Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??

[hibee]

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....

Yes, if I ever come out with something as idiotic as that I'll be sure to say it was all a wind up.

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'.

I pretty much agree with this.

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.

But as I've said the question is not how much immigration do we allow, it is whether we choose to manage the process. Do we take steps to make immigrants part of the community, or are we content to let "community leaders" assume responsibility and allow the formation of ghettoes? How is housing to be allocated? Should non-union scab immigrants be able to offer to work for less money than existing workforces? No immigration controls implies, whether you like it or not, a free for all when in fact just pretending that large movements of labour will create no social problems which have to be addressed is fantasy.

When I say the left are not looking honestly about the issue it is because they are wedded to a concept of anti racism that is liberal and indeed anti socialist, which has had the effect of structuring communities of ethnic/religious rather than class lines. Because this makes for muddled and confused thinking it is dishonest. And in the name of anti racism they support a system which is damaging to workers of all backgrounds and colours.

 

[Epicurus]

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.

So how do you balance the good done by a mother coming to the UK to work as a nurse earning more money in a month that she would in a year at home and using that money to support her extended family by housing them feeding them and paying for education, with a ward being a nurse down that has no mediation for the sick, there are no fix positions as there are some many different situations.

 

[tbaldwin]

So how do you balance the good done by a mother coming to the UK to work as a nurse earning more money in a month that she would in a year at home and using that money to support her extended family by housing them feeding them and paying for education, with a ward being a nurse down that has no mediation for the sick, there are no fix positions as there are some many different situations.

Well i'd balance the good that the nurse could do for her immediate family with the loss of a skiled worker to a country that needs them most.

People sending money home can also lead to greater inequalities in the nations that suffer most from it.

And as for wards being a nurse down the rich countries should train and adequately pay their own rather than poach workers from poorer countries.

 

[belboid]

Yes, if I ever come out with something as idiotic as that I'll be sure to say it was all a wind up.

bloody hel, considering the rest of the thread, the statement was obviously bloody nonsense, but wtf.

But as I've said the question is not how much immigration do we allow, it is whether we choose to manage the process. Do we take steps to make immigrants part of the community, or are we content to let "community leaders" assume responsibility and allow the formation of ghettoes? How is housing to be allocated? Should non-union scab immigrants be able to offer to work for less money than existing workforces? No immigration controls implies, whether you like it or not, a free for all when in fact just pretending that large movements of labour will create no social problems which have to be addressed is fantasy.

Yes, no, according to need, obviously not.

It is not true that no immigration controls implies a free for all at all, why should it? Why should it mean allowing scabbing? I dont give a fuck where anyone is from, a scabs a scab, and thats al ltyhere is to it. I wouldn't support someone from Doncaster undercutting someon from Sheffields wages, ditto Djiboutti or wherever. Thats a complete red herring.

When I say the left are not looking honestly about the issue it is because they are wedded to a concept of anti racism that is liberal and indeed anti socialist, which has had the effect of structuring communities of ethnic/religious rather than class lines. Because this makes for muddled and confused thinking it is dishonest. And in the name of anti racism they support a system which is damaging to workers of all backgrounds and colours.

I assume you mean 'multi-culturalism' by that. To which I would reply that I agree to an extent, but you are confusing the 'left' with the SWP and a few labour 'lefties'.

 

[hibee]

It is not true that no immigration controls implies a free for all at all, why should it? Why should it mean allowing scabbing? I dont give a fuck where anyone is from, a scabs a scab, and thats al ltyhere is to it. I wouldn't support someone from Doncaster undercutting someon from Sheffields wages, ditto Djiboutti or wherever. Thats a complete red herring.

Though you'd say that. Which is one example of the way in which a pro-working class government would have to put controls in place. You can let in as many people as you want (and I don't have a problem in principle with an immigration policy that allows in everyone who wants in, save paedos, Islamist nutters and Le Pen etc) but state controls are necessary to regulate and manage that process. To talk of no immigration controls sounds like (although you obviously don't mean it) you're rejecting that.

I assume you mean 'multi-culturalism' by that. To which I would reply that I agree to an extent, but you are confusing the 'left' with the SWP and a few labour 'lefties'.

I don't like the term "multiculturalism", two people can mean completely the opposite by it. But liberal anti racism - as much a razor in the hands of the bosses are racism - is very widespread on the left, which in any event is dominated for better or worse by the SWP. As it is antithetical to a class analysis it gives rise to confused and ultimately dishonest politics. In Labour too it is the ideology of more than just a few, indeed it is a Labour government, Labour councils and Labour appointees like Lee Jasper and Trevor Phillips who have promoted it, neither of them of the left.

