Closing the U.S. border

[JimmyJazz]

OK, so I've long thought that immigration into the U.S. was great for captialism and bad for workers.

It gives the employers a pool of cheap laborers, with no legal status to organize or to protect themselves
It takes away jobs from those who do have such a legal status and who stand to benefit from decades (centuries) of struggle by generations of workers before them
It allows the immigrant laborers themselves to be exploited to an extreme degree
It eases class tensions in the U.S. by giving the hardest/least skilled jobs to people with no political or legal franchise
It prevents countries like Mexico from developing their own capitalist economies and their own highly-developed class systems
For all these reasons, while I would gladly campaign and march for the rights of immigrants already living here, I realize that doing so is not a long-term solution. In the long term, there is no solution but to
seal the border tight.

There's a book I saw on a bookstore shelf a while back, which I did not read, but the title has stayed with me: "Guest Workers or Colonized Labor?" It's a good question, and I'd answer that the reality is the latter, while the former phrase is a justifying liberal euphemism.

Much more recently, I've started to pay attention to the way that racist/nationalist right-wingers are exploiting the immigration issue among American workers--not just people, but specifically workers. Not only is this alarming, but the fact that it works seems to confirm my take that it is workers who are getting shafted and captialists who are gaining from immigration. For one example of this right-wing opportunism among workers, see here (http://voidnow.org/). For another, see here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/need-help-counter-t88268/index.html?t=88268&highlight=good+post). In addition to appealing explicitly to workers, some far-right racist/nationalist groups are eager to denounce profit-hungry employers (http://azresistance.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/join-the-arizona-tax-revolt/) for acting against the interests of American workers on the immigration issue. How can the success of these kinds of appeals be seen as anything other than a complete failure of the left to take a sufficiently big-picture/long-term/radical stance on immigration? The simple fact is that the far-right often does seem to have a better sense of what's good for workers than the (liberal/Green) left. I hope the same cannot be said for a comparison of them with the radical left.

Bear in mind that I am talking about future immigration, which I think should be treated as an entirely separate issue from things like deportation raids on those who are already here. I am not talking about indefinite detention or tearing family members apart. I am talking about the root problem that gives rise to public hysteria and makes such things possible in the first place, namely widespread illegal immigration.

Am I missing something, or do my fellow leftists also favor a closed U.S. border?

[Red Anarchist of Love]

if us goverment would stop allowing coparations from using the mexican an it's resourses there would be no need for immigration. 2nd there plenty resourses for every to live in confortably but the wealthis top 10% has more resouses then the rest combined. i am glad for illeagal immigration, it give many peole, who disire it oppurtunity. illeagal and leagal workers must unite to secure right for us ALL.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

here is the long term solution world wealth redistubution.

[JimmyJazz]

BTW if anyone is able to give a rundown of American far left organizations and their positions on immigration, please go ahead. I haven't done the research.


i am glad for illeagal immigration, it give many peole, who disire it oppurtunity.

Lots of things within the capitalist system create relatively greater opportunity for individuals, like affirmative action or scholarships for poor kids. Basically all charity and/or welfare serves this function. It doesn't mean that these things don't also act to maintain the class system.


here is the long term solution world wealth redistubution.

:lol:

It might be wise to sketch out a few intermediate steps between here and there.

[bcbm]

Nobody on the left supports closed borders except nationalist opportunists. The leftist position is an internationalist one, which means working with immigrants and "native" workers against the bosses. Beyond that, there is no domestic "solution" to immigration. Immigrants come here because US free trade policy has destroyed their economies. The only way to really do anything is to end those policies, not try to tighten the border (at a large cost in money and lives).

[spartan]

Hmmm... you make some good points.

Fellow comardes have told me that immigration weakens capitalism and should be supported (how it weakens it I don't know because they didn't tell me), but all I see is white working class people turning to far-right politics out of frustration with immigration and the negative aspects of it (losing your job because the boss wants cheaper labour, using public services which only the native working class funds and not them, etc).

And whilst all this is happening the owners of the means of production are making huge profits due to employing cheap labour and no one seemingly gives a shit.

Whats important to remember though is the fact that the only winners in this immigration issue are the bourgeois class (who get profits from employing cheaper labour and also get to divide the working class into "them" and "us", immigrants and natives, thus preventing class unity).

If you can point this out to the native working class then perhaps there resentment and anger towards immigrants might be redirected to those who are benefitting the most from immigration (the bourgeois class).

[black magick hustla]

Nobody on the left supports closed borders except nationalist opportunists. The leftist position is an internationalist one, which means working with immigrants and "native" workers against the bosses. Beyond that, there is no domestic "solution" to immigration. Immigrants come here because US free trade policy has destroyed their economies. The only way to really do anything is to end those policies, not try to tighten the border (at a large cost in money and lives).

That is a wrong approach. Mexican workers do not go to the US just because of free trade policies. The mexican economy has always been poor compared to the US, and it is preposperous to think that it is the "fault" of the internationalization of the economy. THe internationalization of the economy is inevitable, whether there is a capitalist state that claims a protectionist economy or not. We want to smash the nation-state all the way from its ideological to material roots. We dont need to justify our politics with arguments like the one of "US policies", as if the mexican left wing bourgeosie holds the solution. Our major objective is to destroy bourgeois civilization, and we dont need to justify our positions by placing the fault on the americans.

[JimmyJazz]

Immigrants come here because US free trade policy has destroyed their economies.

While I agree with you that free trade (like free immigration) works against the working class on both sides of the border, what you say here is not entirely true. Mexico is not a formerly rich country that was destroyed by free trade; it simply has never developed all the way in a capitalist direction. Free trade has merely impeded that development, and perhaps reversed some gains. Immigrant workers came here in droves from Europe during the last century, and it had nothing to do with free trade having ruined their economies back home, it simply had to do with differential economic opportunity.

(I see that Marmot has beat me to the punch so I'm just posting this in agreement with him).


tighten the border (at a large cost in money and lives).

Wtf?


Fellow comardes have told me that immigration weakens capitalism and should be supported (how it weakens it I don't know because they didn't tell me)

I feel like I have heard this before too, and I would really like some elaboration. Because as far as I can tell, the issue is almost clear cut in the other direction. Not mention very high priority for us: along with globalization and free trade, immigration of laborers is one of the biggest defining features of our modern economy. We obviously need to take a stance on it, and if we can't, I have to wonder if we know what we're doing.


If you can point this out to the native working class then perhaps there resentment and anger towards immigrants might be redirected to those who are benefitting the most from immigration (the bourgeois class).

Yes, but not likely. Capitalists, at least for many American workers, are not as visible in the day-to-day as undocumented workers are. Anyway, I think the fact that the far right is able to recruit from the working class--something that happened in early fascism, btw--is all the evidence we really need that "pointing it out" to the working class is not going to be enough, just as "pointing out" the undesirability of capitalism will never make people socialists, they have to see it for themselves in their daily struggle with the bosses.

[Random Precision]

I will respond to this more fully later. But right now I would say that any far-left organization that does not support a completely open border and full citizenship rights for any immigrant group is not worthy of the name.

[JimmyJazz]

I'll be right here. :cool:

[Wanted Man]

Nobody on the left supports closed borders except nationalist opportunists. The leftist position is an internationalist one, which means working with immigrants and "native" workers against the bosses. Beyond that, there is no domestic "solution" to immigration. Immigrants come here because US free trade policy has destroyed their economies. The only way to really do anything is to end those policies, not try to tighten the border (at a large cost in money and lives).
QFT.

My response from here on will mostly deal with the muslim immigration in the country where I live. However, there is little difference between that, and the way the American far right is using the Mexican immigrants as a phantom danger to the nation, so please bear with me.

It's always interesting to see the far right position on immigration. Not necessarily from fascists, but even from politicians with 'libertarian' economic policies who are also nationalist. For example, the most far-right party here, PVV, wants to close the borders to Islamic immigration, abandon EU policies and directly align with the US neocons and Israeli Zionism in the ratrace between the imperialist countries.

The intriguing thing is that instead of the confident globalism from recent years, they shift to isolationism, or at least an abandonment of current relations with other countries. The lofty ideal of imperialist domination is replaced by a gloomy vision of a nation cowering in fear of the 'Big Brother' EU, muslim immigration and a grand conspiracy of Islam and left-wing 'political correctness' to destroy the nation. To 'protect the nation' requires abandoning political liberalism. For example, the PVV wants to ban the Quran and institutionally discriminate against muslims in multiple other ways.

Of course, as BCBM said, the answer from the left is internationalism. Not opportunism, not regurgitating the fallacious arguments from the far right, not the racist preoccupation with the 'white working class'*, etc.

*These are not scare quotes to make some sort of MIM-style argument that whites can't be proletarians. The purpose is to highlight the underlying racism of the opportunism that some people in this thread promote. Let's see: we have a group that calls itself socialist, demands an immigration stop, and uses opportunist tactics to purposely mislead the white working class by giving a nationalist bent to proletarian politics. If it walks like a duck...

[JimmyJazz]

Of course, as BCBM said, the answer from the left is internationalism. Not opportunism, not regurgitating the fallacious arguments from the far right, not the racist preoccupation with the 'white working class'*, etc.

When you call my position "opportunism", I have to wonder how well you read it. I laid out a clear case on socialist grounds for closing the border. Only then did I say how, much more recently, I've taken right wing recruitment from the working class into account. I think I was clear that any opportunism is on the part of the far right, but that this opportunism is obviously only made possible by a failure of the far left (perhaps, their failure to even be a presence at all in American politics). The fact that it might look like a case of the left appropriating a right wing position if it was put into effect today by a left wing party has no bearing on whether it is, in fact, a genuine left wing position. It could just be a reflection of the left's failure to take the correct stance early on, allowing RW opportunists to beat them to the punch.

BCBM did not refute any of my points or make any attempt to show that his position represents "internationalism", so please don't simply Q him FT. Comrade Alistair's latest sig update contains a quote from Lenin:


There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one's own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception.

