Do you approach skilled and unskilled immigration differently?

[Fellow_Human]

I was quite offended to learn about the post-WWII European migration policy through the decolonization period of 1945-1962. Wait for it; it starts okay, and gets much worse.

After WWII Europe experienced labor shortages and a pressing need for working hands to rebuild all those destroyed cities. The governments of Germany, France, the Netherlands, etc., the solution that they came up with was to bring over "Gastarbeiter," i.e. guest workers, whom they falsely expected to stay only temporarily. The workers came from nearby (former) colonies: Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, etc.

At least in the Netherlands, it was under the initiative of the labor party that agencies were set up in the Maghreb, i.e. Northwest Africa. Their task was to find potential immigrant workers who were not only the least skilled but also the least likely to *become* skilled, least likely to achieve social mobility in Europe and to take up anything *other* than unskilled manual labor. Preference was given to the least educated, the least "intellectually promising" -- people who hadn't completed high school education, people who didn't know any second language besides their native Arabic/Turkish, etc.

Upon arriving in Europe, the immigrant workers were cast adrift to await their fate. No serious efforts were made to accommodate them, integrate them or help them find their place in the new society in any way. The result today is that there are vast isolated communities in Europe, ghettos, ethnic enclaves, cut off from the mainstream of society, impoverished, uneducated, socially immobile, and prone to radicalization -- usually all the wrong kinds of radicalization.

(It might be worth noting here that while this is typically true of the socioeconomic origins of Turks and Northwest Africans in Europe, the opposite is true of the Iranian diaspora, as it was the "cream of society" that fled Iran in the aftermath of the Islamic counterrevolution, in one of the greatest brain drains of recent history.)

* * *

So here's my follow-up question. In such situations, what is in the interests of the global proletariat? Should the native European workers have supported the policy of unskilled immigration, or a policy of skilled immigration, or an indiscriminate policy of immigration whether skilled or unskilled (up to open borders), or a policy of strong restrictions on all types of immigration? Should native Europeans, workers in particular, have demanded more of the government and done more in their communities to accommodate the foreigners, guide them, and encourage them to participate more actively in society, to unionize and organize in general?

[Arouet]

I like your way of thinking and approaching this topic, even though I expected something different from the name of the thread.

Generally speaking No, I do not approach skilled and unskilled immigration differently. I see immigrants very welcoming and always put the well-being of the people over the well-being of a nation. Therefor I do not approve of the Gastarbeiter-programme, just like I do not approve of policies like in for example Russia, where the opposite is happening and only the most skilled individuals are let in. If someone wants to immigrate, let him/her, if someone wants to leave, let them leave. Only taking the best leads to braindrain in the country of origin, while only taking the uneducated and not integrating them in society leads to long term problems like in Germany, where even the grandchildren of immigrants way too often don´t identify with the society around them.
Its actually very simple, I just reject the split of the world in nations as a system, if someone wants to move to another place and work/live/become happy there he/she should be allowed to do that without nationalistic acting governments who decide over the further course of their lives based on what they think is best for this construct called "nation", without spending one thought on anything else.
Keep in mind I support the worldwide cultural variety, however I do not think that locking poor people in poor places/countries and calling them "nation" is necessary to do that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There are differences in terms of strategic organizing. But no, radical workers should not play a part in controlling migrant labor and should seek to build solidarity across skilled and unskilled workers (domestic or not).

Being working class means having to change your life to seek employment. This goes for tech workers or industrial workers heading to tech or manufacturing centers and it goes for agricultural workers. The rise of industrial cities is the result of migration. In the US, east coast cities drew migrants from Europe and former slaves from the south. The west coast cities drew (or forcibly transported) Chinese labor as well as internal migrants from the south.

Workers must follow capital to survive, capital needs to draw labor pools. This was true of early English mills bring poor yeomen or displaced agricultural workers from country to town and is true of factories in China that draw migrants from country to cities.

To manage big internal (and external) labor migrations, in all these examples from English country people (subject to laws against master-lessness and vagabonds) to Chinese migrants (who do not get rights, access to education and services, if they leave their home province to get work in a Chinese factory town) capital and states have repressed these laborers. This is to keep them at a lower level of labor and probably due to opportunism--a flood of labor from all over may not have the local roots and networks to resist as much as an established neighborhood or population.

Europe needed labor and to rebuild after WWII and brought in labor from their colonies... sometimes as "citizens" of the empire but always with less rights.

It's in our class interests to have solidarity with our fellow workers and to fight attempts at splitting the class into tiers with different levels or rights.

[willowtooth]

I was quite offended to learn about the post-WWII European migration policy through the decolonization period of 1945-1962. Wait for it; it starts okay, and gets much worse.

After WWII Europe experienced labor shortages and a pressing need for working hands to rebuild all those destroyed cities. The governments of Germany, France, the Netherlands, etc., the solution that they came up with was to bring over "Gastarbeiter," i.e. guest workers, whom they falsely expected to stay only temporarily. The workers came from nearby (former) colonies: Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, etc.

At least in the Netherlands, it was under the initiative of the labor party that agencies were set up in the Maghreb, i.e. Northwest Africa. Their task was to find potential immigrant workers who were not only the least skilled but also the least likely to *become* skilled, least likely to achieve social mobility in Europe and to take up anything *other* than unskilled manual labor. Preference was given to the least educated, the least "intellectually promising" -- people who hadn't completed high school education, people who didn't know any second language besides their native Arabic/Turkish, etc.

