Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??

[hibee]

it has been said by others tho, throughout the thread. It is what the thread is notionally about.

Well, as you acknowledge yourself it was an extremely minor feature of your campaign. If you really believe most workers wouldn't have a problem with the idea of no immigration controls you really are living in fantasy land.

 

[Epicurus]

What does all that mean in concrete terms?

Institutional racism is that which, covertly or overtly, resides in the policies, procedures, operations and culture of public or private institutions - reinforcing individual prejudices and being reinforced by them in turn.

It means what is says

 

[belboid]

well, no one objected, so perhaps it is much less of an issue than is made out - when the issues that actually matter are taken up.

THAT is my point.

So, immigration, is irrelevant.

 

[hibee]

well, no one objected, so perhaps it is much less of an issue than is made out - when the issues that actually matter are taken up.

THAT is my point.

So, immigration, is irrelevant.

What an absolute joke.

Why is the BNP vote rocketing towards a million? Why does Labour feel it has to show it is "tough" on immigration and asylum? Why does it win the Tories votes? Why does so much of the popular press find it a subject that sells papers? Why is it the political subject I hear discussed most frequently in my workplace and in the pub?

Oh, but you got 14% in Sheffield so it's irrelevant.

 

[tbaldwin]

Recently there has been some debate about whether the official version of anti racism is working, but in the main the left are so terrified of engaging with the subject that they fall back on a definition of anti racism that is in fact liberal, anti socialist and devoid of a class analysis. .

Excellent post that summed up the difference between Socialists living in the here and now. And those with Liberal attitudes from the past.

 

[tbaldwin]

So, immigration, is irrelevant.

Spoken like a true Liberal.

 

[belboid]

no idiot, the point is that your 'responses' consisted of 'you're not living in the real world' and whenever any point was made that contradicted your preconception it was dismissed as irrelevant. To be honest, I should just have said 'you're irrelevant'.

 

[belboid]

Spoken like a true Liberal.

ooh you're so big and clever. try and comne up (that is, nick off someone brighter than you, not hard) with a new insult, youy are getting even more tedious.

 

[hibee]

no idiot, the point is that your 'responses' consisted of 'you're not living in the real world' and whenever any point was made that contradicted your preconception it was dismissed as irrelevant. To be honest, I should just have said 'you're irrelevant'.

What would be these devastating responses to my argument? That you got 14% in Sheffield by, um, barely mentioning the issue?

What a fucking joke.

 

[belboid]

as opposed to mindless endless repetition of 'if you think that you're living in cloud cuckoo land'. you appear unaware of what the word 'argument' even means.

 

[LLETSA]

Institutional racism is that which, covertly or overtly, resides in the policies, procedures, operations and culture of public or private institutions - reinforcing individual prejudices and being reinforced by them in turn.

It means what is says

I was referring more to when you talked abstractly about 'confronting institutional racism head on'. But I also hoped that you'd give concrete examples of institutional racism.

 

[hibee]

as opposed to mindless endless repetition of 'if you think that you're living in cloud cuckoo land'. you appear unaware of what the word 'argument' even means.

My understanding of argument is that you back your point up with relevant facts. Not bizarre leaps of logic like "we got 14% of the vote in sheffield by barely mentioning immigration, therefore it is irrelevant".

I've just given you a list of reasons why it very much is not.

 

[tbaldwin]

ooh you're so big and clever. try and comne up (that is, nick off someone brighter than you, not hard) with a new insult, youy are getting even more tedious.

So do you still think its OK for the west to take the skilled workers that poorer countries need most?

 

[mk12]

So do you still think its OK for the west to take the skilled workers that poorer countries need most?

If I had a pound for every time you said that...

 

[belboid]

My understanding of argument is that you back your point up with relevant facts. Not bizarre leaps of logic like "we got 14% of the vote in sheffield by barely mentioning immigration, therefore it is irrelevant".

I've just given you a list of reasons why it very much is not.

good, that bit was an attempt to get you to put an argument forward, tbh (and maybe to just get tb to fuck off,sill;y idea that one granted). I aint so dumb ass to think imigration is really irrelevant - however my real point is that if one actually campaigns on what are the issues that do affect working-class people directly, the relevance of immigration falls massively, as it is not a central issue in decreasing w-c living standards.

 

[tbaldwin]

If I had a pound for every time you said that...