I attempted to show how closing the border seems to create more revolutionary conditions on both sides of it. That, if true, would make closing the border an internationalist position. You can't simply appeal to fuzzy liberal notions about being open-armed towards other nations and peoples and call it "internationalism". Hardcore pro-free traders also brand corporate globalization as "internationalist", but I doubt many here would agree that it is. BCBM may have been talking about genuinely revolutionary internationalism, but he didn't flesh out the point enough for us to know either way.

[Mindtoaster]

*Within Capitalism* I think the solution would be a sort of large scale guest worker program. From what I know most Mexican immigrants don't actually want to stay in the United States, they just need the money for themselves and their families very badly. I think it could work if the US was to seal the border and provide identification cards with their retina scan to any Mexican/Central American who wanted to come work in the US. They could then be provided with cheap residency by their workplace for a certain amount of time. There could basically be a free-flow of workers in and out of the country.

Also, according to the federal reserve we actually need more immigrant workers then we have at the moment to keep the economy running.

[JimmyJazz]

*Within Capitalism* I think the solution would be a sort of large scale guest worker program. From what I know most Mexican immigrants don't actually want to stay in the United States, they just need the money for themselves and their families very badly. I think it could work if the US was to seal the border and provide identification cards with their retina scan to any Mexican/Central American who wanted to come work in the US. They could then be provided with cheap residency by their workplace for a certain amount of time. There could basically be a free-flow of workers in and out of the country.

This would work for me, as long as every worker coming and going had the same rights as an American citizen: the right to be paid a minimum wage, the right to organize, the right not to be detained and held/deported without charges, etc. However, since I believe granting all these rights would defeat the entire purpose that illegal immigration now serves for the American ruling class, I don't expect it to happen. And even if the rights were granted initially, the ruling class would not have a hard time playing on the public's xenophobic fears to have them rolled back, leaving us squarely where we are now.

[spartan]

Immigrants actually serve a vital role in a first world economy as they are prepared to do all the jobs which the seemingly work-shy natives feel is beneath them (caring for the elderly in residential homes, cleaning, etc).

If it wasn't for them then our economies would be in the shit (I know they are in the shit now but that isn't really the fault of immigration).

One other important thing to remember is why the immigrants come here in the first place.

The countries they come from can't pay them good wages and ensure a decent standard of living, they are kept in this permanent state by the first world bourgeois class who know that this will drive those countries workforce to their first world countries where they can then be employed as cheap labour (which is still more then they would earn back home) thus giving them (first world bourgeois class) more profits (as they can pay their workforce less).

And it also doesn't hurt the bourgeoisies agenda if the first world proletariat also starts whining about immigration (their fellow workers) as this divides the working class and prevents class unity (there's a hint there JJ).

[bcbm]

That is a wrong approach. Mexican workers do not go to the US just because of free trade policies. The mexican economy has always been poor compared to the US, and it is preposperous to think that it is the "fault" of the internationalization of the economy.

The border regions have always been fairly fluid and workers often traveled back and forth for work well into this century. What is happening now is something different, where people are coming to stay long term as workers in this country, often bringing their whole family with. The major cause for this change has been the destruction of agricultural production due to the various free trade agreements supported and pushed through by the US. The general effect on southern economies has been negative too, of course. And so yes, this is why they come- because the stronger economic power in the region has destroyed theirs. And it happened within the global South as well, with people immigrating to their neighboring countries.


THe internationalization of the economy is inevitable, whether there is a capitalist state that claims a protectionist economy or not. We want to smash the nation-state all the way from its ideological to material roots. We dont need to justify our politics with arguments like the one of "US policies", as if the mexican left wing bourgeosie holds the solution. Our major objective is to destroy bourgeois civilization, and we dont need to justify our positions by placing the fault on the americans.

I don't think that Free Trade policies are inevitable, especially given how many of the treaties, etc pushing them have collapsed. And yes, our objective is to destroy bourgeois civilization but I don't see why that means we can't recognize what factors are leading to the immigration we're seeing?


Immigrant workers came here in droves from Europe during the last century, and it had nothing to do with free trade having ruined their economies back home, it simply had to do with differential economic opportunity.

And? Immigration occurs for a variety of reasons. Obviously economics are a factor and I never said otherwise. But I'm pointing out why those economics exist and why closing the border will never solve the situation under capitalism.


Wtf?

What do you think the end result of closing the border will be? You think no one will try to get in? Get real. That means attempting to cross a militarized border through various dangerous means. People already die trying to make the trek, imagine if it gets worse. Nobody is going to say "Oh fuck, they closed the border, better not try."





It gives the employers a pool of cheap laborers, with no legal status to organize or to protect themselves
It takes away jobs from those who do have such a legal status and who stand to benefit from decades (centuries) of struggle by generations of workers before them
It allows the immigrant laborers themselves to be exploited to an extreme degree
It eases class tensions in the U.S. by giving the hardest/least skilled jobs to people with no political or legal franchise
It prevents countries like Mexico from developing their own capitalist economies and their own highly-developed class systems

I can solve your problems in two steps... legalize and organize.

[Sendo]

As others said, we should be internationalist and should look at root causes of immigration. Simply trying to seal off the border means using deadly force to prevent Mexicans from seeking the bread and water they need to live.

As far as natives losing work, the whole US is far too artificial to feel brotherhood with some random person in Seattle anymore than I would with someone living in Montreal. Unionization will be good (and take away low wage hiring incentives) as will getting natives to blame an economy and an entire SYSTEM that fins it necessary to create pools of unemployed. The fault is not with Mexicans seeking a better life; it is with the economy for wanting a system where not everyone is employed.

The hard part is when you get down to the level of a specific factory or enterprise, and the workers just want to keep their jobs and keep decent wages and be able to go home and relax. The economy is a much more abstract target of anger than say any outsider who is forced to compete with you in a limited job market.

[Comrade B]

We are all humans, regardless of where we are born. If the US borders were totally open, companies would be forced to treat all their workers equally, as they should be.

If an immigrant is better than a native worker, why shouldn't the native be replaced? They do less for society (or in capitalism their company).

[Red Anarchist of Love]

el pueblo unido jamas sera vencido. the town united will never be decived. unite, unite, unite us all. as a hunmanitarian anarchist i have no loyalty to this country, i see all human being as the same it is not the open borders that are bad for the working class it is the systems and laws made to keep us as slaves. in my eyes and heart the rights of immigrant workers are the same as citizens. so we must unite to bring rights to us all.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

nations are no beter than religons. they both separate us from other parts of humanity, which are no diffrent form oursevlfs.

[JimmyJazz]

Quick clarification: the term "closed border" doesn't mean that I support reducing the number of immigrants overall, I am purely talking about illegal immigrants. More specifically, any immigrant workers who enjoy fewer legal protections/rights than American workers do.

The issue here is not brown people, the issue is creating a class of second-tier workers, which hurts both the second-tier workers and the first-tier ones (as anyone with a knowledge of American labor history is aware). So by "closed" I mean doing what it takes, not counting deadly force (I shouldn't even have to say that...), to keep illegal immigration from occurring. A big wall, some more patrols, or whatever.

To the suggestions of a completely open border: yes, I can see how that might do the same thing, if it could actually work. But I don't see how it could work. Unless you're talking about granting instant full American citizenship to anyone who strolls across that border, I don't see how you really solved the problem, which is having a class of second-tier workers. If that is what you're talking about doing, it's obviously not a politically viable solution.

To the people who seem cynically sure that border patrols would be a humanitarian nightmare, I suggest you read up on ICE raids. Do you think things are pretty right now? They aren't!


Immigrants actually serve a vital role in a first world economy as they are prepared to do all the jobs which the seemingly work-shy natives feel is beneath them (caring for the elderly in residential homes, cleaning, etc).

If it wasn't for them then our economies would be in the shit (I know they are in the shit now but that isn't really the fault of immigration).

Yes, but most of the jobs that immigrants do are essential, and will get done no matter who has to do them--whether it is defenseless immigrants or citizen-workers with full legal protection and rights. The fact that immigrant-dominated jobs are tougher will probably make American citizens more militant when doing them. And I'm guessing that a major part of the reason Americans even see those jobs as inferior is because second-class immigrant workers are the ones doing them.


the bread and water they need to live

I reject pretty much any attempt to give people the bread and water they need to live while the means of production remain in private hands. Sorry if that is not humanitarian enough. But if all that socialism means is maintaining dependence (of the working class on the capitalist class, of the undeveloped world on the developed world) while being super generous toward the dependents, then it is just super-compassionate liberalism.

I'm not saying we should starve people in droves to achieve a greater good of socialism. I'm talking about putting an end to a situation of dependence that, as I see it, hurts the working class of all countries involved.

OK, I might not get to log on again for a day or two, but I look forward to some in-depth replies.

[Oneironaut]

The issue here is not brown people, the issue is creating a class of second-tier workers, which hurts both the second-tier workers and the first-tier ones (as anyone with a knowledge of American labor history is aware)

- Illegal immigrants are not creating a class of second-tier workers but contributing to the already present second-tier workers. Do not pretend like capitalists treat minority workers, workers who were formally incarcerated, and young workers trying to make some sort of a living the same as they do white workers. This second-tier working class is already present. It would be present even if undocumented workers were not coming to the US.

To specifically attack undocumented immigrants is entirely absurd and will do nothing to our cause. You under-estimate the adaptability of capitalism... capitalists will always want a second-tier working class and whether undocumented immigrants join it or not, it will be there until we attack the issue on a larger scale.



So by "closed" I mean doing what it takes, not counting deadly force (I shouldn't even have to say that...), to keep illegal immigration from occurring. A big wall, some more patrols, or whatever.

- But "closed" to the government means militarization. They aren't going to simply build a big wall, add some more patrols, or whatever. They will be defending this big wall as conditions worsen and many undocumented immigrants will die.



but most of the jobs that immigrants do are essential, and will get done no matter who has to do them--whether it is defenseless immigrants or citizen-workers with full legal protection and rights.
- your right to earn fucking 7.25 an hour?? Thats about all the rights you have when it comes down to it. If undocumented immigrants, formally incarcerated workers, or young workers weren't doing this job then odds are I would not be in the union making 17.85 an hour but doing that exact job that only pays 7.25 an hour, not something I want.

a common sentiment in my union is how we feel so much for workers who make 7.25 an hour considering we barely make ends meet making more than 10 dollars an hour than they are. wW are in solidarity with them, they are not our enemies, the system is.

worker internationalism is key to our movement.