Upon arriving in Europe, the immigrant workers were cast adrift to await their fate. No serious efforts were made to accommodate them, integrate them or help them find their place in the new society in any way. The result today is that there are vast isolated communities in Europe, ghettos, ethnic enclaves, cut off from the mainstream of society, impoverished, uneducated, socially immobile, and prone to radicalization -- usually all the wrong kinds of radicalization.

(It might be worth noting here that while this is typically true of the socioeconomic origins of Turks and Northwest Africans in Europe, the opposite is true of the Iranian diaspora, as it was the "cream of society" that fled Iran in the aftermath of the Islamic counterrevolution, in one of the greatest brain drains of recent history.)

* * *

So here's my follow-up question. In such situations, what is in the interests of the global proletariat? Should the native European workers have supported the policy of unskilled immigration, or a policy of skilled immigration, or an indiscriminate policy of immigration whether skilled or unskilled (up to open borders), or a policy of strong restrictions on all types of immigration? Should native Europeans, workers in particular, have demanded more of the government and done more in their communities to accommodate the foreigners, guide them, and encourage them to participate more actively in society, to unionize and organize in general?

Ive never heard of this policy in the netherlands, i can't find anything about it, it certainly isn't still active whatever it was. However it sounds desirable for several reasons. I can imagine it being done as a part of a relief effort. Since after a great disaster wealthy highly skilled laborers are the most likely to flee and at the same time are the most needed, and simultaneously the most likely to be better off in the home country. We should demand similar program from national governments for every world citizen. As you said a brain drain happened in Iran, and arguably goes on currently everyday from poorer countries, now if these northwest africans in the netherlands were "cast aside" as you say they were then they might be dead if they were left in their home country.

So I'm confused as to where this argument came from and is leading since you say

immigrant workers were cast adrift to await their fate. No serious efforts were made to accommodate them, integrate them or help them find their place in the new society in any way. The result today is that there are vast isolated communities in Europe, ghettos, ethnic enclaves, cut off from the mainstream of society, impoverished, uneducated, socially immobile,

Which can be said of every single immigrant community in every country since the beginning of time.

but then you say

and prone to radicalization -- usually all the wrong kinds of radicalization.

This seems like you are making a specific argument against muslims. That muslims in particular can't be allowed to immigrate anywhere, as if these racist dutchmen who can't stand these immigrants and continually persecute them, would be fine with anyother race, its just these muslims that are the problem. The north african ones in particular for some reason, the ones from Iran (land of the aryans) strangely are left out of this logic of yours.

Now there were "Gastarbeiter" programs largely in germany to replace the labor shortage, they weren't technically "low skilled" as they were directly filling a skills shortage. (Which is still a problem in many countries. New zealand faces one of the largest skills shortages in the world right now.) And this one done largely under duress from both Turkey and the USA. I certainly dont have trouble imagining west germans being all that friendly to foreigners right after fall of the 3rd reich, and I seriously doubt this wasn't taken into account when they were moving them in. You make it sound like they were just idiots who took impoverished brown muslim workers from the backroads of Turkey and moved them into the streets of recently de-nazified germany and expected everyone to get along just fine.

So Im really wondering where your getting this argument from, you have not really sourced any thing, but I will say we should support open borders, if anything, your country should accept as many people as they can, and pay the governments of their home countries a stipend for every immigrant they get.

[ckaihatsu]

and prone to radicalization -- usually all the wrong kinds of radicalization.

This seems like you are making a specific argument against muslims. That muslims in particular can't be allowed to immigrate anywhere, as if these racist dutchmen who can't stand these immigrants and continually persecute them, would be fine with anyother race, its just these muslims that are the problem. The north african ones in particular for some reason, the ones from Iran (land of the aryans) strangely are left out of this logic of yours.

I think this is a bit of an overreaction on your part, WT -- we'll see what FH's response is, but I think FH was using the [Muslim] radicalization dynamic as an *example*, rather than a racially-based *targeting* of that demographic.

[Fellow_Human]

So I'm confused as to where this argument came from and is leading since you say

It wasn't an argument for anything, just a genuine question. I tried to describe an example from history that has relevance for our days, and asked what's the best thing to do in a situation such as that.

Which can be said of every single immigrant community in every country since the beginning of time.

Well, no. In the very body of the original post, I mentioned the Iranian diaspora as one counterexample -- but then again, that's because most of it *originates* from more affluent and progressive groups, and not due to action by its host countries.

In terms of socioeconomic status (though there are other measures), most immigrant communities are worse off, sometimes *much* worse off, but some are better off, even better than the native population.

For example, as of 2015, the White American household had a median annual income of $59,698. By contrast, it was $22,368 for the Somali American household, and $100,547 for the Indian American household.

Here's a list of US immigrant communities by country of origin and median household income.

This seems like you are making a specific argument against muslims. That muslims in particular can't be allowed to immigrate anywhere

By no means. I disagree with such religious discrimination. And the religious rights of Western-based Muslims, just as those of any other religious group -- and especially *minority* -- should be respected.

I was only showing the worst way in which it backfired for the European powers to prioritize the exploitation of undereducated foreign labor over long-term concerns.

