When immigration becomes a spacial issue....

[Wake Up]

Ok in England we have had a good half century of heavy immigration from a variety of places (West Indies, Eastern Europe and Africa to name the three main areas)

Now as a leftist I do not support any form of immigration control as I believe all people have the right to live and work where they wish. neither do I discriminate on the basis of a person's place of birth.

However the UK is getting over crowded and our often victorian infrastructure will not cope, nor will there be a time of radical overhaul of infrastructure in the foreseeable future.

My question is what does the leftist do when immigration becomes a spacial issue??

[spartan]

This is a good question and one I have been thinking of myself for quite a long time.

The thing is until the countries these immigrants are leaving have decent living standards and job opportunities (which actually pay well), they will continue to come to places like Britain in increasing numbers and we will eventually have this spacial problem.

The only way to solve it is to help the countries where the immigrants come from, but that wont happen under capitalism as it creates the conditions which force the immigrants to leave their home countries and settle in ours (thus creating this spacial problem).

Alternatively we could seize the means of production but I think we should be a bit more realistic when tackling these issues (laughs).

[dread...]

We have to remember that immigration, is not just a spatial issue - but also an economic one. The current mass immigration to Britain from eastern Europe that is being encouraged by the bosses (the CBI), and of course the Labour government is aimed at building up a reserve army of labour and undermining pay, conditions, and worker's organisations.

the Independent Working Class Association have recently published an article on the issue.

It can be found by googling their website...

They conclude thusly


Butultimately, there is only one pro-working class resolution to the problems outlined above: democratic control of the economy. This is the only way of producing a migratory framework -indeed, an economic framework- that is geared toward human needs (of the domestic population as well as of migrants), not just the sectional needs of capital. However, the very idea of economic democracy has, to the left’s eternal and deserved shame, been off the ideological menu for decades, during which time the left has allowed the debate to become fossilised into a stale ‘neo-liberalism vs. state control’ false choice.Recent developments in Latin America have shown that a progressive, popular opposition to neo-liberalism can be built (although one must be wary of the possible development of autocracy and authoritarianism, as has been so often the case before with the left). As yet there is no indication of any counterpart materialising in the developed world.

[F9]

There is not a spacial issue and never going to be,when "immigrants" dont have place to stay is not for lucking of space,space there is plenty of it,but state owns it,it makes churches,shits,people own lands for "property" and they live it there so it gets expensier and sell it for money.If those things werent happening there would be place for the double of population now UK has(nothing has with numbers,just saying),so its sad to hear from leftists call that "space issue",where state has done it.Anw even if there is luck of space what is the problem of "immigrants" to move in the A or B country?Its their choice,and their problem only if they dont found space to live(of course saying is their problem,i mean are those who suffer,because eventually is our problem too,people owning huge villas and others staying in the roads).

Fuserg9:star:

[Vanguard1917]

Ok in England we have had a good half century of heavy immigration from a variety of places (West Indies, Eastern Europe and Africa to name the three main areas)

Now as a leftist I do not support any form of immigration control as I believe all people have the right to live and work where they wish. neither do I discriminate on the basis of a person's place of birth.

However the UK is getting over crowded and our often victorian infrastructure will not cope, nor will there be a time of radical overhaul of infrastructure in the foreseeable future.

My question is what does the leftist do when immigration becomes a spacial issue??

More than 9/10 of Britain (more than 90%) is land which isn't built on. In other words, we could quadruple the amount of homes in Britain and still have more unbuilt on land than towns and cities.

There is no problem of space in Britain. The idea that the UK is 'getting overcrowded' is a myth, propagated by environmentalists and rightwing reactionaries.

[spartan]

More than 9/10 of Britain (more than 90%) is land which isn't built on.

That could be because a) it's unsuitable to be built on or b) because it's used for other purposes like farming, dumping waste, etc.

If you wan't to make more space build planned cities and apartment blocks that can house thousands in a small area.

The trouble is not everyone will like that.

