Pro and Anti Immigration Rallies

I was disappointed. from both sides...
How can I debate or "knock some sense" into this minute man. or this ANTI IMMIGRATION RACIST. if the shit they shout and believe in is so damn right down ignorant, racist and prejudice???
I mean there fucking signs are so out of countrol!!!! "mexican gangsters belong in mexico" WTF? are you serious?

i swear it makes my blood boil. it makes me loose my cool, and my common sense. "we want our country back?" I'm so fucking angry right now tell you guys this. is there no damn hope for those reactionary pieces of shit? =/

and there were people on the PRO IMMIGRATION side shouting slurs, and throwing gang signs, threading the anti immigration people with beatings and "we gonna catch you fools and kill you!"
that doesn't help either. I was disappointed.

its so fucking overwhelming!

ahhh&#33;&#33;&#33; <_<

It is. You have to keep in mind that both sides are reacting mainly with emotions. The pro-immigration side is reacting to the obvious prejudism and discrimination they face every second of every day. The anti-immigration side is reacting to the perceived threat to their existence that some radical-right wingers are trying to convince them is happening.

Is being anti-immigration racist? I don&#39;t think so. Im not &#39;anti-immigrant&#39;, but in some ways I am Anti-immigration, and you should be to. I respect the fact that all humans are equal, that&#39;s not up for debate. But when I ask leftists why immigration is good, they give me facts and statistics to show how they boost the economy of the country or something similar. (which is true, in the UK asylum seekers bring something like 8 million in profit per anum)

But we want to destroy this economy, not boost it. Immigration therefore benefits capitalism, which is why they don&#39;t stop it. Also, creating tensions between "illegal workers" and &#39;workers&#39; benefits the rulers.

The fact is that most immigrants don&#39;t really want to leave their homeland. The Mexicans that try to make it over the boarder often have to leave their entire families, friends, and heritage. The place they grew up - the people they love. And the reason they have to leave is capitalism. Social inequality. Saying we want immigration can sometimes sound like support for this situation, a process that benefits capitalism.

If someone is anti-immigration, ask them why they think immigration happens. It&#39;s because one country is phenomenally better than the other economically. And that in order to stop immigration you&#39;d have to stop the inequality, and that means smashing globalization.

But also, you would need to root out the cultural chauvinism that often exists in the mainstream anti-immigrant movement. Mention the vast benefits that immigration has brought, for example (to England) Engineering, Bridges, Gunpowder, Spices, Cloth, Music, etc. And to oppose that is not only stupid, but pointless, as immigration and cultural mixing has been going on since the start of recorded history - it isn&#39;t going to stop now. Nor should it.

Of course there is. They&#39;re working class people who feel disempowered. "We want our country back"? fair enough&#33;. I can equate country to "community" and I certainly do want my community back&#33; - from the capitalists. Who make massive decisions that effect my life, who are completely unaccountable, who sell guns to gangs operating in my area (who could be mexican gangs) fucked over by social inequality caused by neo-liberalism, and NAFTA etc. They feel disempowered but have been tricked into blaming the wrong people. Immigrants have no influence in society, they are often the ones screwed over the most, so we really should work with them to "take our country back"

If we say we support immigration, to the uneducated, who see social problems but blame the wrong people, we almost sound like stuges of the ruling class.

moved to politics.

Don&#39;t just focus on the economic aspects of Immigration - make sure that you take the time to argue about the benefits of multiculturalism, in particular stressing how interaction and cultural exchange, which often occurs through different ethnic and cultural groups living in one geographical area, can increase human understanding and develop new forms of artistic and cultural expression. It may be useful to find effective examples of important parts of culture that would not have been developed without multi-culturialism.

As Love Underground mentioned, also argue that Developed countries are responsible for the socio-economic conditions that give rise to immigration, not just through the colonial legacy that prevent these countries from undergoing economic development, but also the continuing role of neo-liberal trade policies that result in the formation of new dependency relationships between the developed world and developing countries (the latter being known as the &#39;periphery&#39; in depdendency theory analysis)

I think it should also be noted, though, that Immigration can pose economic problems for developing countries, because the most qualified and skilled members of the population often choose to find work elsewhere in order to maximise their earnings, which, especially if a large proportion of their income does not flow back to their home country as remittances, can limit the growth potential of developing countries.

