immigration

[redarmyfaction38]

it is obvious to anyboby without blinkers on, that immigration and more especially its consequences on public services are one of the main concerns of the british public.
one of the most outstanding comments being "british workers feel themselves to be the abandoned minority with no political party interested in them or their problems".
whilst we "in the know" know that immigration is deliberate policy of the capitalists and their pet parties to drive wages down and excuse their cutting of public services, that message is not getting across to the average worker.
in fact, any discussion of "immigration" seems to meet with a deafening silence or accusations of racism or fascism from those on the "left".
not the best way of dealing with the subject imho :(

[bolshevik butcher]

The workers movement globally has since its founding defended the rights of freedom of movement for all people. We have to continute this tradition, if we don't believe in borders why should we not defend the right of people to live where they choose to? This is a fundemntal question of the right of workers, if we are to stand against immigration then yes we are being racist we are elevating the supposed intersts of our own workers above those of other workers. Immigrants drive down wages because they are unorganised often and so are not able to fight for better conditions etc, in some areas organsing immigrant workers may well be a prioroty. If we accept the bosses excuses for driving down condtiions and allow this to divide the working class we are failing as socialists in our own country and beyond that are failing the soicalist movement internationally.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 08:34 pm
whilst we "in the know" know that immigration is deliberate policy of the capitalists and their pet parties to drive wages down and excuse their cutting of public services, that message is not getting across to the average worker.
it's not just that simple though. more than deliberate, it's the case that capitalism, just like it leads to inequaslity between individuals, also leads to inequality between regions. So if there's no work, money or food in lots of Africa, and there's some available in Europe, that's where people will go. It's not just a deliberate plan, a lot of capitlaists would probably also like to control immmigration, but the point is that in a capitalist system it can't be avoided. So what are you going to do, tell third world workers to stay in their countries and starve? What part of Britain are you from? If you're from a northern town, or Wales/Scotlan/N.Ireland, would you tell locals they can't move to richer regions in search of work, because it's unfair on the workers there?

I just don't think playing to the crowd is the right set of policies here. Firstly a large part of the working class is the very recent descendent of immigrants, or are immigrants themselves. Also, though I don't deny these issues affect people, not every concern all workers is going to be correct. People also tend to like tough law and order policies, or believe that the family is sacred, etc. Are we going to ask for the capitalist state to defend these things too? No, instead we will show people how these htings are attacks ont hem. Likewise, we have to show workers how national divisions are an attack on them and disadvantage them. And really, if these issues were so decisive to people, then the BNP wold have a lot more members. As it is, it's membership of 8,000 is stagnating, it's councillors are resigning, etc. I thinka ctually that the immgiraiton debate right now is declinign in importance (though it is still important), and while the Tories and Labour have stopped talking about it so much, the BNP HAS NOT picked support. And finally, where it did mainly pick up support was more about inter-ethnic rivalries between establsihed communities in towns, than about new immigrants.

[Dr Mindbender]

the best way to combat the immigration fallacy is to provide alternative explanations. Humouring it as legitimate does not do the progressive movement any favours.

[bubbles81]

Immigration from developing countries robs them of their skilled people which they need to retain to give them any chance of improvement. Is it a world wide plot to keep impoverished nations down?

[Lenin II]

The immigration debate is not only ludicrous, it is misplaced. The general xenophobia and anti-Latino border-fencer attitude is nothing if not beneficial to the right-wingers and capitalists. The same goes for the Islamophobia being thrown about by the Bush and Blair puppets of the “War of Terror." This kind of division of nations,r aces, peoples, sexes, etc. is infintely useful to the capitalist ruling class for diversionary purposes, since if any kind of unity is ever felt by such classes, they would overnight realize that the capitalists themselves are their enemies, and not each other.

Not only that, but the idea that immigrants "take our jobs" (like digging ditches and picking oranges) and "drive down wages" (which of course is the worker's fault, and not the bosses') is nothing but a straw man argumnet, a red herring, that by itself renders their arguments invalid.

