well obviously Hackney is the centre of the universe.durruti02 said:
If your problem is with a change of housing policy, why not target that rather than immigration?
Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
If your problem is with a change of housing policy, why not target that rather than immigration?
sihhi said:
Exactly. When did the left adopt the notion that 'the international working class acting together' means that the international working class must be thrown together in each given society? The left generally supports multiculturalism, with its tendency to separate communities off from each other on the basis of race or culture. So if you take the mass importing of labour and the growing trend towards separatism together, you couldn't get much further from the prospect of the working class of all racial backgrounds acting together to bring about major change. For that reason, the left's postion is, in fact, identical to the postion of capital.
This is an argument that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the question of whether immigration controls are needed or not, something over which we have no control and very little influence. The central question, and one which the left fails to address, is this: from where is the level of integration that might encourage the kind of working class solidarity they claim to seek going to arise under the conditions of accelerating immigration and growing separatism?
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
icepick said:
It's not the same as internal migration- for a start illegal immigration is a very important aspect of migration especially in unskilled labour. Work permit system in general gives the employer very great control over the migrant worker. This on-off tap of particularly manipulable labour (some of which is illegal/false paper) means that it is IMO something different to the labour of women and young citizens.
Migration of doctors from Third World is a system that deprives Third World countries of doctors and gives states a smokescreen to hide behind their poor health services.
To build this workers/ tenants movement (amongst other things)- IMO
1 concerns about immigration should not be dismissed as "well we can't do anything about that yet"- the same could be said about almost any issue that the left talks about eg IWCA manifesto in my last post
2 the reality of bosses + supervisors who choose specifically to ignore indigenous workers + work foreign legal migrants + foreign illegal/false paper migrants should not be dismissed
3 approach to places of work that have both legal workers + illegal/false paper immigrants should be arguing for full legalisation of all illegal workers- but against the future import by bosses of workers from abroad.
When talking with people who are against immigrants and believe immigrants should remain outside the welfare state system etc etc I argue for legalisation+equal rights for all migrants+illegals in this country (+common action between all), reducing migration from Third World at this present time because of its ill effects. I ask why governments (both Tory and Labour) have never given ordinary w/c people a say (well before "political correctness") in immigration policy? I suggest that local control of migration is something governments would be afraid of.
Just as I might argue for someone about re-offending: for improving prison conditions, re-education in prison, community justice schemes controlled by local people, neighbour mentors, restorative justice meeting with victims etc... rather than simply saying "I demand the abolition of the prison system"
reallyoldhippy said:well obviously Hackney is the centre of the universe.
If your problem is with a change of housing policy, why not target that rather than immigration?
How about putting some flesh on the bones of this idea of 'the international working class acting together'?
What does it mean exactly?
For too long the left has relied on abstract notions and slogans. I suspect that it has something to do with the left's unstated belief that they will never have to actually act on anything they say.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
LLETSA said:
Indeed - you talk alot of sense.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
Epicurus said:
In Scotland there's the Scottish Socialist Party for the nation of Scotland.....
In the England & Wales there was the Socialist Alliance.
Plenty of "national" socialist parties.
http://www.broadleft.org/gb.htm
durruti02 said:
No, I don't have 20+ years experience as a worker and shop steward(im only 21).
However, I am from a predominantly white, ex steel producing town thats sandwiched between three big multicultural centres (Leicester,Derby,Nottingham). I'm also a TnG member and have experience working in un unionised workplaces with large numbers of female immigrant workers. My introduction to the "left" was the trade union movement. Most of my political experience out side of the TnG is from anti facist/anti racist work.
I do feel like i'm fighting a losing battle when it comes to the whole immigration issue. Mass imigration in to communities that are already under recourced and in to already under unionised, low paid sectors has a negative effect. But I still stand by my view that to take an anti immigration view is not the best thing to do.
When the Gate Gormet dispute first raised it's head on the national news and the subsiquent solidarity action by Heathrow staff, I had comments from people such as "fuckin pakis, send em back" even, in one case from a fellow TnG member. I did't ask her if she would respect their picket line (hypathetically) as it was clear that she wouldn't. I see this attitude partly as an example of how working people have been taken in by the message that they are constantly being bombarded with about immigrants from all sections of the press/ media, main political parties, far right parties.
And partly because their day to day experience seems to back that message up.