 

[belboid]

Though you'd say that. Which is one example of the way in which a pro-working class government would have to put controls in place. You can let in as many people as you want (and I don't have a problem in principle with an immigration policy that allows in everyone who wants in, save paedos, Islamist nutters and Le Pen etc) but state controls are necessary to regulate and manage that process. To talk of no immigration controls sounds like (although you obviously don't mean it) you're rejecting that.

but that just seems to say 'we are against laissez faire capitalism' - whether or not there are any/significant number of immigrants, a pro w-c government (not that we could really have such a thing in capitalist society) would be implementing such things anyway. Immigration is irrelevant to that.

I don't like the term "multiculturalism", two people can mean completely the opposite by it. But liberal anti racism - as much a razor in the hands of the bosses are racism - is very widespread on the left, which in any event is dominated for better or worse by the SWP. As it is antithetical to a class analysis it gives rise to confused and ultimately dishonest politics. In Labour too it is the ideology of more than just a few, indeed it is a Labour government, Labour councils and Labour appointees like Lee Jasper and Trevor Phillips who have promoted it, neither of them of the left.

okay, I take your point, I think - the promotion of 'black people are lovely and our friends' anti-racism is patronising drivel that achieves virtually nothing (perhaps at one time it had a point in helping non-whites gain the confidence to speak up and assert themselves, but thats it).

Anyhows, I gotta finish up here and get the fuck away from work. Maybe more tomorrow then.

 

[exosculate]

Good debate to read over last few pages.


My view in the real world and out of the left ghetto

Only whites can be racist - absurd

Immigration controls don't matter to people - absurd



p.s. - Lletsa has made some very good posts

 

[cockneyrebel]

Only whites can be racist - absurd

Immigration controls don't matter to people - absurd

Where has anyone made either of these points

 

[exosculate]

Where has anyone made either of these points

In this thread - you were one of them i think.

 

[cockneyrebel]

No I wasn't. Can you give quoted examples of where anyone has said either of these things.

 

[exosculate]

No I wasn't. Can you give quoted examples of where anyone has said either of these things.

No, I can't be arsed - why don't you inspect your own words?

 

[cockneyrebel]

How can I inspect something I didn't say.

No-one has said either of those things. You seem to just want to argue against a stereotype of "lefty thinking" rather than what people have actually said.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

Immigration controls don't matter to people - absurd

The point is, do you adopt a populist position and just go with the tide. Or do you argue for internationalism? Just because a section of the working class might want immigration controls doesn't make it right. There's too much hiding behind "the working class": what that actually means is "the british working class" and I find it deeply suspicious.

 

[exosculate]

Could get into a discussion here about the difference between racial bigotry and the ideology of racism backed up by imperialism/capitalism. But probably not a good idea.

Racism is racism.

 

[exosculate]

The point is, do you adopt a populist position and just go with the tide. Or do you argue for internationalism? Just because a section of the working class might want immigration controls doesn't make it right. There's too much hiding behind "the working class": what that actually means is "the british working class" and I find it deeply suspicious.

Don't misunderstand me I see the arguments myself. I'm just making the point that at present a large section of the left seem to be attempting to speak French to a group of uni-lingual English speakers. And wondering why they are stared at in bewilderment.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Racism is racism.

And where does that quote say otherwise?! It certainly isn't saying non-white people can't be racist. It's saying there is a difference between individual racist bigotry and the ideology of racism that comes from imperialism/capitalism.

As also said, even in terms of imperialism, Japan isn't a white country, and there is no reason a black or Asian country couldn't become imperialist in the future - indeed there is an argument that China could already be regarded as imperialist.

Now can you back up your assertion that people have made the statement that "only white people can be racist" or that "immigration controls don't matter to people" as it appears you have made it up.

I'm just making the point that at present a large section of the left seem to be attempting to speak French to a group of uni-lingual English speakers. And wondering why they are stared at in bewilderment.

Are you saying that a large section of working class people are too stupid to debate the arguments around no borders. Not in my experience.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

And where does that quote say otherwise?!

Did you consider the possibilty that he might be agreeing with you? Racism is insidious whatever its roots.

 

[rednblack]

Are you saying that a large section of working class people are too stupid to debate the arguments around no borders. Not in my experience.

most people are intelligent enough to realise that no borders under capitalism would lead to misery, chaos, and ethnic war - like other capitalstic policies

 

[reallyoldhippy]

..........misery, chaos, and ethnic war..............

Quite different to what we've got now then?

 

[rednblack]

Quite different to what we've got now then?

not very different no - which is my point

 

[reallyoldhippy]

not very different no - which is my point

The struggle against capitalism IS the struggle against borders. Only the international working class, TOGETHER, has the strength to defeat capitalism. Hiding behind borders is what divides us.

 

[cockneyrebel]

most people are intelligent enough to realise that no borders under capitalism would lead to misery, chaos, and ethnic war - like other capitalstic policies

As belboid has said no borders goes hand in hand with other socialist demands. As I've also said going to work benefits the capitalists, that doesn't mean we'd say people shouldn't go to work.

And the current system of strict immigration controls and national borders is what has led to misery, chaos and ethnic war. Protecting that system is exactly what the ruling class wants.