Worth saying again and again matt. Because its at the heart of the issue and is being ignored by people who think there socialists.
I find it shocking that people can still ignore the effects migration has internationally and stick to Liberal ideas that are just plain shit.

 

[Epicurus]

I was referring more to when you talked abstractly about 'confronting institutional racism head on'. But I also hoped that you'd give concrete examples of institutional racism.

Well I could search the internet to find you 1000's of examples of institutional racism, but I think you could do that for yourself.

With regard to “confronting institutional racism head on” that would be an individual choice depending on the skills and or support of the individual, wouldn’t it?

 

[tbaldwin]

good, that bit was an attempt to get you to put an argument forward, tbh (and maybe to just get tb to fuck off,sill;y idea that one granted). I aint so dumb ass to think imigration is really irrelevant - however my real point is that if one actually campaigns on what are the issues that do affect working-class people directly, the relevance of immigration falls massively, as it is not a central issue in decreasing w-c living standards.

Working Class people are directly affected because they are competing for Jobs and Housing.
The fact that so many so called Socialists fail to understand this shows their Class politics for what they are, a total joke.

 

[LLETSA]

my real point is that if one actually campaigns on what are the issues that do affect working-class people directly, the relevance of immigration falls massively, as it is not a central issue in decreasing w-c living standards.

I agree with that. However, to be consistent, the left should also drop its obsession with bringing everything back to the issue of race. It has long been said, by the IWCA and others, that the more you insistent on referring to race, the more it becomes an issue, and that, in the end, this approach alienates the white working class, a section of which will be, as we have seen, only too ready to listen to the BNP-an organisation that is better at racialising every issue than the left is.

 

[belboid]

fuck me! I agree with that as well!

 

[Epicurus]

So do you still think its OK for the west to take the skilled workers that poorer countries need most?

But is it right to deign people from "poorer countries" the chance to improve their life and the lives of their families by stopping them taking jobs in richer countries for which they are qualified and there is a vacancy?

Also the answer to your question imo is; it depends on how they compansate the countries where they recrute from, doesn't it?

 

[LLETSA]

Well I could search the internet to find you 1000's of examples of institutional racism, but I think you could do that for yourself.

With regard to “confronting institutional racism head on” that would be an individual choice depending on the skills and or support of the individual, wouldn’t it?

I was hoping that you'd explain what you understand to be institutional racism and why campaigning against it should be a priority.

This is important, because to 'confront it head on' would take a hell of a lot more than 'individual choice'. Against powerful institutions, the individual can do very little.

 

[hibee]

good, that bit was an attempt to get you to put an argument forward, tbh (and maybe to just get tb to fuck off,sill;y idea that one granted). I aint so dumb ass to think imigration is really irrelevant - however my real point is that if one actually campaigns on what are the issues that do affect working-class people directly, the relevance of immigration falls massively, as it is not a central issue in decreasing w-c living standards.

But the issue is a live one, more so than it was (say) five years ago, and it is not going to go away as easily as you seem to be saying (you've changed your tune, of course, from "immigration is irrelevant", one of the most astonishingly inane statements I have seen made on here). The left have been banging on about the "real issues" for years and guess what? The public have, if anything, moved in the opposite direction.

Like it or not the decrease in working class living standards you talk of is seen as being influenced by immigration. Before you say it I know that the rise of a service economy and the decline in affoardable housing are to blame. But it goes without saying that if there was no immigration the pressure on wages and the property market would be reduced. Obviously I'm not arguing for an end to immigration, but what you call the "real issues" have not, across the country as a whole, won the argument.

The first step at correcting this might be for the left to start talking honestly about the issue. I don't care how many immigrants come into this country - the more the merrier, I'm decended from recent immigrants myself - but to talk of no immigration controls ignores the fact that immigration does have to be controlled and managed no matter how much of it there is.

 

[Epicurus]

I was hoping that you'd explain what you understand to be institutional racism and why campaigning against it should be a priority.

This is important, because to 'confront it head on' would take a hell of a lot more than 'individual choice'. Against powerful institutions, the individual can do very little.

I don't see it as a priority; if I come across racism in any form I challenge it, the same as with all injustice.

My disagreements with you is about what you said about the UK not having as big a problem as elsewhere, I think you are wrong in that statement.

 

[tbaldwin]

But is it right to deign people from "poorer countries" the chance to improve their life and the lives of their families by stopping them taking jobs in richer countries for which they are qualified and there is a vacancy?