[JimmyJazz]

But "closed" to the government means militarization. They aren't going to simply build a big wall, add some more patrols, or whatever. They will be defending this big wall as conditions worsen and many undocumented immigrants will die.

Read about ICE raids and current immigrant detention practices.

[BobKKKindle$]

Socialists support open borders, which means that anyone should be allowed to move to any other country for any length of time, and they should also be allowed to take their family members with them when they migrate. To suggest otherwise and call for limits on migration is a nationalist position and should be firmly rejected by all socialists who are genuine internationalists.

All economic data suggests that migration does not have a negative impact on wage levels and actually produces economic benefits, as migrants from the developing world often enter jobs which are rejected by the domestic population because the wage levels are not high enough to compensate for negative aspects of the job such as long working hours and unclean conditions, and thereby allow industries which might otherwise be forced to close to continue operating, which means that immigrants actually sustain jobs for other workers. Negative impacts do occur as a result of illegal migration which occurs when the government attempts to enforce limits on how many workers can enter a country legally, because illegal immigrants are not protected by the same laws which apply to workers who are recognized by the government and they know that if they complain about their treatment or try to resist they will be deported back to their home countries. This is bad not just for illegal immigrants but for every section of the working class, because it means that employers can use the threat of hiring illegal immigrants to maintain downwards pressure on wages (illegal immigrants basically function as a reserve army of labour, in marxist terminology) such that the abolition of all migration controls would also enhance the interests of domestic workers.

Even if migration did have a negative impact, there would still be no reason to call for migration controls, because the workers of a country which is receiving large numbers of migrants have no right to demand special privileges which are not available to other workers, and migration controls promote the idea that workers should compete amongst themselves for access to scarce resources in the form of jobs and welfare provision.


I laid out a clear case on socialist grounds for closing the border. Only then did I say how, much more recently, I've taken right wing recruitment from the working class into account.Your position is opportunist, because by calling for border controls you are conceding that immigration has a negative impact on employment and wage levels, and you are also implicitly arguing that the workers of the recieving country should be entitled to special privileges. If socialists adopt this position, the working class will never break away from nationalism and will be forever tied to the ruling class.

[Oneironaut]

Read about ICE raids and current immigrant detention practices.

Read about the "Minute Men". Who are you to decide if the government decides to legally endorse these "freedom fighters". The reality of the situation is that undocumented immigrants cross the desert in the face of death. They are not going just to see if they can possibly cross, they are going to cross. While there will be immigration detention centers, it surprises me that a leftist would support such an institution. A jail full of downtrodden poor workers, often times mothers clutching babies who wanted to a better life. You are going to deny them this?

[spartan]

Your position is opportunist, because by calling for border controls you are conceding that immigration has negative impact on employment and wage levels, and you are also implicitly arguing that the workers of the recieving country should be entitled to special privileges. If socialists adopt this position, the working class will never break away from nationalism and will be forever tied to the ruling class.

I agree with your post but I wanted to pick up on this because workers are increasingly turning to nationalism because of the immigration issue.

That way open borders = more workers turning to nationalism because of the negative effects immigration has on them, whilst closed borders = more workers becoming nationalistic due to the obvious keep out the foreigner theme of closed borders.

Either way in both scenarios the "native" working class does not see socialism as an alternative and instead turns to reactionary nationalism!

What the hell are we supposed to do in a scenario like that?

[BobKKKindle$]

That way open borders = more workers turning to nationalism because of the negative effects immigration has on them, Socialists need to fight against the myth that immigrants are responsible for the problems suffered by domestic workers and explain how issues such as job insecurity and increases in the cost of living are actually due to the actions of the employers, who have no concern for the conditions of the workers and are only interested in getting as much profit as possible, which means they have an interest in turning workers against each other and obscuring the true source of their problems. This is the first step towards overcoming the influence of nationalism and creating a radical movement which unites all workers, regardless of nationality.

[JimmyJazz]

Bobkindles left this on my visitor message wall:


hey nationalist fucktard, reply to my post in your disgusting migration thread

lol

[bcbm]

To the people who seem cynically sure that border patrols would be a humanitarian nightmare, I suggest you read up on ICE raids. Do you think things are pretty right now? They aren't!

Read about ICE raids and current immigrant detention practices.

Yeah, taking people from their jobs and families, jailing them for months at a time and then deporting them. And you want to make it worse. Awesome.:rolleyes:

[Winter]

"Sealing the borders shut" will do nothing more but increase nationalism, creating an "us" and "them" mentality. How's that for worker solidarity?

Like Bobkindles said, it is the duty of all Socialists to educate the working class that these racist myths are untrue. Instead of sealing borders tight, we must inform others that the working class, regardless of ethnicity, shares a common class enemy.

[BobKKKindle$]

I leave my emotional outbursts for message walls, so I can be rational in my forum posts.


Read about ICE raids and current immigrant detention practices.

The ICE regularly conducts raids against communities and workplaces where illegal immigrants are suspected of hiding, with terrible consequences for anyone who has entered the US illegally or has outstayed the terms of their employment permit. As a proponent of border controls, you support the use of these tactics to capture illegal immigrants. This case study of an ICE raid shows that the police are indiscriminate in their use of violence, and workers who are imprisoned are often denied basic rights such as access to access to counsel:

ICE brings panic to a Mississippi town - Socialist Worker, ISO, Issue 679 (http://socialistworker.org/2008/08/29/ice-brings-panic-to-town)

Such is the brutality of the ICE, many migrant communities have organised marches in response to raids to let their views be known:

Bay Area march against ICE raids - Socialist Worker, ISO, Issue 679 (http://socialistworker.org/2008/08/29/bay-area-march)

[Comrade B]

Unless you're talking about granting instant full American citizenship to anyone who strolls across that border, I don't see how you really solved the problem, which is having a class of second-tier workers. If that is what you're talking about doing, it's obviously not a politically viable solution.

I do mean to open the borders completely and give everyone citizenship. If everyone has full citizenry, if they are being cheated out of standard wages, they can go to legal authorities with their complaint. The problem now is that illegals rely on offering their acceptance of substandard wages as a reason for people to go through the trouble of illegally hiring them. If it were to be that we would all become citizens, the only reason for people to hire people over others would be because the people can perform the task more efficiently.

[Vanguard1917]

Genuine socialists are internationalists and call for all immigration controls to be abolished immediately. The idea that bourgeois states should have the right to dictate to working class people where they can and cannot live and work is alien to socialists.



OK, so I've long thought that immigration into the U.S. was great for captialism and bad for workers.


Myth.

If immigration was 'great' for the ruling class, they would not be demanding laws to tightly control it. Being forced to abolish immigration controls altogether would have potentially life-threating consequences for capitalist society, by undermining the national barriers which divide the working class worldwide.

As we discussed in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/immigration-becomes-spacial-t88354/index3.html?&highlight=immigration) recent thread, immigration controls are a product of capitalism, specifically its imperialist stage. It was with this development of capitalism that capitalist nations began introducing barriers against the free movement of labour and thus dividing workers and reinforcing nationalist sentiments.


For all these reasons, while I would gladly campaign and march for the rights of immigrants already living here, I realize that doing so is not a long-term solution. In the long term, there is no solution but to
seal the border tight.

Then you're taking a position of direct opposition to a very basic working class freedom: the freedom to choose where to live and work.

As others have pointed out above, no socialist worth their salt can have no position on the bourgeoisie's immigration controls other than full opposition.

[JimmyJazz]

by calling for border controls you are conceding that immigration has a negative impact on employment and wage levels, and you are also implicitly arguing that the workers of the recieving country should be entitled to special privileges. If socialists adopt this position, the working class will never break away from nationalism and will be forever tied to the ruling class.

Incorrect. I am pointing out that an international socialist revolution will occur one nation at a time:


Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.and that people without political/legal power cannot change a nation:


We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.and that only citizens of a nation have political/legal power within it. Immigrants, as non-citizens, are a pool of labor that capitalists can exploit without repercussions or threat of them fighting back.

As for "special privileges", those are exactly what I am trying to take away. American workers CURRENTLY HAVE special privileges: they can belong to unions, they can vote, they can organize without fear of deportation. The capitalists in this country prefer, for obvious reasons, to exploit workers who do not have these rights (which you call "privileges" for some reason). Thus, they love illegal immigration. And they also prefer to have public sentiment on their side, so there will be public tolerance of even greater exploitation of immigrants. Which is why they love xenophobic anti-illegal hysteria, so long as it stops short of actually affecting the flow of cheap labor and remains in the realm of a general dislike of dirty Mexicans.


Yeah, taking people from their jobs and families, jailing them for months at a time and then deporting them.

Exactly. It is basically a dream for the American ruling class: cheap labor that is without legal defense against these kinds of retaliation for any attempt they might make to organize.

[JimmyJazz]

If immigration was 'great' for the ruling class, they would not be demanding laws to tightly control it.

Are they really? Please cite this.

The bourgeoisie is never monolithic of course, but large sections of it do benefit from illegal immigration. I can't name a section that suffers from it.


Being forced to abolish immigration controls altogether would have potentially life-threating consequences for capitalist society

Fine; please cite.


Then you're taking a position of direct opposition to basic a very basic working class freedom: the freedom to choose where to live and work.

"Working class freedom"? That is a personal freedom (much like the "right" to private property) that was advocated strongly by Thomas Jefferson and the other fathers of liberal-bourgeois democracy. Don't just dress it up in socialist language, show me how it is going to lead to socialism!

[BobKKKindle$]

Incorrect. I am pointing out that an international socialist revolution will occur one nation at a time:

How exactly does this relate to the issue of immigration or support your position? Revolution will never occur in any country if socialists do not challenge the nationalist sentiments of the working class, which means calling for the abolition of all border controls and recognizing the shared interests of all workers.


and that people without political/legal power cannot change a nation:

If this is true, then why not try to give illegal immigrants legal power by advocating citizenship rights for all existing illegal immigrants and the abolition of all border controls to ensure that there are no illegal immigrants in the future?