I find it funny that the same middle-class WASPS who talk so much about immigration and border security are also the ones who have gardeners who are "illegal" and tell the guys building their houses "No Coca-Cola unless you redo that crown molding, Jose!"

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Lenin [email protected] 27, 2007 07:08 pm
The immigration debate is not only ludicrous, it is misplaced. The general xenophobia and anti-Latino border-fencer attitude is nothing if not beneficial to the right-wingers and capitalists. The same goes for the Islamophobia being thrown about by the Bush and Blair puppets of the “War of Terror." This kind of division of nations,r aces, peoples, sexes, etc. is infintely useful to the capitalist ruling class for diversionary purposes, since if any kind of unity is ever felt by such classes, they would overnight realize that the capitalists themselves are their enemies, and not each other.

Not only that, but the idea that immigrants "take our jobs" (like digging ditches and picking oranges) and "drive down wages" (which of course is the worker's fault, and not the bosses') is nothing but a straw man argumnet, a red herring, that by itself renders their arguments invalid.

I find it funny that the same middle-class WASPS who talk so much about immigration and border security are also the ones who have gardeners who are "illegal" and tell the guys building their houses "No Coca-Cola unless you redo that crown molding, Jose!"
ah!
do you not agree then, that the employment of "immigrant" workers drives down the wages of "native" workers?
you say, that, somehow, this is the workers own fault! how? workers live in the capitalist world, they are forced to compete whether they agree with it or not.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 08:30 am
Immigration from developing countries robs them of their skilled people which they need to retain to give them any chance of improvement. Is it a world wide plot to keep impoverished nations down?
more like a worldwide plot to keep workers wages down and the bosses profits up.
when the attraction of the advanced industrial nations wanes and their economies go into recession, the capitalist class will quickly switch to the impoverished nations the "immigrants" left behind.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 08:30 am
Immigration from developing countries robs them of their skilled people which they need to retain to give them any chance of improvement. Is it a world wide plot to keep impoverished nations down?
more like a worldwide plot to keep workers wages down and the bosses profits up.
when the attraction of the advanced industrial nations wanes and their economies go into recession, the capitalist class will quickly switch to the impoverished nations the "immigrants" left behind.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Zurdito+October 26, 2007 10:35 pm--> (Zurdito @ October 26, 2007 10:35 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 08:34 pm
whilst we "in the know" know that immigration is deliberate policy of the capitalists and their pet parties to drive wages down and excuse their cutting of public services, that message is not getting across to the average worker.
it's not just that simple though. more than deliberate, it's the case that capitalism, just like it leads to inequaslity between individuals, also leads to inequality between regions. So if there's no work, money or food in lots of Africa, and there's some available in Europe, that's where people will go. It's not just a deliberate plan, a lot of capitlaists would probably also like to control immmigration, but the point is that in a capitalist system it can't be avoided. So what are you going to do, tell third world workers to stay in their countries and starve? What part of Britain are you from? If you're from a northern town, or Wales/Scotlan/N.Ireland, would you tell locals they can't move to richer regions in search of work, because it's unfair on the workers there?

I just don't think playing to the crowd is the right set of policies here. Firstly a large part of the working class is the very recent descendent of immigrants, or are immigrants themselves. Also, though I don't deny these issues affect people, not every concern all workers is going to be correct. People also tend to like tough law and order policies, or believe that the family is sacred, etc. Are we going to ask for the capitalist state to defend these things too? No, instead we will show people how these htings are attacks ont hem. Likewise, we have to show workers how national divisions are an attack on them and disadvantage them. And really, if these issues were so decisive to people, then the BNP wold have a lot more members. As it is, it's membership of 8,000 is stagnating, it's councillors are resigning, etc. I thinka ctually that the immgiraiton debate right now is declinign in importance (though it is still important), and while the Tories and Labour have stopped talking about it so much, the BNP HAS NOT picked support. And finally, where it did mainly pick up support was more about inter-ethnic rivalries between establsihed communities in towns, than about new immigrants. [/b]
no it definately isn't that simple, which is why i started the thread in the first place.
and i agree, playing to the crowd isn't the best option, but neither is ignoring it.
i live in the south west mate, i've seen more immigration from the north than folkestone has seen from the eu ;)
the "north" begins at bristol, by the way.
and i agree, a worker seeks the best employment he can find and cannot be condemned for such.
maybe i should have posted this on the practice board rather than politics, or maybe i have a tendancy to question in order to gain knowledge.
i dunno, does the body rule the mind or the mind rule the body?