[Sendo]

spartan's right. Spouting numbers and statistics on XXXX sq. miles here and there is silly. A libertarian friend said we have no foreseeable problems with garbage dumps b/c we have so much land left. "Well", I say, "how about practically*** getting the garbage to those areas?"

[Saorsa]

As Vanguard pointed out, there is plenty of land left. If you honestly belive every square inch of your country is being used for something (or being appreciated for it's stunning natural beauty), you're kidding yourself. And hell, even if there was nowhere to expand outwards, that's what tall buildings were invented for. Build up rather than out, if you have to, and for the forseeable future you don't.

It should be a basic principle of the far left to call for Open Borders, no immigration controls whatsoever, and full and equal rights for migrant workers. This is espescially true in countries like the US and elsewhere which have large numbers of "aliens" within their borders, but it should also be a slogan raised in countries with a less major immigration problem, such as New Zealand.

Open Borders, both the raising of it as a slogan and it's practical application, increases cross border unity between workers of all nations, and challenges the capitalist state and it's repressive and divisive agenda. It means giving poor, uneducated workers the same rights as skilled workers and capitalists, who can move across borders relatively easily, and it means giving the same rights to dark skinned people as light skinned people.

It ultimately comes down to this question. If a poor, dark skinned person is fleeing poverty and opression in their homeland to travel to a rich First World country, and the capitalist state in that FW country is imprisoning them, seperating them from their families and subjecting them to cruel and inhuman treatment, whose side are you on? I know my side.

If you oppose Open Borders, you support border controls, and if you support border controls, you support deportations. It's hardly a leftist position to be taking the same side as the Minutemen!

[spice756]

More than 9/10 of Britain (more than 90%) is land which isn't built on. In other words, we could quadruple the amount of homes in Britain and still have more unbuilt on land than towns and cities.

There is no problem of space in Britain. The idea that the UK is 'getting overcrowded' is a myth, propagated by environmentalists and rightwing reactionaries.


Never understand why land cost so much in the UK and Canada when so much land is not used.The same for homes.

What not enough construction workers to meet the demad?

[Saorsa]

Never understand why land cost so much in the UK and Canada when so much land is not used.The same for homes.

Well the prices are inflated beyond their value. Hooray for capitalism, the most effective and efficient system on the market!

[dread...]

If you oppose Open Borders, you support border controls, and if you support border controls, you support deportations. It's hardly a leftist position to be taking the same side as the Minutemen!

It is not simply a conflict between to polar oppositie positions - open borders Vs border controls.

A "pro-working class" approach calls for worker's control of our communities, regions, and nations and the resources produced therein. A short term struggle for more control over our immeadiate environment (and even the longer term struggle for total control) is undermined by demands for what is essentially state enforced open borders against local wishes.

It should be up to the working class who we share our resources with, and that includes who we allow to live in our communities and work in our workplaces. It should then be up to the left to argue for international class solidarity and the neccessity of uniting all workers regardless of origin - but within a context in which we have control - not the state.

Calling for open borders within the current system is calling for the bosses to have even more ability to force workers across thousands of miles in order to undermine pay and conditions - and for the state to enforce that right. Not very communist.

[RaiseYourVoice]

If there isn't enough space, take it from capies, your bloody monarchy or maybe the church. The only spacial issue is capitalism, not immigration.


Calling for open borders within the current system is calling for the bosses to have even more ability to force workers across thousands of miles in order to undermine pay and conditions - and for the state to enforce that right.
Fuck off. Its not like the bosses need the awesome revolutionary left to get workers. If they need them, the borders will open, if they don't they will close again. We however will always fight for open borders, not the immigrants are stealing our jobs, our houses etc. its the cappies. Proposing migration controll as some sort of solution promotes racism and puts the blame on the victims of capitalism instead of the capistalist.

[dread...]

Proposing migration controll as some sort of solution promotes racism and puts the blame on the victims of capitalism instead of the capistalist.