Immigrants, as non-citizens, are a pool of labor that capitalists can exploit without repercussions or threat of them fighting back.

This is true of illegal immigrants, but immigrants who have legal status are protected under labor legislation and so will always be paid at least the minimum wage set by the government and can also take against against their employers if they are forced to work in dangerous conditions, whereas illegal immigrants are not able to do any of these things because they are illegal and so will be deported as soon as they are identified by the government.


The capitalists [...] love illegal immigration

Illegal immigrants are useful for the ruling class because they are a highly exploitable section of the labour force and can be used against other workers to maintain a high level of exploitation, and so why not try to totally eliminate the problem of illegal immigration by calling for open borders, given that illegal immigrants are, by definition, people who have been forced to enter a country illegally because they are unable to obtain access through legal channels? Strengthening border controls will never stop everyone from entering illegally, because prospective immigrants will always be able to find ways of getting into a country, even if it involves crossing a desert and facing the risk of getting shot by nationalist militias, as in the US, or hiding in the bottom of trucks going through the channel tunnel, as in the UK.

[bcbm]

Exactly. It is basically a dream for the American ruling class: cheap labor that is without legal defense against these kinds of retaliation for any attempt that they make to organize.

And you're proposing to worsen that situation. Wouldn't it make more sense to give them legal defense instead of intensifying the attack on them?

[JimmyJazz]

How exactly does this relate to the issue of immigration or support your position? Revolution will never occur in any country if socialists do not challenge the nationalist sentiments of the working class

You make it sound pretty easy. "Challenge the nationalist sentiments of the working class"? Exactly how much success have socialists had lately in convincing the U.S. working class of their perspective on things?

My idea was predicated on my perception that illegal immigration feeds nationalist sentiment. Maybe I was wrong: maybe it's purely demagoguery that makes the working class so racist/nationalist/anti-immigrant. But I don't think it is. The inflow of immigrants actually does take away jobs from people who would earn good union wages and gives them to people who earn crap wages to do them. Whether the real, statistical impact of immigration on the U.S. working class is negative, I don't know. But the anecdotal evidence of U.S. citizens losing jobs to immigrants is all that is needed to turn people against immigrants, so it really doesn't matter what the true net impact is (or if there is one at all).

If you don't think that illegal immigration inevitably feeds nationalist sentiment and that it would be possible to have an open border without rampant racism/nationalism, fine, let's have that discussion.


If this is true, then why not try to give illegal immigrants legal power by [1] advocating citizenship rights for all existing illegal immigrants and [2] the abolition of all border controls to ensure that there are no illegal immigrants in the future?

[1] I do
[2] This is not politically or demographically realistic; the entire nation of Mexico would want to immigrate if we offered instant full citizenship to anyone who steps across the border!


This is true of illegal immigrants, but immigrants who have legal status are protected under labor legislation and so will always be paid at least the minimum wage set by the government and can also take against against their employers if they are forced to work in dangerous conditions, whereas illegal immigrants are not able to do any of these things because they are illegal and so will be deported as soon as they are identified by the government.

Illegal immigrants are useful for the ruling class because they are a highly exploitable section of the labour force and can be used against other workers to maintain a high level of exploitation

This is practically a summary of what I've been saying, so you're showing that you didn't read this thread carefully at all.


getting shot by nationalist militias, as in the US

The minutemen are yet another negative consequence of the gov't doing less to stop illegal immigration than many people feel they should be doing.

Open the borders, and obviously vigilante violence against immigrants will increase 100 fold.


And you're proposing to worsen that situation. Wouldn't it make more sense to give them legal defense instead of intensifying the attack on them?

I am not. I'm proposing not to put any more people in this situation. Those who are already here, I have been saying all along, should definitely get citizenship. Short of that, we should at least be fighting to give them as many rights as possible, including the rights to an attorney and the right to stay with their families.

I'm trying to be realistic here, though. Citizenship for anyone who wants it is not a realistic policy proposal, it's not going to happen. There are going to be government imposed limits on the number of people coming in whether we like it or not. The question is whether those who do come here will come in through official channels (thus getting them a full set of legal/political rights when they get here) or illegal ones (thus leaving them totally defenseless). In simple terms, the bourgeoisie prefers the latter, and I prefer the former.

Internationalism is an attitude, not a policy. It's a given that we are all internationalists; now what kind of policies should this lead us to? The solution for Mexican poverty is not to simply have all Mexicans leave Mexico and come to the rich United States, it's for Mexico to develop itself. That's probably not going to happen as long as both countries (U.S. and Mexico) are under capitalism, and their governments busy passing free trade legislation to shaft the working classes on both sides. Solidarity between two socialist nations will, as it has in the past, lead to a genuine concern on the part of the more-developed nation (U.S.) for the development of the less-developed ones (like Mexico). But international working class solidarity now, under capitalism, should take the form of supporting each other working class in its own quest for political power in its own country. Not in simply saying "leave that undeveloped mess of a country and come on over here."

[BobKKKindle$]

You make it sound pretty easy. "Challenge the nationalist sentiments of the working class"? Exactly how much success have socialists had lately in convincing the U.S. working class of their perspective on things?Nationalist ideology is deeply entrenched and will take a long time to remove, but the point is that advocating border controls is not the right way to deal with the problem and is actually counter-productive from the perspective of the socialist movement, because it gives the impression that immigrants are responsible for the problems of the domestic workers and so shifts the blame away from the employers, who should be the target of the workers because they are actually responsible, as the people who choose how much workers should receive in wages, and benefit from the exploitation of the working class.


The inflow of immigrants actually does take away jobs from people who would earn good union wages and gives them to people who earn crap wages to do themImmigrants do not take jobs away from domestic workers because they generally do not work in the same employment sectors as the domestic labour force, but even if this was true there would still be no reason to call for border controls, because all workers should have equal access to jobs and the workers of any given country should not expect special privileges.


This is not politically or demographically viable; the entire nation of Mexico would immigrate if we offered instant full citizenship to anyone who steps across the border!It's ironic that you criticize other posts on the grounds of viability, because you haven't yet dealt with the issue of whether border controls will be able to stop the entry of every single prospective illegal immigrant - both the US and the UK currently attempt to protect their borders and restrict immigration to legal channels, which allows the government to control how many immigrants are allowed to enter and discriminate between migrants based on factors such as skill, but large numbers of migrants still manage to enter illegally and live in the destination country for a long time before they are caught by the government, so what do you propose these governments should do, given that your stated objective is to stop all illegal immigration?

As for the above accusation, this is not true because migration flows are influenced by the level of demand for workers, such that if there was a lack of employment prospects in a destination country, workers living elsewhere would choose to stay at home instead of migrating. This is supported by contemporary evidence, as half of the EU migrants who traveled to the UK have already left and returned to their home countries, mainly due to improved economic conditions at home and the devaluation of the pound, which has reduced the value of remittances and hence diminished the advantages of working in Britain, as explained by this article:

Half of EU immigrants to the UK have already left, Guardian, April 30 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/30/immigrationpolicy.immigrationandpublicservices)


The minutemen are yet another negative consequence of the gov't doing less to stop illegal immigration than many people feel they should be doing.

So, what you're basically saying is that instead of allowing private militias to shoot illegal immigrants, we should get the government to do it instead because that way the militias will be satisfied that the government is doing its job and will spend their nights in the comfort of their homes instead? Either way, illegal immigrants are going to get shot and die as a result, so how is your position progressive in any way?


I'm trying to be realistic here, though. Citizenship for anyone who wants it is not a realistic policy proposal, it's not going to happen. There are going to be government imposed limits on the number of people coming in whether we like it or not.

No capitalist government would ever adopt a policy of open borders, but why should this stop us from raising this policy as a transitional demand to expose the incapability of the bourgeoisie?

[bcbm]

the entire nation of Mexico would want to immigrate if we offered instant full citizenship to anyone who steps across the border!

Yeah, everyone would instantly up and leave their native culture, homes, lifestyle, etc to find work in a completely new place. It isn't like there is an economy in Mexico, or anyone actually likes living there. Certainly it hasn't been some of the most desperate elements of Mexican society that have been seeking employment in the US.


I am not. I'm proposing not to put any more people in this situation. Those who are already here, I have been saying all along, should definitely get citizenship. Short of that, we should at least be fighting to give them as many rights as possible, including the rights to an attorney and the right to stay with their families.

So why not say all immigrants have the right to the minimum wage, job protections and attorneys, etc? It'd certainly be easier than trying to seal the border, because there will always be immigrants attempting to cross so long as economic incentive exists to do so.

[Sendo]

...
(Sendo)
"The bread and water they need to live"

I reject pretty much any attempt to give people the bread and water they need to live while the means of production remain in private hands. Sorry if that is not humanitarian enough. But if all that socialism means is maintaining dependence (of the working class on the capitalist class, of the undeveloped world on the developed world) while being super generous toward the dependents, then it is just super-compassionate liberalism.

I'm not saying we should starve people in droves to achieve a greater good of socialism. I'm talking about putting an end to a situation of dependence that, as I see it, hurts the working class of all countries involved...


HEY! Don't quote someone like that without ellipses and don't make it mean something else. I said it was wrong for workers to attack fellow workers from the outside, that it's wrong to blame desperate people who are seeking employment. I don't advocate benevolent capitalists employing us and never implied it. I said that it is unfair, mean-spirited, hypocritical, and ignorant for a worker to hate an immigrant because that immigrant is likely an economic refugee seeking a job to feed himself and his family. To be employed and have food in your belly and then tell a Mexican immigrant to stick it out in Mexico while he starves because he has no right to be here reeks of hypocrisy.

If I understand you correctly, that because capital (and the money it gives to its workers so its workers can buy food) is in private hands we shouldn't bother with making sure everyone has a paying job? Are you saying we should never strive for gains or expect them--that we should play capitalism by the rules until this romanticized revolution comes about?

Please elaborate more.