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by redarmyfaction38+October 27, 2007 11:04 pm--> (redarmyfaction38 @ October 27, 2007 11:04 pm)
Lenin [email protected] 27, 2007 07:08 pm
The immigration debate is not only ludicrous, it is misplaced. The general xenophobia and anti-Latino border-fencer attitude is nothing if not beneficial to the right-wingers and capitalists. The same goes for the Islamophobia being thrown about by the Bush and Blair puppets of the “War of Terror." This kind of division of nations,r aces, peoples, sexes, etc. is infintely useful to the capitalist ruling class for diversionary purposes, since if any kind of unity is ever felt by such classes, they would overnight realize that the capitalists themselves are their enemies, and not each other.

Not only that, but the idea that immigrants "take our jobs" (like digging ditches and picking oranges) and "drive down wages" (which of course is the worker's fault, and not the bosses') is nothing but a straw man argumnet, a red herring, that by itself renders their arguments invalid.

I find it funny that the same middle-class WASPS who talk so much about immigration and border security are also the ones who have gardeners who are "illegal" and tell the guys building their houses "No Coca-Cola unless you redo that crown molding, Jose!"
ah!
do you not agree then, that the employment of "immigrant" workers drives down the wages of "native" workers?
you say, that, somehow, this is the workers own fault! how? workers live in the capitalist world, they are forced to compete whether they agree with it or not. [/b]
You do realize that when i said that it was "the worker's fault," I was being sarcastic?

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by redarmyfaction38+October 27, 2007 11:23 pm--> (redarmyfaction38 @ October 27, 2007 11:23 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:35 pm

[email protected] 26, 2007 08:34 pm
whilst we "in the know" know that immigration is deliberate policy of the capitalists and their pet parties to drive wages down and excuse their cutting of public services, that message is not getting across to the average worker.
it's not just that simple though. more than deliberate, it's the case that capitalism, just like it leads to inequaslity between individuals, also leads to inequality between regions. So if there's no work, money or food in lots of Africa, and there's some available in Europe, that's where people will go. It's not just a deliberate plan, a lot of capitlaists would probably also like to control immmigration, but the point is that in a capitalist system it can't be avoided. So what are you going to do, tell third world workers to stay in their countries and starve? What part of Britain are you from? If you're from a northern town, or Wales/Scotlan/N.Ireland, would you tell locals they can't move to richer regions in search of work, because it's unfair on the workers there?

I just don't think playing to the crowd is the right set of policies here. Firstly a large part of the working class is the very recent descendent of immigrants, or are immigrants themselves. Also, though I don't deny these issues affect people, not every concern all workers is going to be correct. People also tend to like tough law and order policies, or believe that the family is sacred, etc. Are we going to ask for the capitalist state to defend these things too? No, instead we will show people how these htings are attacks ont hem. Likewise, we have to show workers how national divisions are an attack on them and disadvantage them. And really, if these issues were so decisive to people, then the BNP wold have a lot more members. As it is, it's membership of 8,000 is stagnating, it's councillors are resigning, etc. I thinka ctually that the immgiraiton debate right now is declinign in importance (though it is still important), and while the Tories and Labour have stopped talking about it so much, the BNP HAS NOT picked support. And finally, where it did mainly pick up support was more about inter-ethnic rivalries between establsihed communities in towns, than about new immigrants.
no it definately isn't that simple, which is why i started the thread in the first place.
and i agree, playing to the crowd isn't the best option, but neither is ignoring it.
i live in the south west mate, i've seen more immigration from the north than folkestone has seen from the eu ;)
the "north" begins at bristol, by the way.
and i agree, a worker seeks the best employment he can find and cannot be condemned for such.
maybe i should have posted this on the practice board rather than politics, or maybe i have a tendancy to question in order to gain knowledge.
i dunno, does the body rule the mind or the mind rule the body? [/b]
Are you a Smiths fan?