Who are the victims of capitalism? Is it just those forced through poverty or war to move thousands of miles from family and home to live in squalor and work for shit wages, or is it also those workers who see their pay and conditions undermined by cheap labour, is it those workers left behind in countries without infrastructure or the skilled workers required to build it? How would either group be helped by "No Borders"?

Does the demand for open borders recognise the need for worker's control of our own communities, workplaces, and resources? If so how?

[RaiseYourVoice]

those workers who see their pay and conditions undermined by cheap labourOh yea my pay is undermined by cheap labour, of course! not possibly by the capitalists! You want to take action against cheap labour? why not take action against unemployed? Why not forbid women to work, after all they are working for less pay? The socialist approach always was and always will be equal pay for equal work, not following hate campaigns against those who "undermine our pay".


How would either group be helped by "No Borders"?For refugees thats an easy one, not being bombed, shot or starved to death seems like a good advantage. Also wanting to stay here instead of being kicked out seems pretty understandable. As for the workers in the imperialist world, its pretty easy too. Fighting racism means fighting united. By demanding equal pay we UNITE our struggle, by demanding closed borders we SPLIT the working class into good and bad workers and thereby strenghen the rule or the capitalist class.

[dread...]

For refugees thats an easy one, not being bombed, shot or starved to death seems like a good advantage.


Really!!?? So open borders would prevent bombings and starvation?


You want to take action against cheap labour?

Why don't you practice your reading skills and read what I actually wrote? I actually advocated taking action against the causes of cheap labour, through working class solidarity. You obviously haven't been paying attention and reading the whole thread.:rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

That could be because a) it's unsuitable to be built on or b) because it's used for other purposes like farming, dumping waste, etc.

Nope, that's not the case. There is a lack of building and development because of a lack of investment as well as restrictive green policies against housing development.



A "pro-working class" approach calls for worker's control of our communities, regions, and nations and the resources produced therein. A short term struggle for more control over our immeadiate environment (and even the longer term struggle for total control) is undermined by demands for what is essentially state enforced open borders against local wishes.



Aside from the rhetoric about workers' control, what you're saying is essentially the position of far-right groups like the BNP. The idea that immigration was forced upon indigineous Brits without their consent...

i) There are no 'open borders' in Britain and there never have been. In reality, the state exercises pretty strict controls over who can and cannot live and work in this country legally.

ii) Arguing for greater immigration controls is essentially calling on bourgeois states to exercise greater powers to divide workers worldwide. As Comrade Alastair said, full freedom of movement is a very basic socialist demand. Immigration controls, and the system of international apartheid which they effectively impose, are a disgrace from the point of view of progressive people.



It should be up to the working class who we share our resources with, and that includes who we allow to live in our communities and work in our workplaces. It should then be up to the left to argue for international class solidarity and the neccessity of uniting all workers regardless of origin - but within a context in which we have control - not the state.



But you want the bourgeois state to have even greater control over working class life than it does already - by calling on it to tighten immigration controls.



Calling for open borders within the current system is calling for the bosses to have even more ability to force workers across thousands of miles in order to undermine pay and conditions - and for the state to enforce that right. Not very communist.


Calling for greater immigration controls is calling on the ruling class to have more power to restrict the freedoms of working class people by telling them where they can and cannot live and work. Not at all communist.

[dread...]

ii) Arguing for greater immigration controls is essentially calling on bourgeois states to exercise greater powers to divide workers worldwide. As Comrade Alastair said, full freedom of movement is a very basic socialist demand. Immigration controls, and the system of international apartheid which they effectively impose, are a disgrace from the point of view of progressive people.



But you want the bourgeois state to have even greater control over working class life than it does already - by calling on it to tighten immigration controls.



Calling for greater immigration controls is calling on the ruling class to have more power to restrict the freedoms of working class people by telling them where they can and cannot live and work. Not at all communist.

Where have I actually argued for greater immigration controls? My word! Some people on here seem incapable of actually responding to points made!:laugh:

[spartan]

I think the problem here is we are trying to apply socialist principles (open borders) in a capitalist society.

