Immigration for liberals and socialists?

[millard]

OK I confess, I am a Liberal. But I do share a lot of ideals with socialists. But I am fairly alone in my tendency to oppose immigration. The problem is it's been shown to be is that unrestricted immigration breeds racism and xenophobia amongst the population, and when the UK cannot sufficiently promote social integration with this big melting pot of cultures. The failure to assimilate all the economic migrants makes people angry and flock to back to the countries core values. It really gets in the way of social progress. How do leftists feel about this issue?

[helot]

The bourgeoisie use foreign workers to help drive down wages and working conditions. The two main ways are through transferring their capital to other countries or by bringing cheaper labour to where their capital is. The former is really difficult to counter however the latter, which can easily breed xenophobia bolstered by the bourgeoisie through the media etc, can be countered through organising with migrant workers to make sure their working conditions are equivelant to non-migrants.

The xenophobia fostered by the bourgeoisie serves a vital purpose, it helps split the working class making it less likely that people will organise together and try to get better conditions. Your solution, heavy restriction on migration, won't solve the problem at all as they can only be solved through struggle and the first step of that struggle which would help unify workers is making sure migrants don't have worse conditions than non-migrants.

[Paul Cockshott]

marx's answer to this was to demand punitive laws against employers who paid immigrants less than the going wage for native workers.

[Comrade #138672]

The fear of the unknown and economic insecurity is transformed into xenophobia by the bourgeoisie. I believe that getting rid of the bourgeoisie will be the best cure for xenophobia.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem is it's been shown to be is that unrestricted immigration breeds racism and xenophobia amongst the population, and when the UK cannot sufficiently promote social integration with this big melting pot of cultures. The failure to assimilate all the economic migrants makes people angry and flock to back to the countries core values. It really gets in the way of social progress. How do leftists feel about this issue?

Immigration into the UK is not and has never been "unrestricted" (unless you go back to the times before any kind of centralised border control existed on these islands). That is an outright lie being promulgated by scummy tabloid rags like The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express.

Further, the failures of assimilation and integration don't "just happen", but are the consequence of deliberate ruling class policies as others here have pointed out. Bourgeois "multiculturalism" serves to effectively ghettoise immigrant cultures in the name of "diversity", rather than create a common cosmopolitan culture that exists alongside the already-present native and immigrant ones.

[dodger]

Further, the failures of assimilation and integration don't "just happen", but are the consequence of deliberate ruling class policies as others here have pointed out. Bourgeois "multiculturalism" serves to effectively ghettoise immigrant cultures in the name of "diversity", rather than create a common cosmopolitan culture that exists alongside the already-present native and immigrant ones.

Sadly only too correct Noxion. ThoughI have always worked and lived in areas where many immigrants made up the numbers. Inter-marriage common schools and class interests on London Tube made for largely positive experience. Some white flight, most just got on with it, made the best of it. Never fond of 'multiculturism', rather pointless in a mixed marriage. 100% Hackney though born in Barbados. In fact seemed a poisonous weed when first mooted. You call it bourgeois, accurate, though let's not forget many, many leftists championed this nonsense. What were they thinking?

Mass immigration is a problem is opposed by the majority of people. Consistently. Opposed here in Philippines, my daughter in law is parking her 3 children with her mother and going off to Kuwait to work as a domestic. She will be away for two years. More like 3 by the time she has paid the agent.Many with valuable skills leave. 15 girls from my sons class are off to Japan as entertainers, one of the girls said there was a chance of going to Australia after the tour. "That's close to where you live, Daddy Dodger!"---"Yes Miss, quite near!" A 21st century disease.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sadly only too correct Noxion. ThoughI have always worked and lived in areas where many immigrants made up the numbers. Inter-marriage common schools and class interests on London Tube made for largely positive experience. Some white flight, most just got on with it, made the best of it. Never fond of 'multiculturism', rather pointless in a mixed marriage. 100% Hackney though born in Barbados. In fact seemed a poisonous weed when first mooted. You call it bourgeois, accurate, though let's not forget many, many leftists championed this nonsense. What were they thinking?

I was referring to bourgeois multiculturalism because the problem is the bourgeois part, not the multiculturalism part.

Mass immigration is a problem is opposed by the majority of people. Consistently.

