Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??

[belboid]

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.

even there, that was true for one pretty particular 'migration' - from the indian subcontinent. There were many other immigrants - poles, eastern europeans for instance, who had emigrated earlier were not segregated in anything like the same way.

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.

Sure, some would come to make as much money as possible and run. Some have already come over to try and do so, only to discover that those riches arent really that readily available, and that in order to lead a bearable life, they need to try and integrate into the local community.

 

[Knotted]

The "international working class" can still act as a working-class either with 0% migration of workers and with 100% migration of workers.

There was very little (hardly any I'd claim) voluntary intra-European state migration at the end of the first world war- but a huge revolutionary wave.

Absolutely! There's even a curious form of nationalism in seeing immigrants as representing internationalism. International politics are essentially reduced to parochial liberal anti-racism, multiculturalism etc.

In a similar way the main objection to the war in *Iraq* tends to be about the treatment of *British* Muslims.

IME those calling for open borders (with a few honorable exceptions) do so not because of internationalism but because they don't really like the 'indigenous' workers.

 

[belboid]

In a similar way the main objection to the war in *Iraq* tends to be about the treatment of *British* Muslims.

really? news to me

 

[Knotted]

really? news to me

You might not have noticed but there is a new political party founded on the the idea that the war in Iraq is alienating British Muslims. Check out:

http://www.respectcoalition.com/

In particular:
"Conference notes ... that Islamophobia is central to the ideology of war in this era"

On the International page of the Policy documents.

Also note that there is not a squeak about the neo-liberal economic agenda driving the war.

All that's not to say that there are those opposed to the war who are not opposed for more principled reasons. It just doesn't surprise me that the SWP which calls for open borders and is the driving force behind Respect also views the Iraq war as an oportunity to advance a parochial agenda.

 

[exosculate]

I find it very curious that many on the left seem to think that if you do not have an 'open borders' viewpoint at the present time, you must be in some way ignorant and racist. And that there couldn't possibly be a logical and rational position in relation to an anti 'open borders' viewpoint that isn't racist - or at the very least a sign of an ignorant position.

 

[dumbo]

yeh that is my position
they left ireland when there was no work
came to countries like the USA, Oz, GB got jobs and sent their money home to rebuild the country
must've generated billions for the irish economy
so the standard of living went right up etc

not sure what you were getting at with
'poor irish are poor, rich irish are rich' tho

Sending money home doesn't only concern Ireland. I worked with a Chinese girl, and she sent money (30%) home to her parents, who were both doctors in China.

 

[belboid]

You might not have noticed but there is a new political party founded on the the idea that the war in Iraq is alienating British Muslims. Check out:

gee, you're almighty patronising for a new poster!

but sadly, you fail to comprehend the difference between the meaning of the words 'central' and 'main' . Even the SWP dont go quite as far as you imply they do.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I find it very curious that many on the left seem to think that if you do not have an 'open borders' viewpoint at the present time, you must be in some way ignorant and racist.

Where does anyone say this? Certainly not on this thread.

And I'm still waiting for you to give examples of the other things you said people said.

 

[exosculate]

Where does anyone say this? Certainly not on this thread.

And I'm still waiting for you to give examples of the other things you said people said.

These things seem implied to me quite strongly by some posters.

And I gave you your example. And you don't need to expand on it, I've heard it before and it makes no sense whatsoever unless you interpret it as white people are more racist than non-whites - which is utter poppycock as one might say.

 

[james_walsh]

Where does anyone say this? Certainly not on this thread.

And I'm still waiting for you to give examples of the other things you said people said.

Quote:
I find it very curious that many on the left seem to think that if you do not have an 'open borders' viewpoint at the present time, you must be in some way ignorant and racist.

I've heard just that said many times. Its an often used slur in the left movement, though perhas not in this thread.

 

[cockneyrebel]

These things seem implied to me quite strongly by some posters.

And I gave you your example. And you don't need to expand on it, I've heard it before and it makes no sense whatsoever unless you interpret it as white people are more racist than non-whites - which is utter poppycock as one might say.

Where does anyone imply it, give examples.

And how can what I said be interpreted as only white people being racist? I was saying why I thought there was a difference between racist ideology (coming out of imperialism and capitalism) and racist individuals i.e. seeing racist ideology as something that is intrinsically linked in with the power of imperialism. Now you can agree or disagree but even in terms of racism as an ideology, Japan is an imperialist country (and arguably China), so how can it mean white people are more racist than non-whites. And secondly that theory doesn't determine whatsover how racist one individual is compared to another. Sorry you're talking bollox.

 

[tbaldwin]

Sadly CR has a point imperialism is alive and well. Those arguing for policies that take the people from poorer countries that they need most are just following in a long line of imperialists that goes back to the slave trade and the apologists for that.

 

[Knotted]

gee, you're almighty patronising for a new poster!

but sadly, you fail to comprehend the difference between the meaning of the words 'central' and 'main' . Even the SWP dont go quite as far as you imply they do.

But then I was not intending to debate the exact meaning of the formal SWP/Respect position.