Unfortunately doing that will help one group (the bosses who get bigger profits from having cheaper labour) and hurt another (the "native" workers who are layed off so the bosses can employ cheap labour, as well as the strain on public services which the "native" workers prop up with their taxes).

Personally I am not against open borders and I am merely responding in an antagonistic (is that the right word?) manner and throwing out points (which I don't agree with) to create debate on this issue.

I also don't understand those who come into a debate and start accusing people of things.

Stop it and debate the points made for god's sake!

The only way to solve this issue is to stop immigration (which isn't going to happen) or start a global revolution where immigration wont be a concern anymore.

The trouble is when is the revolution?

[Vanguard1917]

Where have I actually argued for greater immigration controls?


Aren't you complaining that there are too many immigrants in Britain? If you're against open borders, you're for immigration controls.

[Vanguard1917]

Unfortunately doing that will help one group (the bosses who get bigger profits from having cheaper labour) and hurt another (the "native" workers who are layed off so the bosses can employ cheap labour, as well as the strain on public services which the "native" workers prop up with their taxes).

Socialists don't prioritise the interests of their 'native workers' against the rest of the working class. And it's not immigrant workers who are responsible for cuts in public services, it's the ruling class. Real socialists are aware about who the enemy is.



The only way to solve this issue is to stop immigration (which isn't going to happen) or start a global revolution where immigration wont be a concern anymore.



You want a revolution as a means to stop this supposedly grave social ill that is immigration? What kind of 'revolution' are you proposing exactly?

[F9]

The only way to solve this issue is to stop immigration (which isn't going to happen) or start a global revolution where immigration wont be a concern anymore.



There is NOT an issue, nor a problem,and stopping "immigrations" isnt a solve.There are no "foreigners" we are all immigrants!

Fuserg9:star:

[spartan]

Aren't you complaining that there are too many immigrants in Britain? If you're against open borders, you're for immigration controls.
I think that like me he is playing devil's advocate.

[spartan]

There is NOT an issue, nor a problem,and stopping "immigrations" isnt a solve.There are no "foreigners" we are all immigrants!

Fuserg9:star:
I am not saying there is a problem, I am using the usual arguements of those who say there is a problem (i.e. devil's advocate).

[Wake Up]

To clarify, by spacial I referred to current infrastructure. I realize that britain could house billions of people, but anyone who has lived in the country will know that rarely does any work on infrastructure get done.

I am also aware of the causes of immigration.


To simplify my question...

What does the leftist say when a country cannot hold any more people.

For whatever reason - I used the UK as an example, so don't attack my simplified explanation of UK immigration.




The number 1 goal of leftist is to educate people in our ideologies (for me anyway....). This is why I ask - to provide a solution to immigration that is applicable to our current society. Now that is probably not possible, but it must be remembered that people want solutions to their problems and blaming capitalism is often met with skepticism amongst people I talk to.

[spartan]

You want a revolution as a means to stop this supposedly grave social ill that is immigration? What kind of 'revolution' are you proposing exactly?
Not to stop immigration!

In a communist society there won't be a first world or third world which forces people into one of the others as there own doesn't have anything to offer.

What I meant was communism would solve the problem of an unequal world thus making immigration to other regions of the world pointless (though people can still do that if that is what they so choose).

[spartan]

The number 1 goal of leftist is to educate people in our ideologies (for me anyway....). This is why I ask - to provide a solution to immigration that is applicable to our current society. Now that is probably not possible, but it must be remembered that people want solutions to their problems and blaming capitalism is often met with skepticism amongst people I talk to.
I agree.

This is what makes this debate so intriguing to me.

What do we do when are answer to all problems ("it's all capitalism") makes people walk away with no intrest at all in our answers and solutions to their problems?

What should also be pointed out is far-right populist parties like the BNP are in fact getting bigger and more popular on the anti-immigration card so often played by right-wingers.

Despite what we perceive, it seems that this issue, and others like it, are popular with working class people in the first world.

