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.

I consider myself both a socialist and also against mass immigration. Such immigration policies are a tool of the capitalist class used to great effect to play workers in different regions off one another. Anyone who objects is labelled as xenophobic/racist and so all debate get conveniently shut down. The liberal left are even inadvertently complicit in this shutting down of debate into the bargain, which only adds insult to injury. Mass immigration between allied socialist countries who have the same pay and conditions for workers would not be a problem. But that is not the context in which most mass immigration between capitalist countries takes place.

Immigration should be free for everyone. A socialist cannot be anti-immigration because socialism eliminates borders. The working men and women have no country, no nation. People should be allowed to freely immigrate and emigrate. "Allied Socialist Countries" again there will be no countries under socialism. The world will be united, not divided into states, when there are states there is hierarchy and class struggle, and if class struggle exists there is no socialism.

"The working man has no country". We have revised it to mean men and women of course but the notion is absolutely true. To the genuine socialist who favors the empowerment of the organized working class immigration restriction is seen as a tool of the bourgeoisie to enforce cultural norms, secure native institutions, and to simply express irrational xenophobia and racism.

In my opinion, the topic of immigration and especially "illegal" immigration is the venue for the most acceptable articulation of modern racism.

I don't even think an opposition to immigrants can even logically follow from "protecting X country's jobs".


Of course the capitalist class uses workers from other lands to try to maximise their profits by reducing wages, working conditions etc. But let us suppose there is no immigration... what then? The capitalist class will still continue using workers from other lands by exporting their capital to take advantage of cheaper labour.


All this negative focus on workers who are guilty of nothing more than being from somewhere else and trying to have a better standard of living is sickening because the capitalist class is ignored.


It's one-sided and anti-worker.


If you're concerned about a capitalist bringing in migrant workers to attack your conditions organise with them! Bring up their pay and conditions to your own.

Our struggle is an international one, and so is our goal. However, we shouldn't conflate internationalism, which is the solidarity of all nations, with the idea that in the modern world, nations, each with unique traditions, cultures, and outlooks, don't exist and so you can toss incompatible, hostile doctrines together and have peace.

Let me be clear: freedom of movement is, and should be, our goal, but for PRACTICAL reasons TODAY, immigration can put people (namely, the immigrants) at risk and in danger

Well socialists have opposed immigration in the past - the right-wing of the US socialist party in the early 20th century for example - but it is to their detriment and the detriment of the working class movement that existed then.

What immigration restrictions and laws have historically done is not to prevent migration, but to manage and create a lower caste of workers from the migrants. In the US this was true from the restrictions on Chinese workers (who ironically were also kidnapped and basically conscripted into building industry on the US west coast) to migrants today. The same dynamic of creating divisions in the working class also is true for internal migration from the Okiees in the US to rural people in Mexico who go to the cities for wage-work and the rural Chinese moving to the industrial centers there.

Capitalism destroys non-market ways for people to support themselves and so people seek wage work. In parts of the world right now, this means crossing borders, but it could also mean moving from the country to the cities within a nation. Supporting these laws or restrictions on migration in general weakens the ability of workers to organize and helps pit different groups of workers against each-other by restricting rights and the ability to organize (for fear of deportation or so on) for part of the working class, while helping to create an illusion on common cause between native workers and their native ruling class.

I believe it is precisely because of the border controls that capitalists are able to play workers off against one another.

I do not think this is true. On the contrary, it has already been established in the dominant discourse that immigration is something which should be heavily combated. It has now moved on to the question of how, and how far it can go. It is ironic that this unjustified claim has become a part of the same dominant discourse.

Right, the current context is capitalist, but what does that have to do with socialism? Should socialists oppose anti-immigration because there is somehow something to be gained from it? I do not think there is. This pamphlet/book explains why: Open Borders: The case against immigration controls

No, I don't think so. This goes back to the Communist Manifesto even, where Marx states that "the workers have no country." This is because nations are a bourgeois construct designed to divide the working class and to benefit the local bourgeois of a particular region. I have much more in common with an foreign worker than with the national bourgeois.
No "communist" can oppose immigration.

A well attended meeting in London's Conway Hall echoed your thought tallguy:

http://www.workers.org.uk/features/f.../movement.html
Such is the clamour and prevailing tide even Milliband has thought it fitting that he is being seen to be doing something:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25607578

just because workers are against immigrants doesn't mean communists should be. Don't idealize workers, being anti-immigrant is anti-proletarian, they are acting in the opposite of their interests, and this anti-immigration is not a way to express acting in their interests. It is thoroughly bourgeois.
PROtip: workers aren't always right.

Clearly anti-immigrant is anti-proletarian. Ultimately self defeating. All those who have settled working are members of the British working class. Assisted by trade unions to prosper. The points made at the London meeting are sound. The Migrants too have a voice:

“Large scale migration is a symptom of underdevelopment in the sending country. The structural causes of underdevelopment driving migration and exposing migrants to vulnerable situations must be addressed.” – Migrante International - See more at: http://bulatlat.com/main/2013/10/07/....9E16nFjG.dpuf

Your bullet point on workers not being always right or in fact idealizing them, is sound.

JANUARY 17, 2014
‘The gov’t to hire foreign workers due to shortage? Are you on drugs? ‘- Migrante


“Last year, the government deployed two million OFWs and professionals abroad, the biggest in history. So again, how can the DOLE stomach this absurdity?”

By JANESS ANN J. ELLAO
Bulatlat.com
MANILA — Migrante International slammed the Department of Labor for its recent pronouncements that the government is hiring foreign workers due to a supposed “shortage of applicants.”