Hence my mild irritation that you are try to force the debate away from charactersations of what has/is happening towards examining what exactly has been said by the main players. What people say and what they do are two different things.

Anyway, you did not address the central point that the call for the abolition of all immigration controls is not an expression of internationalist principles. I'm genuinely curious as to what you think.

 

[belboid]

well, as you didnt write that in your previous post, no i didnt reply to it.

You did say that large scale (or small scale) immigration is not necessary to establish working-class internatio0nalism, but as no one had said it was, i thought it a rather meaningless point, and ignored it.

 

[LLETSA]

So you are saying people are objecting to multiculturalism as a method of managing races within society. What do you mean by multiculturalism?

The reduction of the complexity of race relations to the so-called 'celebration of diversity,' whereby those of different ethnic backgrounds are encouraged to 'celebrate' their differences. While it is natural for particular ethnic groups to maintain their cultural traditions, multiculturalism seeks to shift this practice from the private realm to the public. Multiculturalism is designed primarily to take the place of any kind of class analysis, which would naturally lead to people looking at what they have in common. Those who promote it, especially if they are from the left, would never admit this, however, even when they can see the segregation it is reinforcing across large areas of the country. They prefer to indulge in fantasies of the different communities living in an atmosphere of mutual respect, when, among very many there is anything but; instead, there is widespread suspicion as, due to the perception that each community is treated differently, the idea flourishes that each is receiving from the authorities preferential treatment.

 

[Knotted]

well, as you didnt write that in your previous post, no i didnt reply to it.

You did say that large scale (or small scale) immigration is not necessary to establish working-class internatio0nalism, but as no one had said it was, i thought it a rather meaningless point, and ignored it.

So what's being argued? That borders divide workers within a country or that they divide the working class internationally?

The former position does not even pretend to be based on internationalist principles, which is not to say it is without merrits.

The latter position appears to rely on the supposed inability of workers to express solidarity with workers living on the other side of a state border.

 

[Epicurus]

Sadly CR has a point imperialism is alive and well. Those arguing for policies that take the people from poorer countries that they need most are just following in a long line of imperialists that goes back to the slave trade and the apologists for that.

And those arguing against people having the personal choice to do so are also doing the same.

Have you ever been in a hospital in the developing world, do you have any idea what nurses in many of those hospitals do?

What is the point of having a garage full of car mechanics in a country with no cars?

 

[tbaldwin]

And those arguing against people having the personal choice to do so are also doing the same.

No, The crucial difference is that some people are arguing for the rights of individuals(the Liberals on here like CR etc) and others are arguing for the rights of the mass of the people. (Socialists like Durrutti,Sihhi,RednBlack, Hibee etc)

The Socialists recognise that taking the people poorer countries need most is not a good thing and the Liberals ignore the consequences and congratulate themselves on how tolerant and intelligent they are.

 

[belboid]

So what's being argued? That borders divide workers within a country or that they divide the working class internationally?

both

The former position does not even pretend to be based on internationalist principles, which is not to say it is without merrits.

The latter position appears to rely on the supposed inability of workers to express solidarity with workers living on the other side of a state border.

these points are simply nonsense, and baseless.

 

[tbaldwin]

And those arguing against people having the personal choice to do so are also doing the same.

Have you ever been in a hospital in the developing world, do you have any idea what nurses in many of those hospitals do?

What is the point of having a garage full of car mechanics in a country with no cars?

Your 2 added points.

I havent been to Hospital in the developing world but have spent a long time in the last 3 years in various london hospitals. I found it shocking just how many people from abroad are working in those hospitals.
Being a very chatty bloke i always asked the nurses and doctors where they were from etc. There were loads of phillipino nurses etc and maybe the phillipines does not need all those nurses but the reason that so many go inot nursing is they see it as a route to the west. So its not just that we are taking their nurses but that we are taking most of their best educated young people.
So the open door policy leads to people working towards getting what they need to get out of those countries.
I dont blame any of those individuals at all. But the effect they have, by what they are doing is not good for people left behind in countries, that badly need all the skilled workers they can get.

 

[Epicurus]

No, The crucial difference is that some people are arguing for the rights of individuals(the Liberals on here like CR etc) and others are arguing for the rights of the mass of the people. (Socialists like Durrutti,Sihhi,RednBlack, Hibee etc)

The Socialists recognise that taking the people poorer countries need most is not a good thing and the Liberals ignore the consequences and congratulate themselves on how tolerant and intelligent they are.

But the politics of it is irrelevant to 99% of the people involved.

In the UK (it seems to me and I’m not claiming this as fact) that the family is almost finished, I don’t know any UK born people that have the same family structure as most of my friends in Brazil. (but I live in London so I can’t talk about other parts of the UK but I see no evidence that it is any different to London)

The extended family in the UK just isn’t as important as it used to be I guess, I have spoken to many UK friends about this and they have all given me good reasons for it ranging from Thatcher and her policies to the rush for people to own their own houses, to children being priced out of the area their family live ETC.

I don’t know any of my UK friends who give money to other members of their families in the UK to help support them, but ever single Brazilian I know who is here is sending money home to support their family.