Just look at what happened recently in South Africa where huge crowds of South Africans vented their anger about immigration at African immigrants in a shocking display of violence.

[F9]

To simplify my question...

What does the leftist say when a country cannot hold any more people.

For whatever reason - I used the UK as an example, so don't attack my simplified explanation of UK immigration.


If a "country" cannot hold more people that dont effects in the way that everyone is free to go whatever he wants,there might be some people who dont care if they have no house,they will walking all day.Whats my point?Even if there was a problem our stance is clear,no borders,if someone insists or wanting going no one can tell him what to do,there might be no space either to work either to live but that dont affect to the people right to can go wherever they want.Its their choice;and their choice only,if they cant find where to live because there isnt,its just their concern.




The number 1 goal of leftist is to educate people in our ideologies (for me anyway....). This is why I ask - to provide a solution to immigration that is applicable to our current society. Now that is probably not possible, but it must be remembered that people want solutions to their problems and blaming capitalism is often met with skepticism amongst people I talk to.

Thats number 2 goal to be true,number 1 is to make our ideologies from theory to practise.

Fuserg9:star:

[spartan]

I agree with what you say Fuserg9 but let me be devil's advocate here.

It seems to me that you are applying socialist principles in a capitalist society (completely incompatible).

Yes no borders is what we all ultimately want but it would only work in a socialist society.

In our current capitalist society open borders means that someone is going to get hurt (either the immigrant who is open to abuse and has no legal protection from this, or the worker from the country the immigrant has immigrated to who has consequently lost his job because of this).

Now how would you (or anyone else) answer the points I have made?

I frequently come up against these points when I am on other forums, so I am intrested in ways to respond to this.

[Lynx]

Which is more important - the exclusive right to live in a privileged country or the right of all human beings to live where they please?

[Saorsa]

Actually Open Borders would seriously challenge capitalism, not help it. The whole point of immigration controls is so the state can allow in who it wants and keep out who it doesn't want, and moreover so that the ruling class can deny huge numbers of "illegal immigrants" their right to live and work in the FW country in question as full citizens, equal with those around them.

Open Borders, even within the framework of capitalism, would mean that the immigrant underclasses in the FW would become full citizens. They'd have full and safe access to healthcare, education, welfare and other services provided by the state. They'd be able to conceivably get better jobs than the shitty ones they're forced to work in as things stand - no more would you see skilled workers cleaning toilets because their qualifications aren't recognised or they can't go to English classes. They'd be confident about joining unions and getting active in worfkplace, community and broader political struggles, and they could impart the knowledge they have of such struggles in the TW to their co-workers or neighbours that were born in the FW country they now reside in.

Open Borders is an internationalist, pro-working class and anti-capitalist demand that challenges the unjust status quo and empowers the working class to fight together for a better world. Anything less than calling for Open Borders (in a First World country) is bourgeois nationalism wearing a red mask.

The argument has been raised (and I've encountered it before here in NZ), is that working class communities should have control over who comes into them, and should be able to block niggers and gooks from buying houses in OUR neighbourhood... that is, after all, what you're proposing. Our task as socialists is not to pander to prejudices existing among backward elements of the proletariat, but to instead struggle within the working class to promote revolutionary, internationalist ideas, and to try and act as a vanguard force.

That's why we have to promote ideas like Open Borders consistently and without moderation, even if it does mean a lt of people walk away shaking their heads at those wackjob commies. We do not moderate our positions in oder to make them appeal to more people - that is opportunism. Instead, we continue to argue them, winning people over at first in ones or twos and then later in greater numbers, until such a time as we're powerful enough to shove aside the forces in our way and implement our policies ourselves. And one of those policies will be Open Borders.

[spartan]

Actually Open Borders would seriously challenge capitalism, not help it.

Well that is true, it is also true that businessmen wan't more immigrants so that they can employ cheaper labour and get more of the profits which their (immigrants) work creates.

