nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Recently there have been a rash of immigration threads on UK P&P and one suspects that the motivation behind starting such threads isn't done entirely for reasons of proper discussion. Some of those starting such threads claim that they are not "anti-immigrant" but are against the idea of so-called" economic migration". However when one unpacks what the thread-starter has posted, it becomes clear that they have some rather quaint ideas regarding capitalism, borders, nation-states and migration that verges on the xenophobic. Some posters will claim that they are "internationalists" but will maintain that "economic migration" is wrong and that tighter controls should be imposed at borders and people should be prevented from emigrating, but they offer no solutions to the 'problem'.
For me, there appears to be two types of internationalism: there is one version that works to preserve the concept of the nation-state and, rather than working for the abolition of states and borders, works within a capitalistic framework and stresses "co-operation" between nation-states. There is another form, to which I would subscribe, that maintains that the nation-state is part of the problem and borders need to come down for the sake of world peace and freedom. The former embraces the classic liberal notion of "free trade", while the latter embraces "fair trade".
Those who call for greater "border controls" while calling themselves "socialists" ignore the bigger picture: namely the way in which a country's markets can be dominated by a larger global power in the name of "free trade". Economic migration is caused by the effect of neo-liberal economic policies that have been imposed on that country by the US. To blame immigrants for the economic malaise of a particular nation-state is nothing more or less than scapegoating.
For me, there appears to be two types of internationalism: there is one version that works to preserve the concept of the nation-state and, rather than working for the abolition of states and borders, works within a capitalistic framework and stresses "co-operation" between nation-states. There is another form, to which I would subscribe, that maintains that the nation-state is part of the problem and borders need to come down for the sake of world peace and freedom. The former embraces the classic liberal notion of "free trade", while the latter embraces "fair trade".
Those who call for greater "border controls" while calling themselves "socialists" ignore the bigger picture: namely the way in which a country's markets can be dominated by a larger global power in the name of "free trade". Economic migration is caused by the effect of neo-liberal economic policies that have been imposed on that country by the US. To blame immigrants for the economic malaise of a particular nation-state is nothing more or less than scapegoating.
you fool. 98% if people who support border controls are racist I suppose.