What mass immigration?

Also, if people oppose so-called "mass immigration" (something you haven't substantiated) it is because the right-wing media constantly runs slanted stories designed to muddle up immigrants, asylum seekers, and other foreign nationals. Here's a forum with more than enough examples. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, remember?

[dodger]

I was referring to bourgeois multiculturalism because the problem is the bourgeois part, not the multiculturalism part.



What mass immigration?

Also, if people oppose so-called "mass immigration" (something you haven't substantiated) it is because the right-wing media constantly runs slanted stories designed to muddle up immigrants, asylum seekers, and other foreign nationals. Here's a forum with more than enough examples. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, remember?

Caught this in Morning Star:
Letters
Immigration problem all thanks to EU

Sunday 29 July 2012 Printable Email
Ed Miliband's June 22 speech on immigration continues to stir debate, much of it dragging in the separate issue of racism. Race was a factor in the 1960s and 1970s debates about immigration, when blacks and Asians were moving here.

Now, thanks to the EU-pushed free movement of labour, immigration is largely white people from eastern Europe moving here, competing with black, Asian-origin and white British people for low-paid jobs.
Employers back this because an increase in the supply of labour cuts its price.

Last year, 589,000 long-term migrants came to Britain — the vast majority from the EU. Mr Miliband said: “Britain must control its borders.” Fine — but he then said” “We cannot set the numbers coming in from the rest of the EU.”

The EU stops us having any control over immigration from the EU. But we can control our borders – when we leave the EU.

Will Podmore
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hopefully the whole subject along with the EU will get a good airing at TUC conference.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So you don't think the problem lies in the tendency of employers to pay less for immigrant labour?

[sublime]

OK I confess, I am a Liberal. But I do share a lot of ideals with socialists. But I am fairly alone in my tendency to oppose immigration. The problem is it's been shown to be is that unrestricted immigration breeds racism and xenophobia amongst the population, and when the UK cannot sufficiently promote social integration with this big melting pot of cultures. The failure to assimilate all the economic migrants makes people angry and flock to back to the countries core values. It really gets in the way of social progress. How do leftists feel about this issue?

Hi,

Socialists don't want to achieve "progress" in the same way that Liberals do, they want to break down people's identity into nothing more than "human" or even "sentient being". They hate the notion that country's have founding "core values" that have nothing to do with the worker/capitalist binary. They prefer nebulously social constructs of identity such as class over real natural physical forms of identity such as ethnicity, race or nation.

As for why leftism is overtly pro immigration, it has to do not specifically with any sort of belief that benefits come from immigration, but with Marxist philosophy in particular. They use racial strife to achieve their means and to establish their control over society, this means eliminating ethnic identification in traditionally European nations.

To understand the mindset, you have to first understand that the 'Internationalist' Left see everything in terms of class. Therefore, in their eyes a working class European man has more in common with a working class Sadisi Islamist than a business owning White person. So to them everyone who is against the uniting of the workers of the world is termed is an enemy, i.e. all immigration conservatives whether their economic views are socialist or conservative are considered the same. This is why Hitler to them is always depicted as the archetypal right winger when in fact he was left wing in any economic measure.

Once you understand that the destruction of the foundations of Capitalist societies is not a bad outcome for Marxists, and is in fact desirable, it’s not hard to understand why they are indifferent to multiculturalism and its negative effects. As you’ve probably wised up to, leftists don’t care if Africa, Asia, Central America, Arabia or Polynesia are "multicultural." The only places they insist must become multicultural are successful capitalist ones.

Marxists are perfectly aware that the rates of immigration are destroying White countries. This is exactly what they want, which is why they support it, because they hope to build a new communist society from the ruins of a capitalist society. Non-Western countries are typically a lot more racist than Western countries. But communists wont criticse them at all for it. Ask yourself why that is. It because they don't want to destroy those countries.

Really, more people on the political left should support British Nationalism and the protection of culture in liberal nations. A degree of socialism can work when you have a large, socially conscious ethnic majority, such as you have in Scandinavian countries or Japan. These countries are quite liberal in most regards and it works well for them because they have been traditionally a monoculture - it is only as they begin to accept huge numbers of immigrants that their systems begins to fail. Throughout Europe, in fact, Muslims are pouring in and most of their attitudes aren't socially liberal at all - they support persecuting gays, women, non-believers, censorship, etc.