 

[Epicurus]

Do the people that think immigrants occupying housing and therefore not allowing working class English people to have them are better or worse than single parents who have chosen to have children and not work and live on benefit?

 

[hibee]

but that just seems to say 'we are against laissez faire capitalism' - whether or not there are any/significant number of immigrants, a pro w-c government (not that we could really have such a thing in capitalist society) would be implementing such things anyway. Immigration is irrelevant to that.

But wouldn't your workers state want to keep some people out? Mass murderers, serious sex offenders, General Pinochet? If so you accept there is a role for border controls, however minor. That's very different to making the case for large-scale immigration, which we can agree on. Like any social mechanism immigration would have to be regulated, and therefore controlled, however many people you let in.

okay, I take your point, I think - the promotion of 'black people are lovely and our friends' anti-racism is patronising drivel that achieves virtually nothing (perhaps at one time it had a point in helping non-whites gain the confidence to speak up and assert themselves, but thats it).

My problem is not so much with the "black people are wonderful" stuff which no-one, black or white, takes seriously anyway, but policies which promote segragation and fly in the face of integration.

 

[Patty]

Whilst I appreciate your position. It changes little. The day to day experience of working class people in certain respects is made worse by large scale immigration. It is certainly percieved as such by many who are not politicised in the way you would like them to be. You are therefore failing to have recognition of the feelings on the ground of how people feel about a reduced welfare cake and lower wages.

I feel there are people on the left who should know better than to make simplistic political rhetoric that does not connect in any sense with the majority of the populatiion. People are concerned with day to day issues - like the Council list being longer because there are many thousands of newbies on the list - as just one example. Or that real wages have not increased for several years on building sites etc because of a flood of cheap labour. These things increase racist attitudes and do not enhance a tolerant multicultural society.

To promote divisions only lowers our ability to fight back on a class basis. It may not seem to be the easiest answer when a lot of workers don't appear to see things in terms of class, but to pander to anti immigrant rhetoric is not changing that problem.
It takes the most politically aware workers to promote class polotics combined with experience to change the current attitudes. Not an acceptance of the status quo on the basis that it appaers more immediate.
Day to day issues? Privatisation of council housing stock is a day to day issue, the need to build more social housing is a day to day issue, ununionised construction labour is a day to day issue. Turning them in to points if contention between settled and immigrant workers is the job of poloticians who want to detract attention from their failings and the far right. Making them class issues is the job of class concious workers

 

[cockneyrebel]

But wouldn't your workers state want to keep some people out? Mass murderers, serious sex offenders, General Pinochet? If so you accept there is a role for border controls, however minor. That's very different to making the case for large-scale immigration, which we can agree on. Like any social mechanism immigration would have to be regulated, and therefore controlled, however many people you let in.

But the call for open borders doesn't mean that a workers state would let in mass murderers, sex offenders, imperialist spies etc it is a statement that the working class, collectively, has a right to freedom of movement i.e. the ideas nationalism and national borders are rejected. Just as saying "all power to the working class" wouldn't that you mean you want to give power to rapists and murderers and fascist elements within the working class.

If the whole world was communist there would be no borders and no nations i.e. there would be no notion of "keeping people out".

My problem is not so much with the "black people are wonderful" stuff which no-one, black or white, takes seriously anyway, but policies which promote segragation and fly in the face of integration.

While I agree with quite a lot of what you say. sometimes left posters are boxed in to pre-conceived stereotypes. Look at exosculate above claiming that people have said things that no-one has.

 

[hibee]

But the call for open borders doesn't mean that a workers state would let in mass murderers, sex offenders, imperialist spies etc it is a statement that the working class, collectively, has a right to freedom of movement i.e. the ideas nationalism and national borders are rejected. Just as saying "all power to the working class" wouldn't that you mean you want to give power to rapists and murderers and fascist elements within the working class.

You'd keep 'em out? Those borders aren't completely open, then. Time for a new slogan.

While I agree with quite a lot of what you say. sometimes left posters are boxed in to pre-conceived stereotypes. Look at exosculate above claiming that people have said things that no-one has.

I'm not exosculate. People are saying the things I'm talking about. And they've got their hands on the levers of power.

 

[cockneyrebel]

You'd keep 'em out? Those borders aren't completely open, then. Time for a new slogan.

But by the same rate we might as well scrap saying "all power to the working class".

 

[hibee]

But by the same rate we might as well scrap saying "all power to the working class".

Er, not at all. I don't see how foreign spies and mass murderers are part of the working class.

 

[rednblack]

But by the same rate we might as well scrap saying "all power to the working class".

but surely you do mean all power to the working class? whereas you clearly accept the need for border controls?

anyway even in a communist society communities would be free to decide who can live among them? to set basic ground rules of acceptable behaviour for their citizens ? in other ways they would be maintaining some sort of controls on who lives there....