If Racism is an important part of the argument, ask all the classic questions about reactionary politics - ask them for a clear and concise definition of the concept of race, ask what the criteria for being part of a particular ethnic/racial group, are and ask why it is of importance that we try to create a &#39;future&#39; for people who share a series of arbitrary physical characteristics. Chances are they will not be able to provide an effective answer.

Incidentally, RPAS, based on your description and reaction to the &#39;pro-immigration&#39; group, I would be interested to hear your opinion on Antifa. Most Leftists would contend that it is pointless or of limited use trying to convine [crypto] Fascists and that militant physical confrontation and a community support base is necessary to defeat reactionaries :banner:

ANTIFA is different though...

the mexican gang members threatening the anti-immigration bastards is what hurts the socialist of the pro-immigration side.

The gang members don&#39;t have politics or class consciousness to confront the opposing group.
they are just there to beat someone up, and to yell out their gangs name and throw up their gang signs to scare the racist.

I believe this just makes the racist anti-immigration protesters feel justified and that they are right about "the border jumping parasites"

you know what Im saying?

It&#39;s not a matter of supporting the economical impacts of immigration as much as it is supporting people&#39;s simple desires to move and attempt to better their lives.

Anti-immigration isn&#39;t inherently racist but then it&#39;s not simple coincidence that racist arguements are always made in support of it. People certainly don&#39;t seem to mind it if immigrants with similar genetical qualities and culture move into their country but they certainly seem to mind when the immigrants happen to be of a different race and cultural background.

And as far as anti-immigration goes, well for that practically to make any sense, you would need a strong state bureaucracy in order to enforce such tight measures.

I understand that a class conscious proletariat wants to ultimately smash the capitalist system. Yet if you really think about it, It&#39;s pretty safe to say that more than half of the "pro-immigration" people are not aware of the injustices of the system. They want to be allow to live and keep selling their labour power "legally" thats what they are protesting. they aren&#39;t protesting capitalism. just their personal human right. and for a communist that can be frustrating because is like a 1/4 of the battle.

Love underground has a point about the way in which social democrats defend immigration based on some sort of economic notion. As though when jobs are scarce we should then swing to being anti-immiration (which interstingly enough they often will do.) I would be wary of saying that what&#39;s good for the economy is nescesserally bad for the working class though. I do stand for the destruction of this economy, but I don&#39;t stand for the effects that recession has on the working class, unemployment and poverty.

We should not defend immigration from an economist perspective. We should defend it from a socialist perspective. As socialists we believe in the destruction of all borders and complete freedom of movement. This is a socialist tradition that we must keep, we must continue to defend peoples right to move wherver it likes. In capitalism capital can move without borders, we must defend the working class&#39; ability to do so.

thats a good outlook. yes like it was said earlier. and also most of this anti-immigration is about racism

Yes. The concepts that immigrants are stealing jobs from Americans is nonsense. Corporations are stealing jobs. They&#39;re the ones closing down factories, and sending them overseas, where they can exploit 3rd world workers for 1/100th the cost.

RPAS i can feel for you bro me come from L.A as well i went to these counter demonstraions as well and let me tell you for me it wasnt dissapointing at all really the only thing that i dindt like tha happend was that to immigrants thought one of the reporters was on the mintue man side and they had a little beef but nothing maajor really happend what does make my blood boil i what these fuckers are saying they told my girlfreind to go make some more BABIES&#33; WTF&#33; fuck these minute man ass holes as much as ivce told them capitilism is the problem they dont want to hear thats an instituion they want to defend actually and the sad part is that it is increasing racial tensions between black and meztizos and were arlready fightin each other

Exactly. Wanting to live in a richer society - one where there is less material scarcity - is a very basic human desire.

There is a liberal-left notion that some immigration is good and some immigration is not so good. You have &#39;genuine&#39; and &#39;honest&#39; immigrants on one side (people escaping from war, repressive regimes, etc) and you have &#39;bogus&#39; immigrants on the other side. The latter are people who are moving to the West with the simple desire to better their economic standards of living. This is, of course, something which today&#39;s Western middle class hypocrites (those economically privileged individuals whose opinions are increasingly informed by an environmentalist hostility towards economic progress) look down upon.

The greater international mobility of labour undermines the national borders which divide the international working class. An open-door policy on immigration can potentially have very serious consequences for the capitalist order.

The only progressive response to the debate on immigration controls can be: get rid of them. Immigration controls are a disgrace to human freedom and progress.