Can someone who is anti-immigration be a communist/socialist?

Here's one for you:

Recently I came across a person who described themselves as being "opposed to mass immigration" but also as a "socialist".

So, my question to people (especially other Leftists here rather than OI people), do you think it's actually possible for someone to be both at the same time?

My own position was that this person must be confused, or maybe some form of Third Way supporter like National Socialist, National Anarchist, National Bolshevik or something like that. I don't really know a whole lot about those ideologies though so perhaps someone here could categorize this person ideologically.

Nah, they don't have to be a 'national bolshevik'. A lot of people who describe themselves as 'socialist' might be anti-immigration. If your idea of 'socialist' is a paternalist state, then you might think that part of the job of that state would be to protect you from immigrants driving down wages, or something.

My recollection is that one of the reasons for the founding of the International Workingmen's Association in 1858 (?) was to stop 'foreign' workers coming into Britain (this was why some of the British Trades' Unions were interested anyway). 'Defend British jobs' (or American jobs or whatever) is a fairly common refrain from 'the Left' (however that might be defined where you are).

However, I'd say, no, they can't, because I believe socialism is the political theory of the destruction of capitalism and the state by the world working class. So it depends really on what someone thinks 'socialism' means I guess.

A lot of communist parties opposed the influx of immigrants into a country....for the obvious reason they are used by capitalism to put pressure on wage development and continuous competition on the job markets and pressure on social/welfare programs and workers rights. The more isoteric opposition was because it perpetuates economic dependency and continues imperialism and political influence on countries which the immigrants come from. And that workers in each country should unify to change their repective situations and better their own positions.

Personally.....this is a sound arguments because this is exactly what immigrants are used for: cheap labour and creating division. But it is also an argument which in the continued globalisation is lackig in insight into the deeper underlying problems of global capitalism....at the worst....and at the best it is no longer a valid position. So to clarify: its a sound argument for the left to make...but only when you look at a small part of the issue and leave out some equally important things.

It really doesn't matter if there is a huge influx of immigrants. The exploitation remains the same, except now, the immigrants are designated as enemy instead of capitalism itself and capitalists continue to make increasing profit margins and continue to enrich themselves at an increasing almost exponential rate. Those profits are deprived to the working class, non-immigrants and immigrants alike, and extracted from them. The basis of the exploitation is the system itself. Pitting workers against other workers is what it does. It creates a system of competition in order to be able to survive to detract attention from the true problem: the system.

There is no reason, objectively speaking, why immigrants would make economy worse other than the nature of that economy. And as such there is only an argument to be made to restrict immigration on the bassis of flawed information and conclusions. There has not been a capitalist damaged by an increasing influx of immigrants. Who have been damaged are the workers. Because the system makes sure they are.

So yes...it is possible to be a communist and be against immigration...but only on the basis of the wrong assumptions and conclusions. And that needs to be repaired.

It depends on their actual beliefs, but there's no necessary contradiction.

It's not automatically good for large groups of people to regularly move to very different parts of the world, not that it's necessarily tragic or harmful either.

As BB pointed out, they could have an odd definition of "socialism". But they could have a pretty standard definition of socialism - collective ownership and management of the means of production by all the workers in the society - and still support restrictions on who could become a part of the society.

That's not a good thing, but it's not a contradiction either, at least in principal. I think in the real world where immigration exists and large parts of the working class in advanced capitalist countries are immigrants, anti-immigrant/anti-immigration politics is probably a barrier to productive class struggle, but that's a separate question.

The DPRK is socialist and very anti-Immigration, if immigrants would pose a threat to socialist construction or national security, and put you at risk of a reactionary force taking over then it is perfectly justified to make it totally illegal. Every established socialist state, until communism is reached, will in my opinion need to restrict immigration. The Soviet Union did, Cuba does, it is only natural to make such movements of people illegal for socialist states and perfectly justified. For example, should Cuba allow an unlimited number of Americans or people from other Caribbean islands if such a mass movement would result in the installation of a capitalist government.

What is not justified is the restrictions on immigration and violations of human rights perpetrated by western states for which there is no sane reason and amounts to just racism and nationalism.

EDIT: Also, if socialist states allowed free immigration Capitalist and imperialist powers would use it to infiltrate the country with spies.

They can be, sure. They'd be fucking up though.

No

By immigrants you mean free and origional thought?

As opposed to North Korean non-nationalism?