Regarding immigration, I think its one of those contradictions thrown up by capitalism - wealth is regionally misallocated, populations shift dramatically, overcrowding in some areas underpopulation of others ensues, etc. - and the correct approach is to use this to drive deeper the wedge between capitalists and employers, while the incorrect control is to let the capitalists pass that cost onto the workers - in effect a well managed" immigration system wouldn't hurt capitalists that much (at least most of them) and many of them would welcome it as they'd still be able to import the labour they needed and to outsource as they wanted, but then have a better grip on the downside of this regional inequality. I disagree that immigration is a conspiracy to drive down wages, I think it's just what happens as an inevitable result of regional inequality. I won't suport imigration controls because these pass the cost of capitalisms inefficiency onto third world workers.

Instead, I say demand of the capitalist class that they pay for the increased housing/healthcare/schooling etc. which immigration demands. And when they resist, use it to propagandise against them. Is it easy? No - but the alternative is to enforce national barriers that divide the working class and weaken us all, as well as to demand people stay in places with low wages and not enough food or work. and int he long run the native workers won't benefit either. I say that because if the capitalist class is disposed to only fund a certain percentage of the housing and healthcare necessary, they'll then just lower that percentage once the new rate of population growth has been established.

That might sound like a detached answer but really I don't think it is, I consider it to be the absolute truth - those parasites in power WILL NOT stop their outright attacks on the working class right now, and less population growth in deprived areas will be met by a proportionate cut in spending.

So we just can't fight them by hoping to exclude some workers so others can get a bigger slice of the pie.

This is a difficult question and your argument is a tempting one to a lot of people, and that's why I want to take it on in some detail. Let's put it like this then; at the end of the day you know that the neo-liberals in power won't do anything to harm the rate of profit of the capitalists, right? So any rise in wages will be accompanied, under this system, by an increase in prices, by increased otsorcing, icnreased unemployment, or by an allowing of just the right amount of immigration needed to keep capitalists profits bouyant anyway. The only way you'd acheive a system which could limit immigration whilst passing the costs of higher wages onto the capitalists, i.e. making them take the hit from their profits - would be a reformist government committed to income redistribution and in a lot of cases (ie Network Rail, Metronet, Royal Mail etc., all companies who heavily use a lot of immigrants through contracted-labour), nationalisation, right? In other words, a million miles away from what we have now, a kind of "Old Labour".

Well, we know where the traitors of Old Labour led the working class, they led it away from revolution in some of capitalisms biggest crises, they brought it into exactly the kind of cross-class aliance that would be needed to bring in immigration reforms. If that's what your proposing then all I think it will acheive will be to misdirect disaffected workers into a comfy Old Labour type arrangement with little hope of staying in power and which would only be treading water until the capitalists it protects were ready to crush it again like they did in the 1950's, 1970's and 1980's. I think long term that is a false solution and it directs people away from capitalism and into an alliance with the bourgeoisie, which then betrays them. Those vultures won't "look after their own" once "their own" let their guard down - and getting workers guard down was the primary function of Old Labour.

Now maybe you weren't proposing that, maybe you were proposing a socialist revolution, but which incorporated immgirationc ontrols. But a socialist world wouldn't have regionally misallocated wealth, so why would we need immigration controls? If the workers owned the means of production anyway they could just produce according to need, so the issue of more people populating a region froma broad wouldn't necesarilly matter anyway - each one of those workers would just produce for the other, and there'd be no problem, no competition between them, no-one using them against each other, just, mutually beneficial production. So under socialism, 1.) mass immigration wouldn't occur and 2.)the immgiration that did occur would have no negative side-effects.