If the government wanted to they could stop immigration easily tomorrow, but the business elite who run every country won't let them as it affects their profits negatively (as they have to employ workers from their own country who don't work for pittance like immigrants, which is still more then they would earn back home).


Open Borders, even within the framework of capitalism, would mean that the immigrant underclasses in the FW would become full citizens. They'd have full and safe access to healthcare, education, welfare and other services provided by the state.

Yes but the OP's point was that more people equals less space and puts more of a strain on public services.


They'd be able to conceivably get better jobs than the shitty ones they're forced to work in as things stand - no more would you see skilled workers cleaning toilets because their qualifications aren't recognised or they can't go to English classes. They'd be confident about joining unions and getting active in worfkplace, community and broader political struggles, and they could impart the knowledge they have of such struggles in the TW to their co-workers or neighbours that were born in the FW country they now reside in.

And the business elite will bring in even more immigrants to take over the previous role of cheap labour which these now fully integrated immigrants once served (which also leaves the countries that the immigrants come from lacking a workforce leaving them dependent on the first world).

Capitalism is a vicious cycle of exploitation!

The only way to make immigration work is to overthrow capitalism and initiate a socialist system.

Hmm here's a question; could an arguement be made that advocating open borders in a capitalist society is the working class effectively shooting themselves in the foot and doing the bourgeoisie's job for them - i.e. providing them with cheap labour to exploit, and making the "native" workforce jealous and turning them to the anti-immigration far-right, thus dividing the working class?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't see an issue with the infrastructure, since the free rider problem is resolved. If all immigrants were granted citizenship they would pay taxes. Illegal immigration in the US and the British isles cause the most problems simply because of the citizenship status.

[spartan]

I don't see an issue with the infrastructure, since the free rider problem is resolved. If all immigrants were granted citizenship they would pay taxes. Illegal immigration in the US and the British isles cause the most problems simply because of the citizenship status.
I agree.

However the bourgeois class also has an eye to preventing class unity, so allowing immigrants in to "steal our jobs" (as the bourgeois press puts it) and not have to pay taxes (which they don't need to as they aren't citizens) for the public services which we all use, allows them to also be made into scapegoats (starting with the bourgeois press) which serves another bourgeois purpose of preventing class unity.

[Lynx]

Even if it were to strengthen capitalism and increase support for xenophobes, open borders is a principle worth supporting.

[spartan]

Even if it were to strengthen capitalism and increase support for xenophobes, open borders is a principle worth supporting.
I agree but the people I debate against would just say that isn't reason enough (mind you most of them are probably BNP supporters).

I need concrete stuff for when I am trying to convince them that they shouldn't be against open borders.

As far as they are concerned immigrants are the cause of most of this country's problems even though I have pointed out many a time the real reasons for problems which are usually scapegoated onto immigrants.

[Lynx]

I agree but the people I debate against would just say that isn't reason enough (mind you most of them are probably BNP supporters).

I need concrete stuff for when I am trying to convince them that they shouldn't be against open borders.
Do they have concrete stuff to support their position?


As far as they are concerned immigrants are the cause of most of this country's problems even though I have pointed out many a time the real reasons for problems which are usually scapegoated onto immigrants.
Short of concrete arguments, you can present the principles you uphold and ask them to explain which principles they are upholding.

[Saorsa]

Spartan, eventually you have to accept that you can't win everyone over. It is not worth it to dilute you're positions in order to try and do so.

[dread...]

Aren't you complaining that there are too many immigrants in Britain? If you're against open borders, you're for immigration controls.

Please show where I have "complained" that there are too many immigrants in Britain, or withdraw your disgusting slur.

[dread...]

I need concrete stuff for when I am trying to convince them that they shouldn't be against open borders.

As far as they are concerned immigrants are the cause of most of this country's problems even though I have pointed out many a time the real reasons for problems which are usually scapegoated onto immigrants.

