immediate threat following the inception of such a socialist state.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Janus+June 29, 2007 09:00 pm--> (Janus @ June 29, 2007 09:00 pm)
As I see it, any socialist federation will have much more to worry about from its own native ex-ruling classes than from anyone who comes in from the outside. One's counter-revolutionary potential in a socialist society depends mostly on the networks of connections and "insider knowledge" that one accumulated before the revolution. Deprived of their control over the means of production, the former bourgeoisie can only fight socialism through mafia-like structures.
In that case, the counter-revolutionary forces will most likely depend on aid from foreign nations; such an intervention would probably be the most immediate threat following the inception of such a socialist state. [/b]
Yes, which would be a good reason to keep an eye on the flow of goods - not people - across the borders of the socialist federation. Anyone entering the federation would, of course, be made aware that different property relations exist within the federation, and that they should not expect to be able to bring in and continue to own any goods they want.


Rosa Lichtenstein
Of course, you could read it either way, hence my query: how should we deal with Nazi immigrants now.
Well, I was not aware that individual Nazi immigrants (or reactionary immigrants in general) posed a problem anywhere. Reactionaries tend to be few; they rely on their social and economic power, not on their numbers, to cause damage.

Besides, for the most part, the most dangerous border-crossing reactionaries are the types that wear uniforms and drive tanks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 06:58 pm
Edric O:


As long as they don't bring in any weapons - or other means of violence - why not? Nazis can only do damage in two ways:
1. Physically, through violence. We already covered that.
2. By spreading their propaganda. But in the socialist federation, all means of disseminating information will be in the hands of workers' collectives or other democratic organs. Unlike in capitalism, Nazis cannot buy control of the media. So, what exactly can they do? Stand at a street corner and rant, I suppose...

This is a novel way to write a suicide note....
Since you raise post-revolutionary questions, doesn't such defense aggravate the class struggle further AFTER the revolution?

[And I am referring to a historically validated theory here, in spite of its source. ;) ]

[Psy]

What about terrorists? Any industrial society would have lots of material that could be used to make bombs.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:17 pm
What about terrorists? Any industrial society would have lots of material that could be used to make bombs.
^^^ Indeed. Knives make not bombs. Fanny Kaplan would have been more successful by resorting to terrorist materials rather than to a mere gun. :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Edric 0:


Well, I was not aware that individual Nazi immigrants (or reactionary immigrants in general) posed a problem anywhere. Reactionaries tend to be few; they rely on their social and economic power, not on their numbers, to cause damage.

Besides, for the most part, the most dangerous border-crossing reactionaries are the types that wear uniforms and drive tanks.

You may recall that after WW2, several S American countries took in Nazi immigrnts.

As far as I am aware, not a one was drinving a tank or wearing jackboots.

So, what would you have advised socialists in, say, Paraguay to do?

Avoid the question, like you now doing?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hammer:


Since you raise post-revolutionary questions, doesn't such defense aggravate the class struggle further AFTER the revolution?

[And I am referring to a historically validated theory here, in spite of its source. ]

WTF???

I am sorry, you will have to take a crash course in writing non-enigmatic posts if I am to follow your drift, comrade. :blink:

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ By "defense," Rosa, I mean workers' defense of revolutionary gains against fascist-minded people.

By "aggravation" I mean this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66272&view=findpost&p=1292312487) and my signature below.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am sorry Hammer, one of us has tripped over into a parallel universe, where nothing makes sense.

I have no proof, but the case for your defence gets weaker with each post you make.

Please, put me out of my misery: WTF are you on about?? :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 06:58 pm
Edric O:


As long as they don't bring in any weapons - or other means of violence - why not? Nazis can only do damage in two ways:
1. Physically, through violence. We already covered that.
2. By spreading their propaganda. But in the socialist federation, all means of disseminating information will be in the hands of workers' collectives or other democratic organs. Unlike in capitalism, Nazis cannot buy control of the media. So, what exactly can they do? Stand at a street corner and rant, I suppose...

This is a novel way to write a suicide note....

I interpret your remarks here as meaning that "they just might want to undermine it" (in your own words). As a historical fact, you and I know that class struggle is aggravated to new heights before the revolution.

As a further historical fact which I don't think you recognize, however, the reactionaries' post-revolution actions and the workers' counter-attacks further aggravate the class struggle to levels beyond what it was during the revolution.

Please read my link above. My former background is that of a Trotskyist and then a Stalinist. The two key "ideas" of the latter is socialism in one country and the aggravation theory put forth by Stalin in 1933 (really just a smokescreen to justify mass repression). However, the latter does have merit ONLY IF one were to substitute "along with the development of socialism" (Stalin's theory) with "along with the development of the international DOTP" (Lenin's theory, as per my sig, although he didn't coin the term).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hammer, this looks like English, but I cannot get my head around it.