So in summary my answer to you is that we shouldn't reinforce the borders of the capitalist state because in the long run you can't protect workers this way. Short-term you mgiht protect some wages but in the end as long as the capitalsits are in pwoer they'll pass the cost onto workers. So then, if you're telling me that the answer is to get them out of power, well, once they are, you no longer need immigration controls anyway!

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Zurdito+October 28, 2007 08:18 pm--> (Zurdito @ October 28, 2007 08:18 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:23 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:35 pm

[email protected] 26, 2007 08:34 pm
whilst we "in the know" know that immigration is deliberate policy of the capitalists and their pet parties to drive wages down and excuse their cutting of public services, that message is not getting across to the average worker.
it's not just that simple though. more than deliberate, it's the case that capitalism, just like it leads to inequaslity between individuals, also leads to inequality between regions. So if there's no work, money or food in lots of Africa, and there's some available in Europe, that's where people will go. It's not just a deliberate plan, a lot of capitlaists would probably also like to control immmigration, but the point is that in a capitalist system it can't be avoided. So what are you going to do, tell third world workers to stay in their countries and starve? What part of Britain are you from? If you're from a northern town, or Wales/Scotlan/N.Ireland, would you tell locals they can't move to richer regions in search of work, because it's unfair on the workers there?

I just don't think playing to the crowd is the right set of policies here. Firstly a large part of the working class is the very recent descendent of immigrants, or are immigrants themselves. Also, though I don't deny these issues affect people, not every concern all workers is going to be correct. People also tend to like tough law and order policies, or believe that the family is sacred, etc. Are we going to ask for the capitalist state to defend these things too? No, instead we will show people how these htings are attacks ont hem. Likewise, we have to show workers how national divisions are an attack on them and disadvantage them. And really, if these issues were so decisive to people, then the BNP wold have a lot more members. As it is, it's membership of 8,000 is stagnating, it's councillors are resigning, etc. I thinka ctually that the immgiraiton debate right now is declinign in importance (though it is still important), and while the Tories and Labour have stopped talking about it so much, the BNP HAS NOT picked support. And finally, where it did mainly pick up support was more about inter-ethnic rivalries between establsihed communities in towns, than about new immigrants.
no it definately isn't that simple, which is why i started the thread in the first place.
and i agree, playing to the crowd isn't the best option, but neither is ignoring it.
i live in the south west mate, i've seen more immigration from the north than folkestone has seen from the eu ;)
the "north" begins at bristol, by the way.
and i agree, a worker seeks the best employment he can find and cannot be condemned for such.
maybe i should have posted this on the practice board rather than politics, or maybe i have a tendancy to question in order to gain knowledge.
i dunno, does the body rule the mind or the mind rule the body?
Are you a Smiths fan?

Regarding immigration, I think its one of those contradictions thrown up by capitalism - wealth is regionally misallocated, populations shift dramatically, overcrowding in some areas underpopulation of others ensues, etc. - and the correct approach is to use this to drive deeper the wedge between capitalists and employers, while the incorrect control is to let the capitalists pass that cost onto the workers - in effect a well managed" immigration system wouldn't hurt capitalists that much (at least most of them) and many of them would welcome it as they'd still be able to import the labour they needed and to outsource as they wanted, but then have a better grip on the downside of this regional inequality. I disagree that immigration is a conspiracy to drive down wages, I think it's just what happens as an inevitable result of regional inequality. I won't suport imigration controls because these pass the cost of capitalisms inefficiency onto third world workers.

Instead, I say demand of the capitalist class that they pay for the increased housing/healthcare/schooling etc. which immigration demands. And when they resist, use it to propagandise against them. Is it easy? No - but the alternative is to enforce national barriers that divide the working class and weaken us all, as well as to demand people stay in places with low wages and not enough food or work. and int he long run the native workers won't benefit either. I say that because if the capitalist class is disposed to only fund a certain percentage of the housing and healthcare necessary, they'll then just lower that percentage once the new rate of population growth has been established.

That might sound like a detached answer but really I don't think it is, I consider it to be the absolute truth - those parasites in power WILL NOT stop their outright attacks on the working class right now, and less population growth in deprived areas will be met by a proportionate cut in spending.