And that is another reason not to call for open borders. Instead explain that as a communist you support the right of the working class to control our own communities and workplaces and the resources that we produce - it is up to us to choose who we share them with, and to make the decisions in open and democratic debate where we set the terms, not the media, or the state, or the bosses or those who want to control the state.

Explain about the principal of class solidarity, and how it is in our own self interest to show solidarity with our fellow workers, who we have more in common with than our national ruling class.

[Vanguard1917]

Please show where I have "complained" that there are too many immigrants in Britain, or withdraw your disgusting slur.

Surely, if you're against open borders, then you're against unrestricted immigration?



And that is another reason not to call for open borders. Instead explain that as a communist you support the right of the working class to control our own communities and workplaces and the resources that we produce


If you're a communist, you oppose the bourgeois state having powers to dictate to working people where they can and cannot live and work. If you oppose open borders, you support the international system of apartheid which immigration controls enforce on the working class.



it is up to us to choose who we share them with, and to make the decisions in open and democratic debate where we set the terms, not the media, or the state, or the bosses or those who want to control the state.



But you don't want working class people to decide; you want the exact opposite of that. By saying that we shouldn't oppose the bourgeoisie's border controls, you're saying that the bourgeois state should have the power to tell the workers of the world where they can and cannot live and work.

[Vanguard1917]

Well that is true, it is also true that businessmen wan't more immigrants so that they can employ cheaper labour and get more of the profits which their (immigrants) work creates.

If the government wanted to they could stop immigration easily tomorrow, but the business elite who run every country won't let them as it affects their profits negatively (as they have to employ workers from their own country who don't work for pittance like immigrants, which is still more then they would earn back home).



Obviously we support open borders because it would benefit our cause more than the cause of businessmen. It's true that tightly controlled immigration can have certain short-term benefits for capitalists; in the longer term, however, it creates potentially massive problems for capitalist society, not least because it brings workers together by undermining the national borders which capitalism uses to divide working class people.

Remember, immigration controls are a product of capitalism, specifically its imperialist stage. It was only with the rise of imperialism that immigration controls began to be introduced in Europe and the US. This article (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/565/galloway.htm) from the Weekly Worker outlines it quite well:



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.

[spartan]

Spartan, eventually you have to accept that you can't win everyone over. It is not worth it to dilute you're positions in order to try and do so.

Yeah I know.

It's just that I can't quite believe how people can just take the "immigrants are the cause of all our problems" line so easily, especially when I have pointed out many a time that this isn't the case (some of whom agree but still hold an anti-immigration position).

[Revolutiondownunder]

My question is what does the leftist do when immigration becomes a spacial issue??


campaign for more infrastructure and mobilise working people of all races to do so thus creating a grassroots campaign.

Pretty simple really.

[dread...]

Surely, if you're against open borders, then you're against unrestricted immigration?



If you're a communist, you oppose the bourgeois state having powers to dictate to working people where they can and cannot live and work. If you oppose open borders, you support the international system of apartheid which immigration controls enforce on the working class.



But you don't want working class people to decide; you want the exact opposite of that. By saying that we shouldn't oppose the bourgeoisie's border controls, you're saying that the bourgeois state should have the power to tell the workers of the world where they can and cannot live and work.

I'm not surprised you have problems with logic, given your support elsewhere for the laughable "Institute of Ideas". I am arguing in support for working class control of the resources - and against merely asking for the bourgeois state to let more cheap labour in and continue pillaging the developing world for people and resources.

It is not as simple as saying if you oppose A you must support B. Get some more naunce in your politics!

[Vanguard1917]

I am arguing in support for working class control of the resources - and against merely asking for the bourgeois state to let more cheap labour in and continue pillaging the developing world for people and resources.

It's not about asking the bourgeois state to do anything. It's about demanding that working people all over the world should be able to choose where they live and work for themselves, and that the political representatives of the ruling class should not be able to have powers to decide who can and cannot live within their respective national borders.

What you call 'nuance' in your politics - i.e. refusing to demand open borders and thus supporting immigration controls - is in fact the betrayal of a very basic socialist principle.