I've always loved the irony of white Americans, especially the pure 100% European blooded ones ***** about immigration. Unless you're 100% Cherokee you have no right or even logical base to moan. Even then, it's wrong, and to date I haven't heard of Amerindians complaining about immigration. They complained against immigration when coupled with conquest and colonization and genocide, but never on its own. And while so many Americans talk about citizens vs. illegal immigrants, they are really using codewords for "white vs. brown" or for "known vs. outsider" or for "Anglo-American culture/Anglophone vs. Hispanic". I used to talk about proper immigration when I was younger (and dumber), then I realized it was codewords for some awful things. Although I never protested the right of immigration and I foolishly thought that "illegals" were somehow at fault for not following the proper avenues. I realized that unchecked, this would lead to simple racism. A little education in the matter swung me far to the left, as was the case for most of my political conversions (correcting misunderstandings).

I'll also add that I am not one to make cheesy appeals to feelings. I talk more about facts and justice. Don't think I brought up the bread and water out of some persuasion by pity. As a matter of fact, the fact that nearly all "leftists" I knew until about age 19 were bored, rich white liberals who moaned about sob stories. Their lack of framework and inability to correct my false perceptions of history were part of the reason I avoided politics and especially lefty circles.

[Bilan]

Are they really? Please cite this.

Are you kidding? Who do you think it is who writes the strict anti-immigration legislation? The working class?
No, it is written in the interests of the capitalists class. That is a bi-product of the capitalist structure, and the dominance of the bourgeoisie. Legislation in relation to property and nation states is written in their interests. What a ludicrous position to hold.



The bourgeoisie is never monolithic of course, but large sections of it do benefit from illegal immigration. I can't name a section that suffers from it.


The bourgeoisie benefits from cheap labour. Period. The bourgeoisie benefits from labour. If you understood the organization of capitalism you'd realize that.




"Working class freedom"? That is a personal freedom (much like the "right" to private property) that was advocated strongly by Thomas Jefferson and the other fathers of liberal-bourgeois democracy. Don't just dress it up in socialist language, show me how it is going to lead to socialism!

What, internationalism? How do you think communism is to be achieved if its not on a global scale? That's like asking how a flower grows without water and sunlight.
"Workers have no country", what the fuck do you think that means?

[Saorsa]

JimmyJazz, don't quote from my sig to justify you're position. I am an advocate of Open Borders, and the Lenin quote in question does not in any way justify more border controls.

Basically, you're entire argument is disconnected from reality. You see the capitalist state repressing and discriminating against immigrants, and you see the capitalist class using the fact that these immigrants are illegal (and thus denied contracts, union rmembership etc) to make them a social underclass, and your solution is... "closed borders".

JJ, the US border is already closed, You are only able to cross it legally with the permission of the capitalist state in the form of visas or whatever. And please explain to me how, in concrete terms, the border can be made any more closed than it is. Do you really think the US is going to build a gigantic wall along it's border, so high (and perhaps electrified and covered in poisoned spikes) that noone can cross it? Do you have any idea how much that would cost? There already is a wall being built along the US-Mexico border, and that's proven to be both ridiculously expensive and ineffective - immigrants can still get in.

I take it all the beaches will have to be walled off too, because otherwise immigrants will just hop on a boat and go around the enormous wall! I doubt US citizens will be too happy about no longer being able to surf or take a fishing boat out because an enormous bloody wall is preventing them from doing so!

You have to think in terms of what can actually occur and is likely to occur in reality, not what you think would be a good idea. You analyse the objective conditions and work out what they are and what's likely to happen, not what you'd like them to be and what's likely to happen. You then take a course that you feel can best advance revolutionary socialism (a part of which is international unity between workers against their ruling class and it's state) through these conditions.

A big, impregnable wall is laughable JJ, surely you realise this? When you call for "Closed Borders", you are calling for the capitalist state and right wing, xenophobic militias like the Minutemen to forcibly prevent immigrants from entering the country. Because as others have pointed out, as long as disparities in development exist, people will flee from the Third World into the First, and immigrants will continue to desperately try to seek a better life in the US.

I'll ask you a question - A poor, Mexican man is fleeing poverty in his homeland to try and get a better life for himself and his family in the US. Shortly after arrival, he's captured by the police and put in a concentration camp (often referred to as detention centers, processing centres etc). He's seperated from his family, forced to live in awful conditions, and has no idea when he'll be set free. Who's side are you on? Do you support the actions of the capitalist state in oppressing this man, or do you oppose them? Do you think we should refuse to allow him into the country, and send him back to a life of misery in his homeland? Whose side are you on?

If you oppose Open Borders, you support the state treating immigrants in this way, because there is no other way for it to prevent them coming in. And this Mexican was lucky - many are killed, or die trying to gain entry. You are suggesting that imperialist America be turned into a vast fortress, a police state that prevents the victim's of it's imperialist agenda from entering the affluent society created by their oppression.

And a police state it would have to be. Have you seen Children of Men? It depicts a dystopian future where immigrants (or "fugees") as they're known are detained in vast concentration camps that resemble cities, and where on every TV ads play exorting loyal citizens to turn in their gardeners if they suspect they're an illegal immigrant. The illegal immigrants are used to justify enormous powers for the state, and the people's freedoms are heavily restricted. This is what you're idea would lead to - a powerful state hunting down immigrants and either killing them, detaining them or expelling them. You're calling for a police state. It is impossible to completely close a border and prevent anyone or anything from corssing it - all you are calling for is for the state to attack immigrants even more heavily.

As I see it, there are two major arguments raised against Open Borders.

The first is the one raised by Spartan, that immigration causes the working class in the rich, imperialist country in question to become xenophobic, take up racist and nationalist stances and become attracted to the ideas of far-right groups like the BNP. There are a number of flaws with this argument.

Firstly, it is completely undialectical and very much a surface level analysis. It sees anti-immigrant sentiments that exist within the working class, it sees the rise of groups like the BNP and the National Front (which is not nearly as big a threat as many on the left make out), and it assumes that immigration itself is to blame. It's true that anti-immigration and nationalist sentiments exist within the working class in First World countries,and this ties into imperialism and the theory of the labour aristocracy (i.e. the majority of working class people in the First World are better off than their counterparts in the Third World, as imperialism allows the ruling class to let a small portion of it's wealth trickle down to the masses of America, Britain, New Zealand and elsewhere, thus have reducing the class consciousness of the proletariat and sapping it's will to fight). Large sections of the First World working class have a living standard that would be far worse if not for the imperialist exploitation of the Third World, and their attitudes reflect this.

However, Spartan and others that follow this line of thinking is totally wrong when he advocated stricter border controls in order to fight these attitudes. The logic goes - immigrants arrive, xenophobia and racism is directed against them by sections of the working class led astray by reactionary ideology, therefore get rid of the immigrants and working class consciousness will rise. This is a totally wrong approach.

Our task as socialists is to challenge reactionary ideas within the working class, and consistently put forward lines that reflect an internationalist, revolutionary, anti-capitalist position. Our primary task is to raise the independent class consciousness of workers in our home countries and struggle to eventually lead a revolution there that overthrows capitalism and imperialism - that's Marxism ABC. When reactionary ideas exist such as hostility to immigrants, this is actually a self-harming ideology for workers to hold. Capitalism can only be destroyed internationalluy if we struggle internationally, and if workers unite with their class brothers and sisters around the world against their oppressors around the world. If workers support the prevention of immigrants from entering their country, they are lining up behind their own oppressors, their own ruling class, and are hurting their own interests.

We have to go to workers and explain this, put forward a socialist alternative to the current nightmare, and win workers over to the idea of internationalism and solidarity with their fellow workers in the Third World. We have to go and win workers over to the idea of Open Borders. It isn't easy - if anything, the slogan of Open Borders is one of the hardest ones to win people over to, because it goes completely against the nationalist, divisive ideology we've been indoctrinated into since birth, and it also challenges an element of people's own immediate interests - if you're living a life whose quality is based on the exploitation and unnecessary suffering of the majority of the world's people, it's no suprise that you'll initially be hostile to someone arguing a line that challenges that exploitation.

If you call on the state to repress immigrants in order to somehow raise worker's class consciousness, not only are you putting forward a repugnant line that involves siding with our enemies against our friends, but you're suggesting that workers are incapable of developing a class consciousness on their own, and that revolutionaries are incapable of heightening that consciousness and taking it beyond narrow day-to-day struggles and to the point of challenging the system as a whole. You're suggesting that the working class must rely on the capitalist state to raise it's consciousness for it. You're line completely disempowers the working class from any indepent action.

If we can't defeat the far right idealogues in debate and if need be in confontation, we've already surrendered our struggle. If we have to rely on the capitalist state to defeat the BNP and it's ilk for us, we'll never be able to smash either the BNP, the state or capitalism itself. You're line means giving up.

The second argument raised by leftist opponents of Open Borders is that the working-class should have democratic control of who it allows into it's communities. Workers should be allowed to exclude black people, or gay people, or Muslims from buying a house in their neighbourhood or entering their country.

This argument, like the one I adressed above, is heavily flawed. It quavers in the face of reactionary ideas amongst some sections of the working class, and decides not to try and challenge them, seeking instead to accomodate them! If workers are unable to unite with their counterparts overseas to the point of sharing their country with them, these workers are unable to build socialism, a system that must spread internationally to succeed.

Our task as revolutionaries is not to pander to workers illusions and reactionary beliefs, it is to challenge them. This line is opportunist to the extreme, in that it refuses to struggle with workers against their bad beliefs and try to win them over to internationalist, socialist beliefs.

Suggesting that "communities" should have the power to exclude people they don't like means reinforcing prejudices and inequality. It could be extended in so many ways - a gay teacher being forced to resign, a black man being forced to move out of his home, an immigrant being forced to return to opression and poverty in his homeland. "Communities", no matter how proletarian they are, should not have the power to be racist, homophobic, sexist or prejudiced in any way towards people within them, and to allow that to exist is thoroughly unsocialist.

Immigration brings many positives to the working class of a First World country. Being exposed to different cultures and different kinds of people as an every day occurence lessens racism and prejudice, and heightens the possiblity for an internationalist outlook to emerge. As workers realise that these people aren't so different from them, it undermines the nationalist outlook that teaches the working class to line up behind the exploiters who happened to be born in the same country as it. If the immigrants explain the situation in their homeland to workers in the First World, talking about the effect imperialism has had on it and the oppression and suffering they face, it raises questions in the mind of the workers in Britain, the US, NZ and elsewhere - why is this happening? Who's letting it happen? And what can I do to change this?