It is similar in the USA, where Hispanics are socially very conservative. Gay marriage failed in California in 2008 because black and Hispanic voters showed up in such massive numbers. Communists believe that this stuff is all peripheral to a historical class war.

I am socialistic in some regards, perhaps not as much as you, but enough to value certain elements of socialism and to realize that these ideas would die without Westerners to hold them up.

My advice would be to understand how the goals of Marxists differ from those of a socially conscious Liberal like yourself and realize that they don't share your desire to see your nation state preserved in any form. All countries need to be destroyed so the universal communist society can be built.

[dodger]

So you don't think the problem lies in the tendency of employers to pay less for immigrant labour?

Bankers, Adam Smith Institute, every penny pinching employer are purring with ill disguised glee, Noxion. As was stated in the Morning Star:Noxion.
Employers back this because an increase in the supply of labour cuts its price.. Doug Nicholls UNITE back in 2006:Morning Star.

"Nevertheless, the EU has already shown on a mass scale that it considers it legal for migrant labour to create skills gaps in the country of origin and lower wages and worse conditions in the countries of destination.

There has also been a huge influx of other migrant labour which is sharply undercutting wages in many areas and putting new strains on public services, to a point where local government is having to consider high local taxes.

The government has lost count of legal and illegal immigrants. Recent research has indicated the full scale of the problem and capitalist spokespersons have revelled at the resulting suppression of wage levels.

In this severe overall context, two things are happening. First, more and more trade unionists are coming to realise that we should leave the EU altogether and abandon the EU federalist project in favour of peacefully co-existing and co-operating independent nations."

For good measure the UN Migration chief speaks:

The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said.

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.

He also suggested the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law.

He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.

Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.

He told the House of Lords committee migration was a "crucial dynamic for economic growth" in some EU nations "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states

So far over 80% consistently give this man the deaf ear. Some don't. Just to round off , your pointer to the Daily Mail produced these

580 foreigners a DAY got a job here last year... as the number of British-born unemployed soared
More than 1m women now jobless in Britain - 91,000 rise on last year
More than 530 Britons losing their jobs every DAY
Britain's overall jobless rate of 8.4 per cent is worst since 1995
North West worst hit region in last quarter with 26,000 more jobless
Union boss describes 'worst employment prospects since recession began'

[RedAtheist]

The problem is it's been shown to be is that unrestricted immigration breeds racism and xenophobia amongst the population, and when the UK cannot sufficiently promote social integration with this big melting pot of cultures.

This argument can used to promote any conservative position. For example,

- legalising gay marriage breeds homophobia when the government cannot sufficiently counter homophobic ideas
- a rise in feminism breeds sexism, when the sexist ideas of how women should behave are prevalent
- any regulation to a capitalist economy breeds fears of a 'socialist' government takeover.

All progressive changes breed a right-wing reaction, no change has been universally agreed to.

Furthermore, every time a government passes a law against immigration, racists feel validated in their position and they feel more powerful, encouraging them to promote their racism more fiercely.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Bankers, Adam Smith Institute, every penny pinching employer are purring with ill disguised glee, Noxion. As was stated in the Morning Star:Noxion.
Employers back this because an increase in the supply of labour cuts its price.. Doug Nicholls UNITE back in 2006:Morning Star.

The problem is that your xenophobic framing of the issue as one of "too much immigration", rather than "not enough wages/jobs", places culpability on the immigrants, not the bastards who aren't paying enough to workers of any nationality.

For good measure the UN Migration chief speaks:


So far over 80% consistently give this man the deaf ear.

Maybe because he's just another bureaucrat working for some impotent international organisation?

Some don't. Just to round off , your pointer to the Daily Mail produced these

So you don't think that any of them may have got the truth just a little bit twisted, exaggerated or hell, have been outright fabrications?

No wonder you're restricted, if you're so willing to uncritically swallow the Daily Mail's right-wing horseshit.