Should trade unionist/socialists not challenge this attitude? I think we should. On the basis that lack of community facilites, social housing, low pay and job insecurity are not caused by immigration, they are caused by government polocy and market economics and that the best way to change them is to fight along side your neighbours and work "mates" whatever their national status. (not easy, but right)
Also, it's easy to dismiss the left as "wankers". If a bunch of outsiders turn up in your community waving "assylum seekers welcome here" banners around just do disapear and leave all of the same problems un challenged it's easy to see how they get that tag.
I also find it hard to know what angle to come from on this forum.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Good post patty.
I used to work with refugees, who got absolute shit housing supplied by NASS and then were made homeless when they got status. For the past few years I've worked in a council housing department and the problem isn't immigrants getting the housing, it's that there is fuck all housing. For instance the council I work in has a waiting list of nearly 17,000, but only about 1,000 people get housed every year. And by 2010 there will be no council housing left at all if the Labour government gets its way.
The biggest proportion of immigrants are single men. They have fuck all chance of getting rehoused, as single homeless people are put in the low priority band.
The council I work for has well over a third of its stock to right to buy, that is the problem and that is why there are massive waiting lists.
Durutti I don't really get what point you're trying to make. Are you saying we should have better immigration controls and support fortified national borders? If not, what is your solution, other than calling the left wankers? Just saying immigration is a problem, doesn't really get anyone very far.
Patty is right that the problems are the decimation of social housing, the decimation of the unions, attacks on the welfare state, privatisation. These are all things we can fight around here and now - indeed privatisation is going on across the board in my council. Standing up against the anti-immigrant agenda might not be easy, but it doesn't make it any less right.
What is the way to stop scab workers and low pay? A good minimum wage and decent trade unions and getting rid of anti-trade union laws. Not making immigrants out to be the problem.
Sorry but the detention centres and amount of people in real need that I've seen thrown out of the country suggests there are strict immigration controls. Again though, what are you saying? That immigrants are flooding in and we need to fortify the borders? If you're just saying "there's a problem", again, that doesn't really get us very far.
Nice to see the language of the right-wing tabloids being used.....for fucks sake.....I'm glad you would have referred to some of my mates and family as "illegals" when they first came to the UK.....
I used to work with refugees, who got absolute shit housing supplied by NASS and then were made homeless when they got status. For the past few years I've worked in a council housing department and the problem isn't immigrants getting the housing, it's that there is fuck all housing. For instance the council I work in has a waiting list of nearly 17,000, but only about 1,000 people get housed every year. And by 2010 there will be no council housing left at all if the Labour government gets its way.
The biggest proportion of immigrants are single men. They have fuck all chance of getting rehoused, as single homeless people are put in the low priority band.
The council I work for has well over a third of its stock to right to buy, that is the problem and that is why there are massive waiting lists.
Durutti I don't really get what point you're trying to make. Are you saying we should have better immigration controls and support fortified national borders? If not, what is your solution, other than calling the left wankers? Just saying immigration is a problem, doesn't really get anyone very far.
Patty is right that the problems are the decimation of social housing, the decimation of the unions, attacks on the welfare state, privatisation. These are all things we can fight around here and now - indeed privatisation is going on across the board in my council. Standing up against the anti-immigrant agenda might not be easy, but it doesn't make it any less right.
What is the way to stop scab workers and low pay? A good minimum wage and decent trade unions and getting rid of anti-trade union laws. Not making immigrants out to be the problem.
Sorry but the detention centres and amount of people in real need that I've seen thrown out of the country suggests there are strict immigration controls. Again though, what are you saying? That immigrants are flooding in and we need to fortify the borders? If you're just saying "there's a problem", again, that doesn't really get us very far.
Nice to see the language of the right-wing tabloids being used.....for fucks sake.....I'm glad you would have referred to some of my mates and family as "illegals" when they first came to the UK.....
I live in an area where there has always been a large number of immigrants - jews, irish, poles, ukrainians, lithuanians, italians, indians, west indians, pakistanis, bengalis, ugandans, vietnamese, chileans, afghanis and more. Direct links exist with working class communities in all those and more places. It's perhaps why their isn't a lot of racial tension. It's perhaps why attacks on our community are met with a united response.LLETSA said:
For those in favour of immigration controls - are you also in favour of controls on the import of cheap food, cheap clothes and cheap consumer goodies? After all those things also "force down wages" and put the british working class out of their traditional employment.
Sihhi: thanks for the link.sihhi said:
Were any of the groups you mention ever in a position to stand in every seat in the country?