Of course, beyond that, it's needless to say that as a secularist, I welcome the public weakening of any religion, any religious right wing, firstly of the majority religion of any land -- be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or anything else.

Overall, I agree with Maryam Namazie (who is a communist and an Iranian émigré) that the "multiculturalist" approach is segregationist, ethnocentric, relativist and guilty of unduly pigeonholing heterogeneous groups, and should therefore be ignored in favor of an integrationist approach.

The north african ones in particular for some reason

Because Moroccans, Algerians and Tunisians, as well as people from Turkey, (1) were widely recruited through those Gastarbeiter programs and (2) are among the largest ethnic minorities in the EU today.

the ones from Iran (land of the aryans) strangely are left out of this logic of yours.

For the historical reasons which I outlined.

It was a very specific demographic of Iranians -- educated, urban, secular, highly politicized, politically progressive -- that were most likely to be driven into exile after the counterrevolution of 1979.

It has nothing to do with them being "Aryan." The Lebanese, for example, are similar in this regard (forming a huge diaspora in the course of the 1975-1990 civil war), and they are in no way "Aryan."

[willowtooth]

It wasn't an argument for anything, just a genuine question. I tried to describe an example from history that has relevance for our days, and asked what's the best thing to do in a situation such as that.

What is your answer to your own question? What do you think

Well, no. In the very body of the original post, I mentioned the Iranian diaspora as one counterexample -- but then again, that's because most of it *originates* from more affluent and progressive groups, and not due to action by its host countries.

In terms of socioeconomic status (though there are other measures), most immigrant communities are worse off, sometimes *much* worse off, but some are better off, even better than the native population.

For example, as of 2015, the White American household had a median annual income of $59,698. By contrast, it was $22,368 for the Somali American household, and $100,547 for the Indian American household.
Here's a list of US immigrant communities by country of origin and median household income.

This can be easily explained, the somali immigrants come over as refugees with nothing but their own clothes, Indian's however come over by plane they are usually wealthy and upper middle class students. hispanics come over by foot usually for field hand work. So the son of a wealthy indian who comes to America to become a doctor would obviously be better off than an illiterate Haitian who can barely find work at minimum wage? The indian doctor would be better off, but not better off than a white american student of a similar financial background, he may still be persecuted for his looks, his religion, he may suffer from culture shock, or whatever. But you can't say that indians are better off in America than the native population. If poor indians came over by the millions they wouldn't be much better off than the somalis. The most you can say is that wealthy immigrants do better in their new host country than poor immigrants. which shouldn't be shock to anyone and that culture has nothing to do with it. In fact that list shows just the opposite as white christian english speaking countries would be on the top of that list if culture was so important.

By no means. I disagree with such religious discrimination. And the religious rights of Western-based Muslims, just as those of any other religious group -- and especially *minority* -- should be respected.

I was only showing the worst way in which it backfired for the European powers to prioritize the exploitation of undereducated foreign labor over long-term concerns.

Of course, beyond that, it's needless to say that as a secularist, I welcome the public weakening of any religion, any religious right wing, firstly of the majority religion of any land -- be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or anything else.

Well im still unclear as to how it backfired, we are talking about voluntary workers, who were invited to come and could leave at anytime correct? So who exactly did it backfire for?

Overall, I agree with Maryam Namazie (who is a communist and an Iranian émigré) that the "multiculturalist" approach is segregationist, ethnocentric, relativist and guilty of unduly pigeonholing heterogeneous groups, and should therefore be ignored in favor of an integrationist approach.

What is the difference between multiculturalist and intergrationist?

Because Moroccans, Algerians and Tunisians, as well as people from Turkey, (1) were widely recruited through those Gastarbeiter programs and (2) are among the largest ethnic minorities in the EU today.

do you have a source for this?

[Fellow_Human]

What is your answer to your own question? What do you think

I'd say no, and am generally for free movement. But this is not some small, simple issue, and I'd be careful not to ignore nuance.

This can be easily explained, the somali immigrants come over as refugees with nothing but their own clothes, Indian's however come over by plane they are usually wealthy and upper middle class students. hispanics come over by foot usually for field hand work. [. . . C]ulture has nothing to do with it. In fact that list shows just the opposite as white christian english speaking countries would be on the top of that list if culture was so important.

Well, I never *suggested* that it had anything to do with culture.

It's explained by various factors, including the ones you described. Also, the US immigration policy requires a cap on immigration from each country, and the number is absolute rather than a percentage, so the people of larger countries such as India are disadvantaged. For them, the process is more selective.

After Indians, the Taiwanese are the second highest earning immigrant minority in the US. In Southeast Asia, the Taiwanese/Chinese and Indians (perhaps Punjabis in particular) are affluent minorities.

India has a very long, multi-century history of trade with Southeast Asia. Indonesia was Hinduized before it was Islamized! The Hindu caste system has an entire commercial "middle caste," namely Vaishya.

In Mainland China, the Chinese are mostly poor, but not so elsewhere. Singapore is an ethnically Chinese city in the middle of the Malay Archipelago. The Taiwanese had a well-established comprador relationship with the British Empire. One need only look up "Baba-Nyonya."