As well as this, there is a much higher level of class struggle in the Third World than in the developed countries, and this struggle tends to be more militant. The tales immigrant workers can share with their white counterparts can inspire increased militancy on the latter's part. And finally, the Third World has a much greater level of revolutionary struggle than exists in the First World, where it's virtually nonexistent in most places. Immigrant workers may be influenced by this and can spread these revolutionary ideas to their coworkers, or even if they aren't communists themselves they can at the very least inform their coworkers of it.

The working class in the developed world has everything to gain from immigration and nothing to lose. The claims that immigrants undermide health services etc are baseless myths, and deny how these services are paid for in the first place. All wealth (or value as Marxists refer to it in it's abstract form) is created through the labour of the working class, and all services provided by the state are ultimately paid for through the state appropriating a portion of this wealth. If immigrants are integrated into society shortly after arrival, given free English classes if they need it and provided with a job that fits their skills to the best degree possible, they will be creating more than enough surplus-value to cover their own costs and then some. Any strains on the public services caused by "illegal" immigrants occurs precisely because of their illegal status.

In a socialist world, none of this will be an issue. As underdevlopment and all forms of disparities are wiped out, and evetyone can live to the highest standard of living possible wherever they go, people will not flee from the place they were born to seek a better life elsewhere. If they wish to move, that won't be an issue, but less will.

However, it is an absolute necessity for us to raise the slogan of Open Borders even within the framework of capitalism, precisely because it challenges capitalism, promotes international working class unity and puts us consistently on the side of the oppressed masses against their oppressors. Any other line than this is a reactionary one.

[Sendo]

If it's any consolation (right word?) Comrade Alastair, I interpret your sig quote to mean "Work towards socialism where you live and support it elsewhere" as in don't obsess and romanticize over faraway places. Don't expect to just have a coup and think the the work is done.

I'll also add to the topic at hand that the immigration raids and immigration jails are covered in Democracy Now! and there's is some sick shit that goes on with that. People spend years literally dying as they drift in immigration limbo. That or their whole family gets locked up with them. Dead US soldiers also have their families get deported if they married a foreigner. There's also the cases where kids who have lived somewhere in the States (obviously not in Oklahoma or something like that, probably either coast) since ages of like, 3, who get deported to shitholes where they can't speak the local tongue.

[JimmyJazz]

I've always loved the irony of white Americans, especially the pure 100% European blooded ones ***** about immigration. Unless you're 100% Cherokee you have no right or even logical base to moan. Even then, it's wrong, and to date I haven't heard of Amerindians complaining about immigration. They complained against immigration when coupled with conquest and colonization and genocide, but never on its own. And while so many Americans talk about citizens vs. illegal immigrants, they are really using codewords for "white vs. brown" or for "known vs. outsider" or for "Anglo-American culture/Anglophone vs. Hispanic".

This is all true, and sometimes I like to sit around and get mad about it as well. But when it comes to policies, I don't care about who is right or wrong or hypocritical. I care about taking a step towards, and not away from, international socialism. To me, it seems that stopping the flow of illegal immigrants (assuming it could be stopped more than it is without violent tactics) would be a step toward.


I'll also add that I am not one to make cheesy appeals to feelings. I talk more about facts and justice. Don't think I brought up the bread and water out of some persuasion by pity.

OK, sorry about that.


It's ironic that you criticize other posts on the grounds of viability, because you haven't yet dealt with the issue of whether border controls will be able to stop the entry of every single prospective illegal immigrant - both the US and the UK currently attempt to protect their borders and restrict immigration to legal channels, which allows the government to control how many immigrants are allowed to enter and discriminate between migrants based on factors such as skill, but large numbers of migrants still manage to enter illegally and live in the destination country for a long time before they are caught by the government, so what do you propose these governments should do, given that your stated objective is to stop all illegal immigration?

Well, you've found another presupposition of my post, namely that the government is not doing all it can to seal the border. Feel free to make a case otherwise. However, with constant proposals for a border wall, etc., it seems that most people believe much more could be done. Is this a total lie, and is the government already doing what it can to keep illegals out? It could be, I guess.


CA- a great reply, here are my thoughts:


I'll ask you a question - A poor, Mexican man is fleeing poverty in his homeland to try and get a better life for himself and his family in the US. Shortly after arrival, he's captured by the police and put in a concentration camp (often referred to as detention centers, processing centres etc). He's seperated from his family, forced to live in awful conditions, and has no idea when he'll be set free. Who's side are you on? Do you support the actions of the capitalist state in oppressing this man, or do you oppose them? Do you think we should refuse to allow him into the country, and send him back to a life of misery in his homeland? Whose side are you on?

If you oppose Open Borders, you support the state treating immigrants in this way, because there is no other way for it to prevent them coming in.

What are you talking about? If they are caught at the border they could simply be turned back. Furthermore, if they haven't crossed yet then they haven't done anything illegal, so there would be no grounds for politically scapegoating them. It's only once they're in the country that you have even the opportunity or motive for all the crazy treatment that they now suffer when caught--indefinite detention and everything else you mention.


Our task as socialists is to challenge reactionary ideas within the working class, and consistently put forward lines that reflect an internationalist, revolutionary, anti-capitalist position. Our primary task is to raise the independent class consciousness of workers in our home countries and struggle to eventually lead a revolution there that overthrows capitalism and imperialism - that's Marxism ABC. ...

We have to go to workers and explain this ...

This is really just rhetoric, though. Marxists accept that no amount of reactionary propaganda will stop working class unity when the material condition are ripe. Why are they reluctant to admit that no amount of revolutionary propaganda will create working class unity when the material conditions are poor? Is it just wishful thinking?...Because it's the same principle in both cases.

If immigration creates poor material conditions for the unity of the Mexican working class, the unity of the U.S. working class, and solidarity between the two, then we should oppose it. That's a big "if", but nonetheless, it's that "if" that we should be focusing on and nothing else.

And to your credit, you do address it:


Being exposed to different cultures and different kinds of people as an every day occurence lessens racism and prejudice, and heightens the possiblity for an internationalist outlook to emerge. As workers realise that these people aren't so different from them, it undermines the nationalist outlook that teaches the working class to line up behind the exploiters who happened to be born in the same country as it. If the immigrants explain the situation in their homeland to workers in the First World, talking about the effect imperialism has had on it and the oppression and suffering they face, it raises questions in the mind of the workers in Britain, the US, NZ and elsewhere - why is this happening? Who's letting it happen? And what can I do to change this?

As well as this, there is a much higher level of class struggle in the Third World than in the developed countries, and this struggle tends to be more militant. The tales immigrant workers can share with their white counterparts can inspire increased militancy on the latter's part. And finally, the Third World has a much greater level of revolutionary struggle than exists in the First World, where it's virtually nonexistent in most places. Immigrant workers may be influenced by this and can spread these revolutionary ideas to their coworkers, or even if they aren't communists themselves they can at the very least inform their coworkers of it.

All of this sounds good, but let's be serious, is it happening? Are any of these three things happening? It seems to me that immigration is causing a big, fat nationalist backlash, and not much else. But frankly, I'm not sure how to even go about empirically determining which of these things are happening because of immigration and to what extent.


The second argument raised by leftist opponents of Open Borders is that the working-class should have democratic control of who it allows into it's communities.

A bullshit chauvinistic argument that I certainly have no interest in defending. Now to believe that actually would be a failure of internationalism.


Basically, you're entire argument is disconnected from reality.

JJ, the US border is already closed

the border can be made any more closed than it is

A big, impregnable wall is laughable JJ, surely you realise this?

Point taken. I'll admit that, in thinking about this, I took the "common sense" view of people here in the U.S. that our gov't is not doing all it can to seal the borders. And the fact that I saw a motive for this--that business interests benefit from illegal immigration -certainly didn't spur me to question the common sense view. I'll have to look into it more seriously.

[Saorsa]

What are you talking about? If they are caught at the border they could simply be turned back. Furthermore, if they haven't crossed yet then they haven't done anything illegal, so there would be no grounds for politically scapegoating them. It's only once they're in the country that you have even the opportunity or motive for all the crazy treatment that they now suffer when caught--indefinite detention and everything else you mention.

But it's inevitable that some are going to get through. Unless you put the whole US in a bullet proof glass dome, immigrants are going to find a way in, and even then I doubt it'd stop them! It's not possible to stop all immigrants at the border.


All of this sounds good, but let's be serious, is it happening? Are any of these three things happening? It seems to me that immigration is causing a big, fat nationalist backlash, and not much else. But frankly, I'm not sure how to even go about empirically determining which of these things are happening because of immigration and to what extent.

Well as you said, it's hard to determine, but from my personal experience it is. I work at a supermarket, and it's a very diverse one, with several gays, black people, indians, south americans etc, and a lot of these are immigrants. This constant exposure to other cultures and races is a factor in the negligible levels of prejudice I've encountered there, I think.


Point taken. I'll admit that, in thinking about this, I took the "common sense" view of people here in the U.S. that our gov't is not doing all it can to seal the borders. And the fact that I saw a motive for this--that business interests benefit from illegal immigration -certainly didn't spur me to question the common sense view. I'll have to look into it more seriously.

Well there's a reason I didn't denounce you as a counterrevolutionary douchebag, and that's because I don't think you are. Open Borders is a difficult position to come to grips with, because as you said it seems to go against the "common sense" view we've become accustomed to. I hope you do look into the issue, and reconsider your position.

[IrisBright]

Comrade Alastair:

Thanks for such a large and thoughtful post. By the third page of such reactionary arguments, I was dying for a decent refutation...

JJ

Communists and socialists should not just take a 'common sense' view that is prevalent around them. We get information from our best possible materialist analysis of the situation, not ruling class propaganda or prejudices!

So here people are telling you the facts.

Immigrants do not 'steal jobs'. This is bullshit.

Immigrants do not 'use up services the working class pays for'.