I think in context while they call themselves a National Party in reality are they really able to form a government even if people voted for them.
reallyoldhippy said:
yes, if they come about as a result of poor working conditions and/or wages etc.
reallyoldhippy said:
Obviously this is what is needed in all mixed communities. However, I still fail to see what it has to do with claiming that, as a matter of principle, the extreme neo-liberal goal of open borders should be supported by the left. Working class solidarity, no matter what the ethnic makeup, is already proving difficult in many areas up and down the country, and this is only exacerbated by multiculturalism and its tendency to segregate communities. Unlimited immigration might bring many benefits to the economy, especially for the those who take the profits; the benefits to the working class, white or otherwise, of ever-increasing numbers of people who will almost inevitably find it hard to resist the trend towards segregation are a bit more difficult to conjure up in the imagination. (Although I am sure that there is no shortage of people out there willing to try.)
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I've skipped out as this argument seems to me to be simply gooing round in circles.
My only brief two points would be to point out that no borders is not neo-liberal (nor is negated by a refusal to allow a very small number of individuals in, just as it wouldn't be negated by refusing to allow an invading army in) - neo-liberal would be the bosses deciding who went where and when dependent solely upon their needs. Open borders means workers choosing where to go, based upon their needs.
As to deciding such matters 'locally' - the problem with that is that its not 'locally' where the resources are available. If we just break such issues down to purely local levels all we are left with is shuffling the shit around. The point is there aren't enough resources in the local communtiies, so we need more.
My only brief two points would be to point out that no borders is not neo-liberal (nor is negated by a refusal to allow a very small number of individuals in, just as it wouldn't be negated by refusing to allow an invading army in) - neo-liberal would be the bosses deciding who went where and when dependent solely upon their needs. Open borders means workers choosing where to go, based upon their needs.
As to deciding such matters 'locally' - the problem with that is that its not 'locally' where the resources are available. If we just break such issues down to purely local levels all we are left with is shuffling the shit around. The point is there aren't enough resources in the local communtiies, so we need more.
reallyoldhippy said:
Why is that, then? I suspect its bit of an urban myth. IME immigrants tend to get the houses that the indigenous don't want.
Where do you live? Urban myth indeed? It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant people are of the issues around immigration.
Some of the pro immigrationists really dont seem to get any of the reasons why anybody would be anti immigration, they just want to put it down to those people being bad or ignorant.Incredibly stupid!
belboid said:
It could also be said that, in the current climate, 'workers choosing where to go, based upon their needs', simply means that they are responding to the neo-liberal agenda that impoverishes the poor countries from which most of them would probably come. (Not that I in any way blame them.)
And how do you propose to deal with the above-detailed likely impact on working class solidarity?
LLETSA said:
Are you?
Edit: not being very helpful. I used it in the context of the experience in New Zealand of diverse immigrants being able to preserve their ethnic/culural identity whilst being able ot avail themselves equally of the benefits (and subscribing to the responsibilities) of the pre-existing society. This has been official government policy to an extent. The ongoing result has been an increasingly plural society and a new national identity slowly evolving from this. Is this the "wrong" usage in whatever context you have put the debate into?
Poi E said:
Wasn't meant to be a snotty remark. It's just that when the issue of muticulturalism comes up, those who criticise it are assumed by some to be opposed to what the right calls 'the multicultural society' (in other words against a multiracial society), whereas what they are critical of is muticulturalism as a strategy for managing the race issue, with its tendency to promote the idea of separate cultures living alongside each other.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I dont see why such people would "almost inevitably find it hard to resist the trend towards segregation". I agree that that has been an issue, but there is nothing inevitable about it. As ROH points out, there has been plenty of immigration for decades where that hasn't been the end result, & it is more of a problem now not just because of 'multiculturalism' but because of the pressures enforced by illegality and/or impoverishment.
belboid said:
In many areas of the country, de-facto segregation has pretty much always been the case. As the reports into the 2001 riots detailed, the segregated communities have been impoverished for decades, while it was not illegal immigrants who were doing the rioting but a generation of young Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who were born here.
When they are finding it difficult to resist the trend towards segregation, what chance large numbers of newcomers from here, there and everywhere, many of whom might, under conditions of open borders, see themselves as here not to put down roots and participate in society but to earn as much as possible, under whatever conditions, and then either return from whence they came or try their luck elsewhere?
Working class solidarity can only come about not only when people see what they have in common in the workplace, but when they have some kind of vision of a better society for the whole class.
LLETSA said:
It's just that you're not being clear.
"whereas what they are critical of is muticulturalism as a strategy for managing the race issue"
So you are saying people are objecting to multiculturalism as a method of managing races within society. What do you mean by multiculturalism?
Similar threads