[l'Enfermé]

Multiculturalism is just another word for apartheid. Equal, but separate. Hah!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hi,

Socialists don't want to achieve "progress" in the same way that Liberals do, they want to break down people's identity into nothing more than "human" or even "sentient being". They hate the notion that country's have founding "core values" that have nothing to do with the worker/capitalist binary. They prefer nebulously social constructs of identity such as class over real natural physical forms of identity such as ethnicity, race or nation.

You like painting with that broad brush of yours, don't you?

Yes, socialists look at sociopolitical issues primarily through the lens of class, but you were obviously fast asleep whenever we've had arguments about "oppressed nations" or national self-determination in the face of imperialism.

As for why leftism is overtly pro immigration, it has to do not specifically with any sort of belief that benefits come from immigration, but with Marxist philosophy in particular. They use racial strife to achieve their means and to establish their control over society, this means eliminating ethnic identification in traditionally European nations.

What the fuck is this fascistoid crap? Are you going to spout off about "cultural Marxism" next?

Care to give any actual examples of Marxists using "racial strife" in the manner you talk about?

To understand the mindset, you have to first understand that the 'Internationalist' Left see everything in terms of class. Therefore, in their eyes a working class European man has more in common with a working class Sadisi Islamist than a business owning White person. So to them everyone who is against the uniting of the workers of the world is termed is an enemy, i.e. all immigration conservatives whether their economic views are socialist or conservative are considered the same.

Bullshit. [citation needed].

This is why Hitler to them is always depicted as the archetypal right winger when in fact he was left wing in any economic measure.

Oh good grief, not another one of those "Hitler was left-wing!1!11!!" shitheads. Hitler was a corporatist, otherwise companies that made armaments for Germany at the time, like Thyssen or Krupp, would have been appropriated by the German people. Which they clearly weren't!

Once you understand that the destruction of the foundations of Capitalist societies is not a bad outcome for Marxists, and is in fact desirable, it’s not hard to understand why they are indifferent to multiculturalism and its negative effects. As you’ve probably wised up to, leftists don’t care if Africa, Asia, Central America, Arabia or Polynesia are "multicultural." The only places they insist must become multicultural are successful capitalist ones.

Where are you getting these frankly batshit ideas? Stormfront? Multiculturalism is something that has happened throughout the world and throughout human history. Given that the whole of the Earth's surface has been pretty much explored and mapped, combined with technology making global travel much easier than before, it should not come as a great shock that one can find enclaves of practically any culture almost anywhere in the world where there are significant numbers of humans.

Also, I think Asia would be surprised to discover that they aren't "successful capitalists". Especially the Chinese. Fuck you, racist.

Marxists are perfectly aware that the rates of immigration are destroying White countries.

WTF? How?! The UK is 90% white by ethnicity. What the fuck is your definition of "destruction"?

This is exactly what they want, which is why they support it, because they hope to build a new communist society from the ruins of a capitalist society. Non-Western countries are typically a lot more racist than Western countries. But communists wont criticse them at all for it. Ask yourself why that is. It because they don't want to destroy those countries.

Most communists on this forum live in "Western" countries, so it should come as no surprise that it is "Western" countries that come under criticism.

Really, more people on the political left should support British Nationalism and the protection of culture in liberal nations. A degree of socialism can work when you have a large, socially conscious ethnic majority, such as you have in Scandinavian countries or Japan. These countries are quite liberal in most regards and it works well for them because they have been traditionally a monoculture - it is only as they begin to accept huge numbers of immigrants that their systems begins to fail.

Fail at what? More vague rhetoric from the nationalist racist.

Throughout Europe, in fact, Muslims are pouring in and most of their attitudes aren't socially liberal at all - they support persecuting gays, women, non-believers, censorship, etc.

[citation needed], seriously. Just because the occasional "honour killing" makes the news does not means that such actions are representative of Muslim immigrants as a whole.

It is similar in the USA, where Hispanics are socially very conservative. Gay marriage failed in California in 2008 because black and Hispanic voters showed up in such massive numbers.

So it had nothing to do with the Mormon millions pouring into California?

Communists believe that this stuff is all peripheral to a historical class war.

Please, find a single statement by a revolutionary communist supporting the notion that a bourgeois referendum forms a meaningful part of class struggle. I dare you.

I am socialistic in some regards, perhaps not as much as you, but enough to value certain elements of socialism and to realize that these ideas would die without Westerners to hold them up.