So the son of a wealthy indian who comes to America to become a doctor would obviously be better off than an illiterate Haitian who can barely find work at minimum wage? The indian doctor would be better off, but not better off than a white american student of a similar financial background, he may still be persecuted for his looks, his religion, he may suffer from culture shock, or whatever. But you can't say that indians are better off in America than the native population. If poor indians came over by the millions they wouldn't be much better off than the somalis. The most you can say is that wealthy immigrants do better in their new host country than poor immigrants. which shouldn't be shock to anyone

Of course. That's why I said "though there are other measures." Just because the average member of this or that community has an income higher than the national average, that doesn't mean that members of this community don't have to deal with all the same stressors of being an ethnic minority or of not being native-born, or that there are no poor members of this group.

Poor White kids are less likely to go to prison than rich Black kids. I've even heard that race is a better predictor than income of whether a family ends up living in a polluted area.

Well im still unclear as to how it backfired, we are talking about voluntary workers, who were invited to come and could leave at anytime correct? So who exactly did it backfire for?

For not making efforts to integrate the immigrants. They expected them to leave. There's a lot the government can do; for example, not clustering affordable housing all into ghettos but spreading it around different neighborhoods.

What is the difference between multiculturalist and intergrationist?

The multiculturalist approach falsely assumes a homogeneity of immigrant communities and therefore ignores their internal differences and conflicts. This mistake is common both on the right and on the left -- or at least the Western left.

This episode of Naan-o Gole Sorkh (Pers. "Bread & Roses") discusses the topic (1:30--23:56), with the bulk of it featuring an interview with Caroline Fourest.

do you have a source for this?

For both? It's kind of hard to get data because the official French census, for example, doesn't track ethnicity.

This source says, "There were 2.4 million Romanian citizens living outside of Romania within the EU-27 and 2.3 million Turkish citizens living in the EU-27; each of these two groups of people accounted for 7.0% of all foreigners living in the EU-27 in 2012. The third largest group was Moroccans (1.9 million people, or 5.6% of all foreigners)."

And this source says, "In 2011, the largest groups that acquired citizenship of an EU27 Member State were citizens of Morocco (64 300 persons, of which 55% acquired citizenship of France or Spain), Turkey (48 900, 58% acquired German citizenship), Ecuador (33 700, 95% acquired Spanish citizenship) and India (31 700, 83% acquired British citizenship)"

As for Turks and Moroccans being widely recruited by Gastarbeiter programs, I know this by word of mouth (from more than one person). The Wikipedia page for "Gastarbeiter" cites the following source, but it's in German: Gerling, Vera: Soziale Dienste für zugewanderte Senioren/innen: Erfahrungen aus Deutschland, ISBN 978-3-8311-2803-7, S.78.

[Radical Atom]

I think this piece is pretty relevant, despite the fact that refugees are a mix of mostly skilled labor and unskilled labor:

In her classic study On Death and Dying, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross proposed the famous scheme of the five stages of how we react upon learning that we have a terminal illness: denial (one simply refuses to accept the fact: “This can’t be happening, not to me.”); anger(which explodes when we can no longer deny the fact: “How can this happen to me?”); bargaining (the hope we can somehow postpone or diminish the fact: “Just let me live to see my children graduate.”); depression(libidinal disinvestment: “I'm going to die, so why bother with anything?”); acceptance (“I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it.”). Later, Kübler-Ross applied these stages to any form of catastrophic personal loss (joblessness, death of a loved one, divorce, drug addiction), and also emphasized that they do not necessarily come in the same order, nor are all five stages experienced by all patients.
Is the reaction of the public opinion and authorities in Western Europe to the flow of refugees from Africa and Middle East also not a similar combination of disparate reactions? There was denial, now diminishing: “It’s not so serious, let’s just ignore it.” There is anger: “Refugees are a threat to our way of life, hiding among them Muslim fundamentalists, they should be stopped at any price!” There is bargaining: “OK, let’s establish quotas and support refugee camps in their own countries!” There is depression: “We are lost, Europe is turning into Europa-stan!” What is lacking is acceptance, which, in this case, would have meant a consistent all-European plan of how to deal with the refugees.
So what to do with hundreds of thousands of desperate people who wait in the north of Africa, escaping from war and hunger, trying to cross the sea and find refuge in Europe?
There are two main answers. Left liberals express their outrage at how Europe is allowing thousands to drown in Mediterranean. Their plea is that Europe should show solidarity by opening its doors widely. Anti-immigrant populists claim we should protect our way of life and let the Africans solve their own problems.
Which solution is better? To paraphrase Stalin, they are both worse. Those who advocate open borders are the greater hypocrites: Secretly, they know very well this will never happen, since it would trigger an instant populist revolt in Europe. They play the Beautiful Soul which feels superior to the corrupted world while secretly participating in it.
The anti-immigrant populist also know very well that, left to themselves, Africans will not succeed in changing their societies. Why not? Because we, North Americans and Western Europeans, are preventing them. It was the European intervention in Libya which threw the country in chaos. It was the U.S. attack on Iraq which created the conditions for the rise of ISIS. The ongoing civil war in the Central African Republic is not just an explosion of ethnic hatred; France and China are fighting for the control of oil resources through their proxies.
But the clearest case of our guilt is today’s Congo, which is again emerging as the African “heart of darkness.” Back in 2001, a UN investigation into the illegal exploitation of natural resources in Congo found that its internal conflicts are mainly about access to, control of, and trade in five key mineral resources: coltan, diamonds, copper, cobalt and gold. Beneath the façade of ethnic warfare, we thus discern the workings of global capitalism. Congo no longer exists as a united state; it is a multiplicity of territories ruled by local warlords controlling their patch of land with an army which, as a rule, includes drugged children. Each of these warlords has business links to a foreign company or corporation exploiting the mining wealth in the region. The irony is that many of these minerals are used in high-tech products such as laptops and cell phones.
Remove the foreign high-tech companies from the equation and the whole narrative of ethnic warfare fueled by old passions falls apart. This is where we should begin if we really want to help the Africans and stop the flow of refugees. The first thing is to recall that most of refugees come from the “failed states”—where public authority is more or less inoperative, at least in large regions—Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Congo, etc. This disintegration of state power is not a local phenomenon but a result of international economy and politics—in some cases, like Libya and Iraq, a direct outcome of Western intervention. It is clear that the rise of these “failed states” is not just an unintended misfortune but also one of the ways the great powers exert their economic colonialism. One should also note that the seeds of the Middle East’s “failed states” are to be sought in the arbitrary borders drawn after World War I by UK and France and thereby creating a series of “artificial” states. By way of uniting Sunnis in Syria and Iraq, ISIS is ultimately bringing together what was torn apart by the colonial masters.
One cannot help noting the fact that some not-too-rich Middle Eastern countries(Turkey, Egypt, Iraq) are much more open to the refugees than the really wealthy ones (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar). Saudi Arabia and Emirates received no refugees, although they border countries in crisis and are culturally much closer to the refugees (who are mostly Muslims) than Europe. Saudi Arabia even returned some Muslim refugees from Somalia. Is this because Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist theocracy which can tolerate no foreign intruders? Yes, but one should also bear in mind that this same Saudi Arabia is economically fully integrated into the West. From the economic standpoint, are Saudi Arabia and Emirates, states that totally depend on their oil revenues, not pure outposts of Western capital? The international community should put full pressure on countries like Saudi Arabia Kuwait and Qatar to do their duty in accepting a large contingent of the refugees. Furthermore, by way of supporting the anti-Assad rebels, Saudi Arabia is largely responsible for the situation in Syria. And the same holds in different degrees for many other countries—we are all in it.