There is a different values system at work; I just don’t except that you can use UK based judgements and spread them across the world and them still to valid.

Every case is different, what are we going to do vet every nurse to see if the value of their work in their local hospital is worth more than the good the money she could send home working here would do?

We live in the world as it is, in a perfect world there wouldn’t be these problems, but it isn’t for me or anyone else to say what other can and can’t do

 

[tbaldwin]

We live in the world as it is, in a perfect world there wouldn’t be these problems, but it isn’t for me or anyone else to say what other can and can’t do

Epicurus thanks for an interesting reply,
But the point is that of course it is for all of us to say what we think should be done politically.
Surely you agree with that or why else would you be posting on UK politics?

At the moment MONEY says what people can and cant do.
And those arguing for free market liberal migration policies need to be taken to task if they ever claim to be socialists as Bellboid,Cockney Rebel etc like to pretend.
They are Free Market Liberals not Socialists.

 

[Epicurus]

Epicurus thanks for an interesting reply,
But the point is that of course it is for all of us to say what we think should be done politically.
Surely you agree with that or why else would you be posting on UK politics?

you are right but the important word there is ALL and from what I see from this thread it isn't ALL that people want to have a say, it is local people voting on vested interest to keep others out.

If the nurse doesn't have a vote why should I?

 

[tbaldwin]

you are right but the important word there is ALL and from what I see from this thread it isn't ALL that people want to have a say, it is local people voting on vested interest to keep others out.

If the nurse doesn't have a vote why should I?

er i cant speak for others but thats not really what i think people like durrutti are saying. He is of course arguing for more local democracy. But he is Internationalist and Anti Racist in his outlook just like others in the IWCA etc
he is not for the vested interests of minorities but the good of the majority, Including of course the chance to have a say in issues that effect their lives.

And both me and Durrutti(Im sure) would argue that both you and the Nurse should have a vote.

 

[Epicurus]

And both me and Durrutti(Im sure) would argue that both you and the Nurse should have a vote.

I would agree with that

 

[exosculate]

Where does anyone imply it, give examples.

And how can what I said be interpreted as only white people being racist? I was saying why I thought there was a difference between racist ideology (coming out of imperialism and capitalism) and racist individuals i.e. seeing racist ideology as something that is intrinsically linked in with the power of imperialism. Now you can agree or disagree but even in terms of racism as an ideology, Japan is an imperialist country (and arguably China), so how can it mean white people are more racist than non-whites. And secondly that theory doesn't determine whatsover how racist one individual is compared to another. Sorry you're talking bollox.

I think it is you talking bollocks, and most working class people would be closer to my view than yours. You live in an ideological ghetto.

Glad your saying you don't think that white people are more racist, but i don't believe you mean it, judged by many many conversations I have had with people in much greater depth than this who espouse a similar position to yourself.

 

[Knotted]

both

these points are simply nonsense, and baseless.

I suspect this is because we don't agree on the definitions of the terms of the debate. There are a lot of activists from Trotskyist traditions who believe as an article of faith that open borders is an extention of internationalist principles.

My surprise that you don't want to elaborate on your position is due to that it is actually far easier to come up with chauvinistic nationalist arguments for opening the borders than it is to come up with internationalist arguments.

Cheap labour --> good for national economy
Foreigners can do the jobs nobody
else wants to --> British workers won't have to do the worst jobs
Valuable skilled workers such as doctors or computer programmers
can move here --> Lucky they're here than in some foreign country

Of course its even easier to come up with plain capitalist arguments for opening the borders.

 

[sihhi]

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've mentioned in posts o/thread the stance that I believe would be useful.

Notice how I described this group as

illegal/false paper immigrants

earlier on- and shortened it to illegals- as in illegals under British law at present where this group is under immense presure and any action against their boss (which would be for the good of the working class) has always to be measured up against the threat of "asset seizure" and deportation.

 

[belboid]

I suspect this is because we don't agree on the definitions of the terms of the debate. There are a lot of activists from Trotskyist traditions who believe as an article of faith that open borders is an extention of internationalist principles.

My surprise that you don't want to elaborate on your position is due to that it is actually far easier to come up with chauvinistic nationalist arguments for opening the borders than it is to come up with internationalist arguments.

Cheap labour --> good for national economy
Foreigners can do the jobs nobody
else wants to --> British workers won't have to do the worst jobs
Valuable skilled workers such as doctors or computer programmers
can move here --> Lucky they're here than in some foreign country

Of course its even easier to come up with plain capitalist arguments for opening the borders.

as that is the longest thing you have written since appearing here, it is rather hard to know what your definitions are. i have made my positon fairly clear throughout the length of the thread.

now, do you have a point, or are you simply trying to repeat bits of the discussion that were had long back?

 

[Knotted]

as that is the longest thing you have written since appearing here, it is rather hard to know what your definitions are. i have made my positon fairly clear throughout the length of the thread.

now, do you have a point, or are you simply trying to repeat bits of the discussion that were had long back?

At no point have you defended your specific position of the abolition of all border controls throughout the entire thread, although you have argued coherently against calling for immigration controls.

Not that I'm particularly bothered but you seemed interested in the question that's all.