“It is simply so wrong on so many levels; we were rendered speechless for a second. There is a plethora of reasons why this move is untimely, if not downright delusional. That the DOLE even has the audacity to announce such a thing is absurd, atrocious and awfully insulting to millions of our Filipino workers and professionals here and abroad. Sec. Baldoz, President Noynoy, are you on drugs?” said Garry Martinez, Migrante International chairperson.
Baldoz, in media reports, said a study of the Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics revealed that the country needs to “liberalize the labor market and allow foreign workers with the required skills so we can fill up those hard to fill occupations due to shortage.”

In a statement, Baldoz enumerated hard-to-fill profession as: architect, chemical engineer, chemist, environmental planner, fisheries technologist, geologist, guidance counselor, licensed librarian, medical technologist, sanitary engineer, computer numerical control machinist, assembly technician, test technician, pilot, aircraft mechanic.
Communications secretary Herminio Coloma, in a Philippine Daily Inquirer report, however, said the government is still studying proposals to hire foreign workers for the said hard-to-fill professions. Inviting foreign workers to work in the country, he added, would serve as “signal for our Filipino professionals abroad to return to the country to fill this gap.”
Martinez, however, said the country’s unemployment rate belies such claims. He said the labor market has long been liberalized due to the labor export policy.
“For the government to claim that we are now in a position to be at the receiving instead of the sending end of labor trade liberalization is preposterous considering the ridiculously high unemployment rate,” he added.
“According to the March 2013 Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey, the Philippines has a 27.2% unemployment rate or more than 11.1 million Filipinos ar jobless. This is a 3.7% increase from the unemployment rate recorded in the last quarter of 2012 and a far cry from the unemployment figures of our Asian neighbors Singapore (1.7%), Malaysia (3%), Korea (3%), China (4.1%), Taiwan (4.3%), Vietnam (4.4%) and Indonesia (6.5%),” Migrante International said in a statement.
Despite the seeming increase of jobs created in 2011 (1.4 million) and in 2012 (3.1 million), Martinez said, these reports failed to mention that the “jobs created were either short-term, contractual and highly disproportional to the ever-growing labor force.”
Those who have jobs also suffer from low wages, Martinez added.
“Worsening joblessness feeds on chronically low wages, with the current minimum wage grossly inadequate to sustain even the most humble of families. Family incomes are not keeping up with the inflation and continuous price hikes. No wonder more Filipinos now consider themselves poor,” Martinez said.
As a result, Migrante International said that “at least at least one-fourth of the country’s labor force has gone abroad to find work, while 64.3% of unemployed Filipinos were actively looking for jobs abroad,” as shown in the Labor Force Survey in January 2012.
“This figure can only be attributed to the Aquino government’s more aggressive labor export policy that thrives on the desperation of Filipino workers and professionals. Last year, the government deployed two million OFWs and professionals abroad, the biggest in history. So again, how can the DOLE stomach this absurdity? How can they say that there is a shortage of job applicants when it is the government itself that is forcing and peddling a huge number of our skilled workers to foreign shores?” Martinez said.
Martinez added, “what we genuinely need is national industrialization and genuine land reform, not policies such as these that are concocted out of grand illusions and delusions.” (http://bulatlat.com)
- See more at: http://bulatlat.com/main/2014/01/17/....2PnfdjX0.dpuf
.................................................. ..................
COMMUNISTS SHOULD BE SAYING WHAT?

This is pretty much how I feel about it. I believe that true socialism cannot be anti-immigration as that would mean having an aversion to the international proletariat. Like Blake's Baby said, if we define socialism as the destruction of capitalism and the state in favor of a globally united and free working class, you can't really hate Mexicans who cross the border, or promote keeping "foreigners" out of "your territory", or, in my opinion, even be nationalistic in any substantial sense. This stuff obviously goes against the very spirit of the philosophy. But other forms of socialism (what I would call fake socialism) would have no problem with it.

Hang on a minute. you've conflated, as is usual on this site, an argument in favour of border and immigration controls with hating immigrants. Pack it in.

Usually the argument from a supposedly socialist standpoint rests on the purpose of mass immigration in benefiting capital (lower wages and so on). But this actually misses the point.

This will probably sound weird, but the main problem is not to be found in relating to immigration, but to the existing state.
What I mean is that supporting immigration control necessarily involves a support for this state, and if it were to be transformed into effective political organizing (as opposed to solitary musings of a socialist and arguing on the internet), it would amount to nothing else than crass class collaboration.

Another aspect of the problem is that this position discards the necessity of political and community work done by a pro-revolutionary political organization and attached groups - meaning, there ought to be community work which would tackle the rise in nationalism which is an effect of such an opposition to immigration.

And yeah, the last part is crucial as well. Combining the unwitting political support for kinds of nationalism (through supporting immigration policies) and a lack of effective work in combating such developments, it's obvious that this is a complete dead end.

So, yeah, it's possible to be a socialist while opposing immigration - but a damn lousy one, if not an outright bourgeois socialist.

If a person is genuinely against the idea of Mexican people trying to find work to support their families in the territory of the United States because they are breaking bourgeois laws in a bourgeois dictatorship, then that person cannot be considered a socialist in my opinion.

I'm not talking about protection from terrorists, I'm talking about denying people a better life because of pro-state, anti-proletariat, nationalistic nonsense.

How does one reconcile being "in favor of border and immigration controls" with the abolition of the nation-state?

Like I said, in 2014 the immigrant issue shouldn't even be a question anymore for socialists. You people are making the same mistakes made by the American labor movement in the late 19th/early 20th century.

Yo it is hella easy to criticize monstrously exploitative neoliberal policies without slipping into nationalist wanker territory or blaming the immigrants themselves (which is all this "mass immigration" stuff is about).