A new slavery

Another feature shared by these rich countries is the rise of a new slavery. While capitalism legitimizes itself as the economic system that implies and furthers personal freedom (as a condition of market exchange), it generated slavery on its own, as a part of its own dynamics: although slavery became almost extinct at the end of the Middle Ages, it exploded in colonies from early modernity till the American Civil War. And one can risk the hypothesis that today, with the new epoch of global capitalism, a new era of slavery is also arising. Although it is no longer a direct legal status of enslaved persons, slavery acquires a multitude of new forms: millions of immigrant workers in the Saudi peninsula (Emirates, Qatar, etc.) who are de facto deprived of elementary civil rights and freedoms; the total control over millions of workers in Asian sweatshops often directly organized as concentration camps; massive use of forced labor in the exploitation of natural resources in many central African states (Congo, etc.). But we don’t have to look so far. On December 1, 2013, at least seven people diedwhen a Chinese-owned clothing factory in an industrial zone in the Italian town of Prato, 19 kilometers from the center of Florence, burned down, killing workers trapped in an improvised cardboard dormitory built onsite. The accident occurred in the Macrolotto industrial district of the town, known for its garment factories. Thousands more Chinese immigrants were believed to be living in the city illegally, working up to 16 hours per day for a network of wholesalers and workshops turning out cheap clothing.
We thus do not have to look for the miserable life of new slaves far away in the suburbs of Shanghai (or in Dubai and Qatar) and hypocritically criticize China—slavery can be right here, within our house, we just don't see it (or, rather, pretend not to see it). This new de facto apartheid, this systematic explosion of the number of different forms of de facto slavery, is not a deplorable accident but a structural necessity of today's global capitalism.
But are the refugees entering Europe not also offering themselves to become cheap precarious workforce, in many cases at the expense of local workers, who react to this threat by joining anti-immigrant political parties? For most of the refugees, this will be the reality of their dream realized.
The refugees are not just escaping from their war-torn homelands; they are also possessed by a certain dream. We can see again and again on our screens. Refugees in southern Italy make it clear that they don’t want to stay there—they mostly want to live in Scandinavian countries. And what about thousands camping around Calais who are not satisfied with France but are ready to risk their lives to enter the United Kingdom? And what about tens of thousands of refugees in Balkan countries who want to reach Germany at least? They declare this dream as their unconditional right, and demand from European authorities not only proper food and medical care but also the transportation to the place of their choice.
There is something enigmatically utopian in this impossible demand: as if it is the duty of Europe to realize their dream, a dream which, incidentally, is out of reach to most of Europeans. How many South and East Europeans would also not prefer to live in Norway? One can observe here the paradox of utopia: precisely when people find themselves in poverty, distress and danger, and one would expect that they would be satisfied by a minimum of safety and well-being, the absolute utopia explodes. The hard lesson for the refugees is that “there is no Norway,” even in Norway. They will have to learn to censor their dreams: Instead of chasing them in reality, they should focus on changing reality.