Also the answer to your question imo is; it depends on how they compansate the countries where they recrute from, doesn't it?

Well it depends if you put the good of those INDIVIDUALS above the COLLECTIVE need of the people in the countries they come from.

The answer will depend on your politics. For freemarket Tories and Liberals the Individuals right will come first. But for Socialists the answer is going to be for the greater good.

And compensation should be paid if the practice continues but it would be complicated.

 

[belboid]

But the issue is a live one, more so than it was (say) five years ago, and it is not going to go away as easily as you seem to be saying (you've changed your tune, of course, from "immigration is irrelevant", one of the most astonishingly inane statements I have seen made on here).

you should rad more - I wouldn't even put it the top ten myself. And it seems to have had the desired effect as well....

Like it or not the decrease in working class living standards you talk of is seen as being influenced by immigration. Before you say it I know that the rise of a service economy and the decline in affoardable housing are to blame. But it goes without saying that if there was no immigration the pressure on wages and the property market would be reduced. Obviously I'm not arguing for an end to immigration, but what you call the "real issues" have not, across the country as a whole, won the argument.

because they haven't been made, and more importantly, backed up in a concrete fashion with attempts at some kind of action to defend living standards. Why I do appreciate the work and methodology of the IWCA, despite having disagreements with aspects of their platform, is in doing just that - consistent concrete work amongst the area's they operate. Otherwise, it is just a bunch of words that have no effect, and, yes, I can well see why most people would just laugh at or ignore such statements if they are not backed up by some 'real work'.

The first step at correcting this might be for the left to start talking honestly about the issue. I don't care how many immigrants come into this country - the more the merrier, I'm decended from recent immigrants myself - but to talk of no immigration controls ignores the fact that immigration does have to be controlled and managed no matter how much of it there is.

I think we do approach the issue honestly - saying 'no immigration controls' is hardly hiding is it? And I've made the argument about why NIC would not actually lead to a massive increase in the number of immigrants here previously oin this thread. Essentially, its because people are not trapped here by the immigration laws, so they come, and go. For instance, when Spain & Portugal joined the EEC (as was) there were massive scare stories about us being flooded by cheap Spanish/Portugese labour - never happened tho did it? some people did come, earned a bit of money, and left again. Which is how it would, in all probability, work with workers from other countries too.

 

[Epicurus]

Well it depends if you put the good of those INDIVIDUALS above the COLLECTIVE need of the people in the countries they come from.

The answer will depend on your politics. For freemarket Tories and Liberals the Individuals right will come first. But for Socialists the answer is going to be for the greater good.

And compensation should be paid if the practice continues but it would be complicated.

But it doesn’t matter what “Good” I put first, it is an individual choice and why should individuals not be given the choice? Because I was born in Brazil does that mean I should not have the same choices as the people of the UK to educate myself and support my family?

 

[LLETSA]

My disagreements with you is about what you said about the UK not having as big a problem as elsewhere, I think you are wrong in that statement.

I never said that. Putting it that way implies that I claim that racism is worse everywhere else than it is in the UK, something I can neither know nor prove. What I did say was that, judging from what I do know about certain other societies, their racism is more potent than it is in the UK.

 

[tbaldwin]

But it doesn’t matter what “Good” I put first, it is an individual choice and why should individuals not be given the choice? Because I was born in Brazil does that mean I should not have the same choices as the people of the UK to educate myself and support my family?

When individual choice has a huge effect on others in my view it becomes not just a question of supporting individual freedom,it becomes a question of looking at the greater good. If i didnt believe in that I wouldnt be a Socialist.

And in my view the question is not whether you as an individual brazilian has the same choices as people in the west but whether brazilians in general have that choice.

 

[Epicurus]

I never said that. Putting it that way implies that I claim that racism is worse everywhere else than it is in the UK, something I can neither know nor prove. What I did say was that, judging from what I do know about certain other societies, their racism is more potent than it is in the UK.

At which point I asked you two very relevant questions that you seemed to think were snide in some way, but that if you look at them are very relevant to your statement.

I didn't see your statement as implying "that I claim that racism is worse everywhere else than it is in the UK" I just wanted to understand what you did know about other countries and what you had heard from others, it makes a big difference and helps to understand how much weight one should pay to it.

Also I thought it was relevant to say I was non European as it would show my experience maybe very different to yours.