I agree, you can be right about somethings and wrong about others.

Come on be serious, this is a serious topic not a joke thread

Sure. Doesn't mean that anything that is Communist is necessarily something that is ought to be supported

Haha, that was a good one. As much as Nazi-Germany was socialist. Who by the way was also anti-immigration.



Yeah, sure, "Hey, those guys COULD be reactonaries, or could have another opinion as I have, they wont come in!". I know another kind of "socialism" who thinks that way! It begins with "National-" .

Really, a socialist state should be able to survive immigrants, else it isn't real, or good, socialism.



Where are those two "established" "socialist" states? Sure, Cuba comes pretty close, but the USSR was very far from established, or even socialist. How is it "natural" to do such just because they did it? That doesn't mean we should do it. Partly because they ain't that much of socialists, at least not the USSR, and partly because they are in a difficult time (USSR - Cold War) or in a difficult position (Cuba - Damn close to USA, and much smaller). Points which doesn't really apply for Europe and America. And even then a socialist state shouldn't (have to) do such.



So you say, just because there may be danger, human rights should be violatet? Dude, that is preety much one of the most anti-communist thoughts! In communism, it's about the people, not against them! You should win their trust, not their fear! And you can't win their trust if you violate such things that protect people, like the human rights, which forbides violating innocents. That's how capitalism works.



And what makes you sure they would? Even if, you want to condemn all immigrants just because they MAY be spies? So think capitalist and Nazi's, BUT NOT socialist or even communists.

If they were socialist, they would realize a majority of the reasons people immigrate (legally or illegally, i don't give a shit which), is because of the material conditions capitalism bestows (can't think of a better word) on their country.

disclaimer, the above post was made under the influence of the captain...so if you can understand what i'm driving at, kudos. if you can't, i'll explain when i'm sober.

I don't see how ?

Well, yeah, perhaps the USSR didn't allow immigrants in neighbouring states to enter their country, but the USSR immigrated into their countries instead, which is basically the same thing.

My stance on immigration is that the focus should be put on helping other countries develop rather than helping people immigrate. I don't know how this pans out with the vultures.

Socialism is an internationalist ideology which supports all workers of the world. I think that should answer your question.

Immigration is something that can never be restricted by a socialist state. Talking about spies and national security just makes the state in question sound more like a military junta or totalitarian dictatorship. National security is a valid concern of course because of the constant threat of capitalism and fascism etc, but ultimately that is a concern for the government or military itself, not the society as a whole.

When talking about immigration we need to be more specific, immigration comes from a wide range of different countries, for a myriad of reasons. The first group are economic immigrants, who may be starving in their own country, or a wealthy capitalist simply moving to another country to make even more money. This group are not our concern, assuming the country they are entering is capitalist, harsh as it sounds it is hypocritical to support what will ultimately be their exploitation by that state. And even for those who 'make it' and become rich, they then merely become more exploiters of the working class. This is hypocritical because it has almost the same ultimate effect on these people as outright imperialism. The second group, asylum seekers or refugees from political violence etc, of course have our support. No matter what anyone says if someone needs to flee from a country due to persecution, that state is not leftist and we of course should support their move to a more progressive state (in terms of personal freedom, women's rights etc) no matter how slight that progression is. So no a leftist should not automatically support immigration [into a capitalist state] but at the same time its not an issue any element of the left should be actively opposing. In fact there is some evidence that far from being 'scabs' or cappies immigrants will be more likely to support the left wing and certainly more opposed to the far right than even the average worker.

Immigration does not engender conflict. It's not reasonable to asume that under any kind of social conditions and any kind of relations of production there would be conflict based on an immigrant groups' cultural practices, skin tone, religious practices or any attempt to dominate the migrating group or vice versa.

To assume such a thing would be equal to abandoning one's focus on the historically changing relations of production and its manifestation in concrete human behaviour within social conditions corresponding to the former.
In other words, it all depends on how people make a living, it all depends on how production is organized and whether there is an exploited class (also, it would be good to note just how intensive is the exploitation we are talking about).

As for a socialist opposing "immigration on a large scale", I think that this is a position that rejects proletarian internationalism and that it is therefore totally incompatible with a communist class position, and potentially conducive to offering latent support for imperialism and militarism.

People have to remember that socialism is a broad broad brush.

I don't see how.

I think RGacky means that many people can call themselves 'socialist' without everyone else that calls themself a 'socialist' necessarily agreeing with them.