A Left taboo

One of the great Left taboos will have to be broken here: the notion that the protection of one’s specific way of life is in itself a proto-Fascist or racist category. If we don’t abandon this notion, we open up the way for the anti-immigrant wave which thrives all around Europe. (Even in Denmark, the anti-immigrant Democratic party for the first time overtook Social-Democrats and became the strongest party in the country.) Addressing concerns of ordinary people about the threats to their specific way of life can be done also from the Left. Bernie Sanders is a living proof of that! The true threat to our communal ways of life are not foreigners but the dynamic of global capitalism: In the United States alone, the economic changes of the last several decades did more to destroy communal life in small cities than all the immigrants together.
The standard Left-liberal reaction to this is, of course, an explosion of arrogant moralism: The moment we give any credence to the “protection of our way of life” motif, we already compromise our position, since we propose a more modest version of what anti-immigrant populists openly advocate. Is this not the story of last decades? Centrist parties reject the open racism of anti-immigrant populists, but they simultaneously profess to “understand the concerns” of ordinary people and enact a more “rational” version of the same politics.
But while this contains a kernel of truth, the moralistic complaints—“Europe lost empathy, it is indifferent towards the suffering of others,” etc.—are merely the obverse of the anti-immigrant brutality. Both stances share the presupposition, which is in no way self-evident, that a defense of one’s own way of life excludes ethical universalism. One should thus avoid getting caught into the liberal game of “how much tolerance can we afford.” Should we tolerate if they prevent their children going to state schools, if they arrange marriages of their children, if they brutalize gays among their ranks? At this level, of course, we are never tolerant enough, or we are always already too tolerant, neglecting the rights of women, etc. The only way to break out of this deadlock is to move beyond mere tolerance or respect of others to a common struggle.
One must thus broaden the perspective: Refugees are the price of global economy. In our global world, commodities circulate freely, but not people: new forms of apartheid are emerging. The topic of porous walls, of the threat of being inundated by foreigners, is strictly immanent to global capitalism, it is an index of what is false about capitalist globalization. While large migrations are a constant feature of human history, their main cause in modern history are colonial expansions: Prior to colonization, the Global South mostly consisted of self-sufficient and relatively isolated local communities. It was colonial occupation and slave trading that threw this way of life off the rails and renewed large-scale migrations.
Europe is not the only place experiencing a wave of immigration. In South Africa, there are over a million refugees from Zimbabwe, who are exposed to attacks from local poor for stealing their jobs. And there will be more, not just because of armed conflicts, but because of new “rogue states,” economic crisis, natural disasters (exacerbated by climate change), man-made disasters, etc. It is now known that, after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown, Japanese authorities thought for a moment that the entire Tokyo area—20 millions of people—will have to be evacuated. Where, in this case, should they have gone? Under what conditions? Should they be given a piece of land or just be dispersed around the world? What if northern Siberia becomes more inhabitable and arable, while vast sub-Saharan regions become too dry to support the large populations that live there? How will the exchange of population be organized? When similar things happened in the past, social changes occurred in a wild spontaneous way, with violence and destruction (recall the great migrations at the end of the Roman empire)—such a prospect is catastrophic in today’s conditions, with arms of mass destruction available to many nations.
The main lesson to be learned is therefore that humankind should get ready to live in a more “plastic” and nomadic way: Rapid local and global changes in environment may require unheard-of, large-scale social transformations. One thing is clear: National sovereignty will have to be radically redefined and new levels of global cooperation invented. And what about the immense changes in economy and conservation due to new weather patterns or water and energy shortages? Through what processes of decision will such changes be decided and executed? A lot of taboos will have to be broken here, and a set of complex measures undertaken.
First, Europe will have to reassert its full commitment to provide means for the dignified survival of the refugees. There should be no compromise here: Large migrations are our future, and the only alternative to such commitment is a renewed barbarism (what some call “clash of civilizations”).
Second, as a necessary consequence of this commitment, Europe should organize itself and impose clear rules and regulations. State control of the stream of refugees should be enforced through a vast administrative network encompassing all of the European Union (to prevent local barbarisms like those of the authorities in Hungary or Slovakia). Refugees should be reassured of their safety, but it should also be made clear to them that they have to accept the area of living allocated to them by European authorities, plus they have to respect the laws and social norms of European states: No tolerance of religious, sexist or ethnic violence on any side, no right to impose onto others one’s own way of life or religion, respect of every individual’s freedom to abandon his/her communal customs, etc. If a woman chooses to cover her face, her choice should be respected, but if she chooses not to cover it, her freedom to do so has to be guaranteed. Yes, such a set of rules privileges the Western European way of life, but it is a price for European hospitality. These rules should be clearly stated and enforced, by repressive measures (against foreign fundamentalists as well as against our own anti-immigrant racists) if necessary.
Third, a new type of international interventions will have to be invented: military and economic interventions that avoid neocolonial traps. What about UN forces guaranteeing peace in Libya, Syria or Congo? Since such interventions are closely associated with neocolonialism, extreme safeguards will be needed. The cases of Iraq, Syria and Libya demonstrate how the wrong type of intervention (in Iraq and Libya) as well as non-intervention (in Syria, where, beneath the appearance of non-intervention, external powers from Russia to Saudi Arabia and the U.S.? are fully engaged) end up in the same deadlock.
Fourth, the most difficult and important task is a radical economic change that should abolish social conditions that create refugees. The ultimate cause of refugees is today’s global capitalism itself and its geopolitical games, and if we do not transform it radically, immigrants from Greece and other European countries will soon join African refugees. When I was young, such an organized attempt to regulate commons was called Communism. Maybe we should reinvent it. Maybe, this is, in the long term, our only solution.
Is all this a utopia? Maybe, but if we don’t do it, then we are really lost, and we deserve to be.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/1838...bal-capitalism

Might elaborate later but to answer clearly to the OP's question: No I don't.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

I was quite offended to learn about the post-WWII European migration policy through the decolonization period of 1945-1962. Wait for it; it starts okay, and gets much worse.