ICE kills people, and so does the Wall on the border. The Arizona desert is littered with the bodies of families crossing unsuccessfully; semi trucks and train cars are discovered with dozens of dead people, abandoned by their drivers, fleeing capture. Many people, the WORKERS you claim to support as a socialist, are caught trying to return from or go to funerals for loved ones, baptisms, marriages, etc. Many get through by bribing guards! To advocate a border that is even more 'physically' closed than it already is is to support the ruling class militarization of our borders, the murder of countless Latino peoples who are forced to come here by our own Free Trade agreements and imperialist policy. PERIOD.

Socialists and communists are internationalists. We do not cry and flutter our hands when the working class takes up UNTRUE, DIVISIVE and REACTIONARY ideas from the ruling class--that immigrants steal jobs, live on our taxes, etc. We do not point to actual fascists [the Minutemen] and complain that they are a reason that we need better border security, because they are just taking up this 'authentic proletarian concern' to its logical ends. It is one thing to discuss how to get the prol in this country to understand the true nature of global capitalism, immigration, and internationalism--because it is hard. The left is very weak in the U.S., and we need to build ourselves up as a revolutionary force to deal with the times ahead.

It is fucking hard work to get workers to ally because the ruling class seeks to divide us, and promote lies to accomplish this!

You however do not frame your question in this way (how to strategically unite the working class and dispel bigoted myths about immigrants); this is difficult enough as it is. You ask 'how can we tail the reactionary sentiments of the proletariat by agreeing with the bourgeoisie, killing more immigrants, promoting their bigoted lies and in the end screwing workers here in the U.S. by not uniting their brothers and sisters working without permits?' Your argument is opportunist because you are seizing on a working class sentiment and letting it lay as it is, without challenging it, while advocating a fascist policy that is not even in the interests of the prol! What an insult to the intelligence of the proletariat!

If it were 1957, would you support segregation in the U.S. because the issue prompted a 'big fat racist backlash' among some sections of workers? How about gay or women's rights? Should we not speak the truth (or at all?) about homophobia, sexism or immigration because it's difficult to dispel untruths and promote acceptance?

You are still not answering to the facts: the assumptions about immigrants that are implicit in your questions ARE NOT TRUE. The working class is being lied to and divided, and spontaneous understandings of these things are not correct.

We do not lower our sights. We learn from the masses, but do not kowtow to the backward. How does it benefit the prol in the U.S. to

A. not challenge racist, bourgeois lies?
B. advocate further militarization of the border?
C. not promote internationalism?

If the socialist answer to bourgeoisie lies about Mexican immigrants is to say, "So whats your plan, we're with you!", that is traitorous. The proletariat doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell if that is who's leading them.

In the U.S.: support for immigrants, opposition to the militarization of the border (which equals more murder, there is no way around this), and an internationalist orientation should be cardinal questions for communists and socialist. Anything else is betraying the working class, here and all over the world.

[Vanguard1917]

Are they really? Please cite this.

The burden of proof is on you. Name me a bourgeois government that does not exercise immigration controls, and then we will talk about whether or not unrestricted immigration is in the interests of capitalist order.



The bourgeoisie is never monolithic of course, but large sections of it do benefit from illegal immigration.


Businesses benefit, at least in the short-term, from tightly controlled immigration. They want laws to regulate the amount of labour which they are free to exploit. But that's not what we demand. Controlled immigration is, after all, still anti-immigration: it says not all immigrants are welcome. It says that the bourgeois state should have powers to choose who can and cannot enter the country and live and work there legally.



Fine; please cite.


You don't see how immigration controls reinforce nationalist ideas and how the freedom of movement will potentially undermine them?


"Working class freedom"?

Of course.

You, on the other hand, feel that the bourgeois state should have powers to dictate to the international working class where it can and cannot live and work.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Pretty much everything has been said already.

Illegal immigrants don't take away jobs. They don't bring down wages. The bosses are the ones that do this. Don't be fooled by the same nationalistic right-wing propaganda that you are supposedly against.

Working class solidarity does not stop when it comes to the border of a nation. This is called divide and conquer.

Illegal immigration will never be stopped. Chinese immigrants still come to the US illegally. If that's true then there is no way to stop someone from Mexico. So your choice to fall into the capitalist trap and turn against your fellow worker is all for not because there will always be illegal immigrants.

If there is a will there is a way. So after you sell-out our biggest principle in an opportunist flash and then it doesn't work because there are still illegal immigrants where will we be? The only way to get rid of illegal immigrants is to open the borders. That is just a clear cut fact without opinion on what will or will not work. Open borders would make everyone legal so it is impossible for there to exist an illegal immigrant. Closed borders are exactly the thing that make it possible to have a group called illegal immigrants. You are taking the opposite stance on this situation for what you supposedly want to accomplish.

[cyu]

From http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1953679

While there are certainly many unions that do not discriminate when it comes to who they try to organize, this is not true of all unions.

One of the arguments sometimes used by organized labor is that the hiring of illegal immigrants drives down everyone’s wages. Because the immigrants are afraid of getting caught and have nowhere else to go, they are willing to accept much lower pay than those living here without fear. It’s hard to enforce minimum wage or work safety standards when the employees are too afraid to come forward – so the employers that hire these immigrants have an unfair advantage in the market.

My brother says, "It's not about giving a man a fish, and certainly not about teaching a man to fish... it's about letting a man fish!"

I certainly agree with this. Instead of fighting illegal immigration, organized labor should encourage the immigrants (and themselves) to simply take democratic control over their places of work, because even if they managed to send all the immigrants back to their countries of origin, their jobs will be shipped overseas anyway, in search of people willing to accept lower pay and with less rights to organize.

[spartan]

The first is the one raised by Spartan, that immigration causes the working class in the rich, imperialist country in question to become xenophobic, take up racist and nationalist stances and become attracted to the ideas of far-right groups like the BNP. There are a number of flaws with this argument.

Firstly, it is completely undialectical and very much a surface level analysis. It sees anti-immigrant sentiments that exist within the working class, it sees the rise of groups like the BNP and the National Front (which is not nearly as big a threat as many on the left make out), and it assumes that immigration itself is to blame. It's true that anti-immigration and nationalist sentiments exist within the working class in First World countries,and this ties into imperialism and the theory of the labour aristocracy (i.e. the majority of working class people in the First World are better off than their counterparts in the Third World, as imperialism allows the ruling class to let a small portion of it's wealth trickle down to the masses of America, Britain, New Zealand and elsewhere, thus have reducing the class consciousness of the proletariat and sapping it's will to fight). Large sections of the First World working class have a living standard that would be far worse if not for the imperialist exploitation of the Third World, and their attitudes reflect this.

However, Spartan and others that follow this line of thinking is totally wrong when he advocated stricter border controls in order to fight these attitudes. The logic goes - immigrants arrive, xenophobia and racism is directed against them by sections of the working class led astray by reactionary ideology, therefore get rid of the immigrants and working class consciousness will rise. This is a totally wrong approach.

Actually I don't think that getting rid of immigrants will solve the problem of a lack of class consciousness amongst the working class.

I think that the anger of the "native" working class against immigrants could, and should, be directed at those who benefit because of immigration, i.e. the bourgeois class.

No one doubts that immigration does lead working class people to reactionary positions, but it's our job as socialists to show them the truth about the immigration issue, and the truth is that nothing is the fault of immigrants, they, like us, are just pawns to make the bourgeois class more and more profits.

[Vanguard1917]

No one doubts that immigration does lead working class people to reactionary positions

But we do doubt this. It's not the objective reality of immigration itself which gives way to reactionary views on immigration - such views are spread by subjective forces, most centrally the political and cultural representatives of the ruling class. Immigrants aren't the ones responsible for reactionary ideas - the ruling class ultimately is. The point is to confront and defeat the ideas of the latter, not tail-end them and help them spread.

If anything, instead of giving way to increased reaction, the objective reality of immigration has a tendency to challenge narrow-minded chauvinist views in society. Immigration into Britain, for example, has had immensely positive effects in terms of creating a more cosmopolitan, less parochial and, to a certain extent, a less racist society. The more that British people have had the opportunity to mix with others from all over the world, working and living side by side, the less they have tended to view them as exotic alien creatures, and the more they have tended to realise, through real life experience, their common humanity.

[spartan]

But we do doubt this. It's not the objective reality of immigration itself which gives way to reactionary views on immigration - such views are spread by subjective forces, most centrally the political and cultural representatives of the ruling class. Immigrants aren't the ones responsible for reactionary ideas - the ruling class ultimately is. The point is to confront and defeat the ideas of the latter, not tail-end them and help them spread.

If anything, instead of giving way to increased reaction, the objective reality of immigration has a tendency to challenge narrow-minded chauvinist views in society. Immigration into Britain, for example, has had immensely positive effects in terms of creating a more cosmopolitan, less parochial and, to a certain extent, a less racist society. The more that British people have had the opportunity to mix with others from all over the world, working and living side by side, the less they have tended to view them as exotic alien creatures, and the more they have tended to realise, through real life experience, their common humanity.
That's what I meant.

It's things like the gutter press that shapes our (the majority) opinions.

I didn't say that immigrants are responsible for this I said that immigration (i.e. the issue of immigration which is picked up on by the gutter press amongst many others) is responsible for this.

As for the second paragraph I don't know if I agree with that.

All I ever here from people is "bloody immigrants", "immigrants always stealing our jobs" and "one law for them and another for us" etc from working class people.

Society isn't less racist, it's just that the racists aren't as open about it as they used to be.

[Vanguard1917]

Society isn't less racist, it's just that the racists aren't as open about it as they used to be.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Britain is on the whole a significantly less racist place to live in than it was in the past. Ask a black or asian person over the age of 50 who grew up and lived in any one of Britain's big cities if racism was worse in the 60s, 70s or, even, in the 80s than it is today, the likelihood is that they would say it was.



It's things like the gutter press that shapes our (the majority) opinions.



Not just the tabloid press. Anti-immigration arguments are put forward by almost everyone, from liberals to Tories to environmentalists. They are very mainstream.

[Sendo]

Where do the borders stop, anyhow? To even talk about national borders is ridiculous. We conquered the top half of Mexico in the first place. Hell, all borders are artificial to a large degree, even geographic ones.