[Tatarin]

You may recall that after WW2, several S American countries took in Nazi immigrnts.

But even when they lived in South America, they just lived by themselves, I mean, they didn't start a new nazi regime. As far as I know, they didn't even start any movements at all.

Many were war criminals, but I believe that that is the country/ies in question who must be held responsible. No socialist union would protect a nazi with a record of war crimes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tatarin:


But even when they lived in South America, they just lived by themselves, I mean, they didn't start a new nazi regime. As far as I know, they didn't even start any movements at all.

And that means, I take it, that you think we can always trust former leading Nazis for ever more not to try anything on; is that what you are saying?

Somehow, I do not feel reassured....


No socialist union would protect a nazi with a record of war crimes.

You'll be telling me grass is green next!

But, to pose the question yet again: would we argue to keep them out?

[Tatarin]

And that means, I take it, that you think we can always trust former leading Nazis for ever more not to try anything on; is that what you are saying?

No, of course we can't trust nazis. But anyone should be allowed to say anything he or she wants in the socialist union. As long as they don't have a record of crime, much less war crimes, why not? We would look like cowards if anything but one thought would be allowed.


But, to pose the question yet again: would we argue to keep them out?

The people could, alternatively, democratically choose if the union would accept nazi immigrants or not, I suppose.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tatarin:


But anyone should be allowed to say anything he or she wants in the socialist union.

Well, I do not know why you have introduced this; the question is whether they should be allowed to enter a socialist society, not give speeches when they get there.

And, the right to free speech is not the highest right in any list (although quite a few make a fetish of it).

Independently of that, the right to be a Nazi is non-existent, even before we allow them to speak.


The people could, alternatively, democratically choose if the union would accept nazi immigrants or not, I suppose.

Sure, but I would be arguing that they didn't, and I suspect I'd win.

[Janus]

Yes, which would be a good reason to keep an eye on the flow of goods - not people - across the borders of the socialist federation.
If there were to be border stations/checks then it would only make sense if they were to check the flow of supplies and goods as well.


What about terrorists?
I think such criminal matters would be for the militia to handle though an emphasis should be put on denying them support from the populace; such dissatisfaction would depend strongly on the progression and health of the socialist society which should be the foremost concern.

[Janus]

But even when they lived in South America, they just lived by themselves, I mean, they didn't start a new nazi regime. As far as I know, they didn't even start any movements at all.

Many were war criminals, but I believe that that is the country/ies in question who must be held responsible. No socialist union would protect a nazi with a record of war crimes.
I don't think it would be apt to compare the situation surrounding the escape of various Nazis to South America in 1945 with Nazi infiltration into this hypothetical socialist union. Both the reasons for immigration and the political climate are too different to make a strong analogy. The Nazis in 1945 were looking to escape from Germany and were able to do so due to the general postwar chaos as well as the political climate in South America at the time in which many political officials were sympathetic to fascism and as such it was easier to secretly enter the region. I'm not sure why the conversation seems to be so fixated around neo-Nazis entering such a socialist union especially when the greater concern would be a foreign military invasion of some sort but I think it's obvious that known neo-Nazis should as a rule of thumb be prevented from entering the state as there intentions are most likely to be malicious rather than benign.

[Tatarin]

Uhm, seems like I'm getting an error 403 when I try to reply on this post. Any reasons?

[Janus]

It may be the result of the spam filter.

[dannydandy]

how about if tis the other way round, like big outflow of population to the capitalist states, especially for professionals and intellectuals, just as in the case for USSR back in the cold war?

how should the socialist union deal with it? surely not another berlin wall, but wouldn't a similar senerio heavily damage the development of the union?

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 08:23 am
how about if tis the other way round, like big outflow of population to the capitalist states, especially for professionals and intellectuals, just as in the case for USSR back in the cold war?

how should the socialist union deal with it? surely not another berlin wall, but wouldn't a similar senerio heavily damage the development of the union?
If we are talking about a true workers state then most workers would come back once they experience working under capitalism.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 28, 2007 09:10 am
Most "illegal immigration" happens because people cannot access the immigration officials of the country they are trying to get to, or else because they are somehow otherwise restricted in their "legal" movement.

In the event of a future "socialist" country (or federation), there probably still would be border controls and so on. Because the capitalist countries would still exist.

Movement may or may not be easier into and out of such a place. Take a look at the USSR and tell me how easy it was to get in and out.

The final thing to remember, it might be illegal in the capitalist countries to travel in (or even through...) such a federation, just as it is currently for US citizens to visit Cuba.
Well, there were about 100 Americans a year who sought asylum in the USSR. A lot of them were clinically insane.