After WWII Europe experienced labor shortages and a pressing need for working hands to rebuild all those destroyed cities. The governments of Germany, France, the Netherlands, etc., the solution that they came up with was to bring over "Gastarbeiter," i.e. guest workers, whom they falsely expected to stay only temporarily. The workers came from nearby (former) colonies: Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, etc.

At least in the Netherlands, it was under the initiative of the labor party that agencies were set up in the Maghreb, i.e. Northwest Africa. Their task was to find potential immigrant workers who were not only the least skilled but also the least likely to *become* skilled, least likely to achieve social mobility in Europe and to take up anything *other* than unskilled manual labor. Preference was given to the least educated, the least "intellectually promising" -- people who hadn't completed high school education, people who didn't know any second language besides their native Arabic/Turkish, etc.

Upon arriving in Europe, the immigrant workers were cast adrift to await their fate. No serious efforts were made to accommodate them, integrate them or help them find their place in the new society in any way. The result today is that there are vast isolated communities in Europe, ghettos, ethnic enclaves, cut off from the mainstream of society, impoverished, uneducated, socially immobile, and prone to radicalization -- usually all the wrong kinds of radicalization.

(It might be worth noting here that while this is typically true of the socioeconomic origins of Turks and Northwest Africans in Europe, the opposite is true of the Iranian diaspora, as it was the "cream of society" that fled Iran in the aftermath of the Islamic counterrevolution, in one of the greatest brain drains of recent history.)

* * *

So here's my follow-up question. In such situations, what is in the interests of the global proletariat? Should the native European workers have supported the policy of unskilled immigration, or a policy of skilled immigration, or an indiscriminate policy of immigration whether skilled or unskilled (up to open borders), or a policy of strong restrictions on all types of immigration? Should native Europeans, workers in particular, have demanded more of the government and done more in their communities to accommodate the foreigners, guide them, and encourage them to participate more actively in society, to unionize and organize in general?

can you provide a source for the agencies searching for least educated etc?

[Fellow_Human]

can you provide a source for the agencies searching for least educated etc?

Not that particular bit, no, unfortunately. That was word of mouth. I can check with the person I heard it from, though.

[Fellow_Human]

So I asked her, and she saw it in a documentary on Dutch national television, the NPO channel. It featured recording of the interviews. Here's one.

She also clarified a few things. They concentrated on rural areas. They didn't accept anyone who had over 6 years of primary education. And they didn't accept those who spoke French or English. They basically chose people who couldn't stand up for their rights.

[willowtooth]

I'd say no, and am generally for free movement. But this is not some small, simple issue, and I'd be careful not to ignore nuance.


Well, I never *suggested* that it had anything to do with culture.

It's explained by various factors, including the ones you described. Also, the US immigration policy requires a cap on immigration from each country, and the number is absolute rather than a percentage, so the people of larger countries such as India are disadvantaged. For them, the process is more selective.

After Indians, the Taiwanese are the second highest earning immigrant minority in the US. In Southeast Asia, the Taiwanese/Chinese and Indians (perhaps Punjabis in particular) are affluent minorities.

India has a very long, multi-century history of trade with Southeast Asia. Indonesia was Hinduized before it was Islamized! The Hindu caste system has an entire commercial "middle caste," namely Vaishya.

In Mainland China, the Chinese are mostly poor, but not so elsewhere. Singapore is an ethnically Chinese city in the middle of the Malay Archipelago. The Taiwanese had a well-established comprador relationship with the British Empire. One need only look up "Baba-Nyonya."


Of course. That's why I said "though there are other measures." Just because the average member of this or that community has an income higher than the national average, that doesn't mean that members of this community don't have to deal with all the same stressors of being an ethnic minority or of not being native-born, or that there are no poor members of this group.

Poor White kids are less likely to go to prison than rich Black kids. I've even heard that race is a better predictor than income of whether a family ends up living in a polluted area.


For not making efforts to integrate the immigrants. They expected them to leave. There's a lot the government can do; for example, not clustering affordable housing all into ghettos but spreading it around different neighborhoods.


The multiculturalist approach falsely assumes a homogeneity of immigrant communities and therefore ignores their internal differences and conflicts. This mistake is common both on the right and on the left -- or at least the Western left.

This episode of Naan-o Gole Sorkh (Pers. "Bread & Roses") discusses the topic (1:30--23:56), with the bulk of it featuring an interview with Caroline Fourest.


For both? It's kind of hard to get data because the official French census, for example, doesn't track ethnicity.