If we allow a closed US-Mexican border, we might as well give the stamp to Mason-Dixon border, where unskilled Dixies can't come up to the Rust Belt and steal jobs. How about a closed border between Manhattan and the rest of New York City. Where does it end?

The only thing that makes the Rio Grande "special" is the racial and ethnic differences between the governments who rule either side. Otherwise, we might as well militarize state borders.

[JimmyJazz]

I never replied to this part of your post CA, but I feel I should, since it is basically my own position on why nationalist/racist anti-immigrant ideology takes hold among Western workers:


It's true that anti-immigration and nationalist sentiments exist within the working class in First World countries, and this ties into imperialism and the theory of the labour aristocracy (i.e. the majority of working class people in the First World are better off than their counterparts in the Third World, as imperialism allows the ruling class to let a small portion of it's wealth trickle down to the masses of America, Britain, New Zealand and elsewhere, thus have reducing the class consciousness of the proletariat and sapping it's will to fight). Large sections of the First World working class have a living standard that would be far worse if not for the imperialist exploitation of the Third World, and their attitudes reflect this.





Yes, I agree with all that.




There is one other major factor I see as contributing, and that is that the myth of “the rule of law” is so entrenched in our thinking. This makes it far too easy to pretend that opposition to illegal immigration has to do with being anti-illegal rather than anti-immigrant. It’s a farce, of course; Westerners are against immigration because they don’t want to share the wealth, not out of some self-righteous concern for upholding the “law”. And would-be immigrants are likewise motivated by material concerns, not because they see America as the land of the free or some horseshit.




But the rule of law stuff is still a powerful justifying tool, and people are happy to buy into it in order to ease their consciences. It helps people psychologically to sustain their hypocrisy.


The logic goes - immigrants arrive, xenophobia and racism is directed against them by sections of the working class led astray by reactionary ideology, therefore get rid of the immigrants and working class consciousness will rise. This is a totally wrong approach.




That’s not *my* logic. The Western working classes are not “led astray by...ideology”, they are motivated to protect their share of Western wealth. The stronger racist/nationalist ideology of groups like the BNP is simply something for people who can’t handle the cognitive dissonance of holding one belief (that all people are of roughly equal worth regardless of nationality or race) but practicing something radically different (trying to exclude the whole world from sharing the wealth the Western nations have accumulated--largely through enslavement and exploitation of non-Westerners). Imo, what you call “reactionary ideology” is an exceptionally honest position to take. We are all living as though we believe what they openly preach.


Our task as socialists is to challenge reactionary ideas within the working class, and consistently put forward lines that reflect an internationalist, revolutionary, anti-capitalist position. Our primary task is to raise the independent class consciousness of workers in our home countries and struggle to eventually lead a revolution there that overthrows capitalism and imperialism - that's Marxism ABC. When reactionary ideas exist such as hostility to immigrants, this is actually a self-harming ideology for workers to hold. Capitalism can only be destroyed internationalluy if we struggle internationally, and if workers unite with their class brothers and sisters around the world against their oppressors around the world. If workers support the prevention of immigrants from entering their country, they are lining up behind their own oppressors, their own ruling class, and are hurting their own interests.

We have to go to workers and explain this, put forward a socialist alternative to the current nightmare, and win workers over to the idea of internationalism and solidarity with their fellow workers in the Third World. We have to go and win workers over to the idea of Open Borders. It isn't easy - if anything, the slogan of Open Borders is one of the hardest ones to win people over to, because it goes completely against the nationalist, divisive ideology we've been indoctrinated into since birth, and it also challenges an element of people's own immediate interests - if you're living a life whose quality is based on the exploitation and unnecessary suffering of the majority of the world's people, it's no suprise that you'll initially be hostile to someone arguing a line that challenges that exploitation.

If you call on the state to repress immigrants in order to somehow raise worker's class consciousness, not only are you putting forward a repugnant line that involves siding with our enemies against our friends, but you're suggesting that workers are incapable of developing a class consciousness on their own, and that revolutionaries are incapable of heightening that consciousness and taking it beyond narrow day-to-day struggles and to the point of challenging the system as a whole. You're suggesting that the working class must rely on the capitalist state to raise it's consciousness for it. You're line completely disempowers the working class from any indepent action.




If the working class is just a bunch of people who must be convinced, through our hard efforts, that capitalism is not a desirable system, then there is no reason to give the working class a special place in your analysis.




That’s Marxism ABC.




If we as socialists believe that ideology is a motivating factor behind people’s behavior, rather than a post hoc justification for behavior, then we should really be focusing on university students--they are much more susceptible than workers to pure argumentative effort. But we don't believe this. We believe (insofar as we adhere to Marx's ideas) that the working class is driven by its material position to oppose capitalism, and that is the sole reason we give them a special place. I am not one to quote the founding fathers of communism to prove a point, because it proves nothing at all; but I happen to personally agree with the following, and see it as Marx’s greatest contribution:



Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

Yep, and through nationalism/militarism/imperialism, Westerners are a global ruling class unto themselves. Including Western workers.


But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely…

And no matter how much “variety” in the “social consciousness” of the Western working classes regarding how oppositional they see the labor-capital relationship to be, this consciousness will always “move within certain common forms”, namely patriotism, nationalism, and other words describing any ideology which justifies Western their economic dominance.


For Marx, consciousness is a reflection of the political economy. A person's thoughts tend to be shaped by his or her political and economic circumstances. He famously wrote, "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."
Perhaps Marx's greatest contribution to modern thought... is his comprehensive investigation into the role of Ideology, or how social being determines consciousness, which results in certain (for the most part unconscious) belief and value systems depending on the particular economic infrastructure pertaining at the time. From a Marxian point of view all cultural artifacts--religious systems, philosophical positions, ethical values--are, naturally enough, products of consciousness and as such are subject to these ideological pressures. (Sullivan) wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_consciousness#Consciousness_and_the_poli tical-economy)

At the risk of beating this basic point into the ground, there’s also the famous Preface to Critique of Political Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm):
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm)

The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

IMO it is time to admit that imperialism is, and has been for 500 years, a major “mode of production” for the Western world. To continue claiming that Western workers will ever change their general preference for policies which maintain or further Western economic superiority is simply a huge failure to recognize this fact.

The MIMers* may be kooky and hilariously untactful in their presentation, but I do not dismiss their basic ideas. The idea that the working class might be driven to oppose capitalism makes perfect sense, and historically it has held true. But the idea that the Western working classes might be driven to become internationalists--holding to a kind of internationalism that embraces even poor, undeveloped, unindustrialized nations--not only makes no sense, but has not held true historically speaking. As far as that kind of internationalism goes, you can point to a few politically aware workers who held it, but you cannot point to the working class holding it at a higher rate than others. Students, hippies, rich white liberals, etc., have all been just as (un)likely to advocate for the third world as laborers have been. Occupying a role as a worker does not cause a person to put him/herself in solidarity with the undeveloped world at a higher rate than people who are not workers.

And to tie back to the immigration issue, you can see that I don't believe immigration to be some exceptional issue. It is just one facet of the larger relationship between Westerners (including the Western sections of the working class) and the undeveloped world. And the attitude of Western workers toward immigration can be explained using the exact same facts and principles as explain their attitude toward other policies that ensure Western economic dominance.


*to pick one example

[JimmyJazz]

Got a new visitor message today:


How are you, reakkktionary pig? Shooting any more immigrants, privileged Amerikkkan pig?


:lol::lol:

[Revy]

OK, so I've long thought that immigration into the U.S. was great for captialism and bad for workers.

It gives the employers a pool of cheap laborers, with no legal status to organize or to protect themselves
It takes away jobs from those who do have such a legal status and who stand to benefit from decades (centuries) of struggle by generations of workers before them
It allows the immigrant laborers themselves to be exploited to an extreme degree
It eases class tensions in the U.S. by giving the hardest/least skilled jobs to people with no political or legal franchise
It prevents countries like Mexico from developing their own capitalist economies and their own highly-developed class systems

For all these reasons, while I would gladly campaign and march for the rights of immigrants already living here, I realize that doing so is not a long-term solution. In the long term, there is no solution but to
seal the border tight.

There's a book I saw on a bookstore shelf a while back, which I did not read, but the title has stayed with me: "Guest Workers or Colonized Labor?" It's a good question, and I'd answer that the reality is the latter, while the former phrase is a justifying liberal euphemism.

Much more recently, I've started to pay attention to the way that racist/nationalist right-wingers are exploiting the immigration issue among American workers--not just people, but specifically workers. Not only is this alarming, but the fact that it works seems to confirm my take that it is workers who are getting shafted and captialists who are gaining from immigration. For one example of this right-wing opportunism among workers, see here (http://voidnow.org/). For another, see here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/need-help-counter-t88268/index.html?t=88268&highlight=good+post). In addition to appealing explicitly to workers, some far-right racist/nationalist groups are eager to denounce profit-hungry employers (http://azresistance.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/join-the-arizona-tax-revolt/) for acting against the interests of American workers on the immigration issue. How can the success of these kinds of appeals be seen as anything other than a complete failure of the left to take a sufficiently big-picture/long-term/radical stance on immigration? The simple fact is that the far-right often does seem to have a better sense of what's good for workers than the (liberal/Green) left. I hope the same cannot be said for a comparison of them with the radical left.

Bear in mind that I am talking about future immigration, which I think should be treated as an entirely separate issue from things like deportation raids on those who are already here. I am not talking about indefinite detention or tearing family members apart. I am talking about the root problem that gives rise to public hysteria and makes such things possible in the first place, namely widespread illegal immigration.

Am I missing something, or do my fellow leftists also favor a closed U.S. border?

:confused: :blink: :confused: :blink:

I'm puzzled by this post. A closed U.S. border? Socialism is against borders. We are for the unity of all workers. Undocumented immigrants do not take away jobs. They are exploited but it is through struggle how that is changed.

The Nazis used the "worker" angle when demonizing Jews, now was there any kind of worth to their arguments just because many German workers were duped by the propaganda?

It's OUTSOURCING that is why Americans are losing jobs. Not undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigration is a distraction, steeped in racism.

[JimmyJazz]

It took 58 posts for Godwin's Law to be fulfilled. I'd say that reflects well on this board.