So we just can't fight them by hoping to exclude some workers so others can get a bigger slice of the pie.

This is a difficult question and your argument is a tempting one to a lot of people, and that's why I want to take it on in some detail. Let's put it like this then; at the end of the day you know that the neo-liberals in power won't do anything to harm the rate of profit of the capitalists, right? So any rise in wages will be accompanied, under this system, by an increase in prices, by increased otsorcing, icnreased unemployment, or by an allowing of just the right amount of immigration needed to keep capitalists profits bouyant anyway. The only way you'd acheive a system which could limit immigration whilst passing the costs of higher wages onto the capitalists, i.e. making them take the hit from their profits - would be a reformist government committed to income redistribution and in a lot of cases (ie Network Rail, Metronet, Royal Mail etc., all companies who heavily use a lot of immigrants through contracted-labour), nationalisation, right? In other words, a million miles away from what we have now, a kind of "Old Labour".

Well, we know where the traitors of Old Labour led the working class, they led it away from revolution in some of capitalisms biggest crises, they brought it into exactly the kind of cross-class aliance that would be needed to bring in immigration reforms. If that's what your proposing then all I think it will acheive will be to misdirect disaffected workers into a comfy Old Labour type arrangement with little hope of staying in power and which would only be treading water until the capitalists it protects were ready to crush it again like they did in the 1950's, 1970's and 1980's. I think long term that is a false solution and it directs people away from capitalism and into an alliance with the bourgeoisie, which then betrays them. Those vultures won't "look after their own" once "their own" let their guard down - and getting workers guard down was the primary function of Old Labour.

Now maybe you weren't proposing that, maybe you were proposing a socialist revolution, but which incorporated immgirationc ontrols. But a socialist world wouldn't have regionally misallocated wealth, so why would we need immigration controls? If the workers owned the means of production anyway they could just produce according to need, so the issue of more people populating a region froma broad wouldn't necesarilly matter anyway - each one of those workers would just produce for the other, and there'd be no problem, no competition between them, no-one using them against each other, just, mutually beneficial production. So under socialism, 1.) mass immigration wouldn't occur and 2.)the immgiration that did occur would have no negative side-effects.

So in summary my answer to you is that we shouldn't reinforce the borders of the capitalist state because in the long run you can't protect workers this way. Short-term you mgiht protect some wages but in the end as long as the capitalsits are in pwoer they'll pass the cost onto workers. So then, if you're telling me that the answer is to get them out of power, well, once they are, you no longer need immigration controls anyway! [/b]
i wasn't proposing anything!

i read a lot of "alternative"/ anarchist/ socialist papers, i work in the real world, unfortunately, the common sense you speak and i agree with generally, doesn't seem to be obvious to every body else! :(

i'm just looking for ideas on how to approach the subject differently so the truth will out, so to speak.

back in the '70s, when i was a very young trade unionist, i asked "dumb" questions like, "if we're now part of the eec, why isn't my union joining up with the french engineering unions and demanding the same kind of wages and conditions they are on?"

it just seems to me, that not a lot has changed, it's 2007 and our "glorious leaders" still seem to be focused on "national politics" and "national interest" rather than learning from the last 35 years of being in a capitalist club.

we live today, in a britain, where the bpolitical consciousness of the averge worker has been shoved back to the 1950s.

the islamaphobia, the disregard for common interest for our fellow workers in the eu needs to be combatted by something more than political rhetoric, which we are all reduced to, in the face of a lack of a co ordinated approach by all of us "in the know".

it may be, that the "revolutionary left", has so been penetrated or compromised, by the forces of "bourgeouis democracy" that we are own woerst enemy!

i dunno.

and yes, i am a big fan of the smiths, and yes i am looking for meaningful debate, personal experience, "best practice" etc.

the "immigration debate" is one where, i feel, we on the "left", can begin to discuss freely, without resort to "party preferences", because we all know immigration aint the the problem, and, maybe, if we can learn to work together on this one, then maybe we canlearn to work together on everything else!?!

just a thought.