This source says, "There were 2.4 million Romanian citizens living outside of Romania within the EU-27 and 2.3 million Turkish citizens living in the EU-27; each of these two groups of people accounted for 7.0% of all foreigners living in the EU-27 in 2012. The third largest group was Moroccans (1.9 million people, or 5.6% of all foreigners)."

And this source says, "In 2011, the largest groups that acquired citizenship of an EU27 Member State were citizens of Morocco (64 300 persons, of which 55% acquired citizenship of France or Spain), Turkey (48 900, 58% acquired German citizenship), Ecuador (33 700, 95% acquired Spanish citizenship) and India (31 700, 83% acquired British citizenship)"

As for Turks and Moroccans being widely recruited by Gastarbeiter programs, I know this by word of mouth (from more than one person). The Wikipedia page for "Gastarbeiter" cites the following source, but it's in German: Gerling, Vera: Soziale Dienste für zugewanderte Senioren/innen: Erfahrungen aus Deutschland, ISBN 978-3-8311-2803-7, S.78.

alright but basically your saying the largest immigrant communities in the EU are from the countries that directly border it. That doesn't back up your earlier statement that the majority of minorities in europe are there because these Gastarbeiter programs. the only stats I can find myself say at the most 4 million turks in germany can trace their ancestry to these programs, that's 4 million out of 700 million europeans so about 0.5% of the population. from a country that borders europe and has always had historical migration to these countries. So called native Germans actually genetically identify more with middle easterners than the english and the spanish. So whenever your talking about immigration you have to take into account that you are creating a new physical barrier against natural immigration that has existed for millennia, the germans did not fall out of the sky the entire country was populated by migration mostly from the middle east.

you also have not really defined what the difference between multiculturalism and integrationism is, what would a person who believes in one but disagrees with the other sound like? these are words are practically synonyms

[Fellow_Human]

That doesn't back up your earlier statement that the majority of minorities in europe are there because these Gastarbeiter programs.

I don't believe I've ever made that statement.

you also have not really defined what the difference between multiculturalism and integrationism is, what would a person who believes in one but disagrees with the other sound like? these are words are practically synonyms

There's a *lot* to be said about it, but let me tell you, *one* thing that goes hand in hand with it, I think, is that people tend to forget that freedom of religion is also freedom *from* religion. A right to wear hijab, for example, is no more of a right of a disadvantaged minority than the right *not* to wear hijab, not to do salat, not to fast on Ramadan, etc. (Ramadan mubarak, by the way), especially in the face of pressure or worse from observant relatives and community members. As the atheist son of strictly observant, religiously obsessed Orthodox Jews, I can sympathize with that.

[willowtooth]

I don't believe I've ever made that statement.



There's a *lot* to be said about it, but let me tell you, *one* thing that goes hand in hand with it, I think, is that people tend to forget that freedom of religion is also freedom *from* religion. A right to wear hijab, for example, is no more of a right of a disadvantaged minority than the right *not* to wear hijab, not to do salat, not to fast on Ramadan, etc. (Ramadan mubarak, by the way), especially in the face of pressure or worse from observant relatives and community members. As the atheist son of strictly observant, religiously obsessed Orthodox Jews, I can sympathize with that.

Hijab bans are largely used in white christian countries as a form of religious persecution and racism. I do know a "liberal" woman who actually fights for hijab bans because she genuinely believes its a feminist issue ive had that debate with her more than once to say the least but it's really just a form of racism. There is a difference between britain or the USA enacting a hijab ban and saudi arabia doing so. One is struggle against your own society the other is looking down on a conquered imperialist victim as the savage.

The war which has no name (I dont know why we are not calling it world war 3) has certainly brought together many western and middle eastern civil rights groups and this leads to a lot of leftists being simply confused as to what qualifies as civil rights. Certainly FGM is something that we all could agree should be banned wherever you are. This issue brings together many different leftists from the middle east, europe, africa and north america.

But then you get "crossed wires" so to speak, in that these same women and these groups are all fighting against FGM, they tal togtehr they read the same articles and they hear the hijab is bad and they hear all the horror stories about the hijab and how its really used to turn them into prostitutes, cover up marital abuse, make them afraid to speak in public, the psychological removal of identity etc etc etc. This of course attracts many right wing christians as well who want to abolish islam altogether and they use this too attack them, this then leads to noble savage theory, where leftists and progressives after hearing the abuse leveled at this impoverished minority they think they are not "really savage" but they are just "misunderstood" and are more at one with nature or whatever. What I would really like them to do is work towards banning topless women in christian countries, this would do a hell of a lot more to help islamic women who are forced to wear a face covering hijab in public, much more than banning their religious headress and forcing people justify this custom which such nonsense arguments as freedom of religion, we dont force women to cover their nipples and defend it with "religious freedom" so we shouldn't be defending hijabs with "religous freedom" arguments either...... and we dont respond with manning shirts for women either. although maybe we should?

So all the world is moving progressively forward in a way. I was watching a documentary the other day (im trying to find the clip online maybe someone could help me) and they were showing a amazonian tribe listening to opera music on a television and they never saw a television before. And theyre just listening to singer on a TV and they are not all that shocked or amazed but after they turned it off and they asked them what they thought, one of them started to talk about the old tribes, the uncivilized tribes who practice cannibalism and how they would never appreciate this kind of thing. So everyone is moving progressively forward to a degree