Ah yes, those perfect blue-eyed, blonde-haired Westerners who form one of the Highest Races and can therefore do no wrong. Fuck off and die, fascist.

My advice would be to understand how the goals of Marxists differ from those of a socially conscious Liberal like yourself and realize that they don't share your desire to see your nation state preserved in any form. All countries need to be destroyed so the universal communist society can be built.

But it is the passing of "Western" countries that bothers you the most, doesn't it bonehead?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

You like painting with that broad brush of yours, don't you?

Yes, socialists look at sociopolitical issues primarily through the lens of class, but you were obviously fast asleep whenever we've had arguments about "oppressed nations" or national self-determination in the face of imperialism.



What the fuck is this fascistoid crap? Are you going to spout off about "cultural Marxism" next?

Care to give any actual examples of Marxists using "racial strife" in the manner you talk about?



Bullshit. [citation needed].



Oh good grief, not another one of those "Hitler was left-wing!1!11!!" shitheads. Hitler was a corporatist, otherwise companies that made armaments for Germany at the time, like Thyssen or Krupp, would have been appropriated by the German people. Which they clearly weren't!



Where are you getting these frankly batshit ideas? Stormfront? Multiculturalism is something that has happened throughout the world and throughout human history. Given that the whole of the Earth's surface has been pretty much explored and mapped, combined with technology making global travel much easier than before, it should not come as a great shock that one can find enclaves of practically any culture almost anywhere in the world where there are significant numbers of humans.

Also, I think Asia would be surprised to discover that they aren't "successful capitalists". Especially the Chinese. Fuck you, racist.



WTF? How?! The UK is 90% white by ethnicity. What the fuck is your definition of "destruction"?



Most communists on this forum live in "Western" countries, so it should come as no surprise that it is "Western" countries that come under criticism.



Fail at what? More vague rhetoric from the nationalist racist.



[citation needed], seriously. Just because the occasional "honour killing" makes the news does not means that such actions are representative of Muslim immigrants as a whole.



So it had nothing to do with the Mormon millions pouring into California?



Please, find a single statement by a revolutionary communist supporting the notion that a bourgeois referendum forms a meaningful part of class struggle. I dare you.



Ah yes, those perfect blue-eyed, blonde-haired Westerners who form one of the Highest Races and can therefore do no wrong. Fuck off and die, fascist.



But it is the passing of "Western" countries that bothers you the most, doesn't it bonehead?

I agree with all your points and await this guys response with interest.

I cannot understand the mindset of some white people in the UK and elsewhere who perceive the 10% or less 'ethnic' population as a threat to their way of life...just...arrgh I don't get it!!

[Marxaveli]

The fact he called Hitler a leftist discredits anything he posts from here on out - not that he had much credit to begin with. This is right-wing, historical revisionism at it's best - but you can hardly blame him, right wingers are so desperate to get Hitler out of their corner they will misconstrue facts and re-write history to do it. It will never work though, Hitler will forever be remembered as a Fascist, ethnocentric scumbag. Sorry, but you will forever have to live with him, just like Christians have to live with the Inquisition.

Also, even if immigration is destroying "white" nations, I'll be even more direct than Nox, and say SO THE FUCK WHAT!? It's about time white, patriarch, ethnocentric hegemony was brought down a few rungs on the fucking ladder.

[fug]

It's about time white, patriarch, ethnocentric hegemony was brought down a few rungs on the fucking ladder.

I can't wait for black, patriarchic ( sp? ), ethnocentric hegemony to replace it with...

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

This is why Hitler to them is always depicted as the archetypal right winger when in fact he was left wing in any economic measure.

It's true that Hitler used anti-capitalist rhetoric, but he went out of his way to preserve private property and wait on the steel bosses hand and foot. This is a capitalist, not a socialist measure. In the same vein, I've known other people that refer to the Wall Street bailout as "socialism" as well, though it was a capitalist measure to bail out the bourgeoisie. I urge you to read more about the economic policies of the Third Reich before you embarrass yourself again.

[Marxaveli]

The Wall Street bailout was Socialism for the rich perhaps, certainly not Marxist Socialism, which is the only type of "socialism" that is relevant to us. Fuck anything else.