Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??

[tbaldwin]

For the love of fuck.

I know you only have 2 default statements on this whole debate, which you repeat ad nauseam (#1."Middle class liberals benefit from cheap migrant labour- nannies, cleaners etc" #2. "Immigration means that we take the people poorer countries need most") but, for christ's sake please, before you post them up yet again tomorrow, try to consider the screamingly fucking obvious fact that they don't represent anything producing a coherent analysis,no matter how often you repeat them.

THAT IS BECAUSE THE CLEANERS EMPLOYED BY MIDDLE-CLASS LIBERALS ARE ACTUALLY RATHER UNLIKELY TO BE BRAINSURGEONS, ARCHITECTS OR FUCKING ROCKET SCIENTISTS.

If only for a change, just try thinking before spouting one of your 2 pat phrases. You never know- you might enjoy the experience.

You wont have to wait that long pigeon...

You know both those 2 points are true. MC Liberals are far more likely to benefit from cheap labour/tenants etc.
And we are taking the people poorer countires need most.
They are two effects of mass migration that i have repeated over and over again.

Your arguement against them is they contradict each other is just clutching at straws.
There is no reason that you can give why they cant both be true.
You cant seriously dispute either point.

I think you will find that i havent said anwhere that MC Liberals are employing rocket scientists etc as their nannies.

Not for the first time people seem to be lying in a very poor effort to discredit my arguements.

 

[Epicurus]

1 Yes
2 Well whether its encouragement or economic slavery or remove or accept is open to interpretation.
But it definetely is TAKE.
3 On an individual basis they are just doing what anyone else might do given the circumstances and i dont blame them at all far from it.
But politically the effect that has is very negative so i can harly support it as a political solution.
Individually it can be good for them but for the wider population it is not a good thing.

tbaldwin
I understand what the word “take” can mean but what did you mean in the context of your phrase.

Who is it “very negative” for? The people who were lucky enough to have been born in the developed world?

The “wider population” where?

 

[Pigeon]

You know both those 2 points are true. MC Liberals are far more likely to benefit from cheap labour/tenants etc.

How would anyone- mc liberal or otherwise- benefit from a "cheap tenant"?

And we are taking the people poorer countires need most.
They are two effects of mass migration that i have repeated over and over again.

Without once, ever, to my knowledge,developing your argument any further.

Your arguement against them is they contradict each other is just clutching at straws.

No mate- it's a statement of the frickin obvious. If immigration provides a pool of cheap, unskilled labour, it's fairly fucking clear that immigration can not simply mean that immigration means that "poor countries lose the people they need most." The situation must be more complex than you, with your 2 endlessly parroted mantras, describe it as.

There is no reason that you can give why they cant both be true.
You cant seriously dispute either point.

And, unfortunately, you can't coherently make either point, despite endless repetition.

I think you will find that i havent said anwhere that MC Liberals are employing rocket scientists etc as their nannies.

Not for the first time people seem to be lying in a very poor effort to discredit my arguements.

 

[tbaldwin]

tbaldwin
I understand what the work “take” can mean but what did you mean in the context of your phrase.

Who is it “very negative” for? The people who were lucky enough to have been born in the developed world?

The “wider population” where?

1 Well that the effect is the west take those people.

2 Its very negative for people who see the skilled workers their countries need most being tempted away by the promise of a better life in a richer country.
As ive already argued it has a different effect on people in the developed world depending on their class/economic status.

It could be good news for a landlord but not such good news if your on a housing waiting list.
It could be good if you want a nanny but not so good if your looking for that type of work.

3 I meant you know most of the worlds population.

 

[tbaldwin]

How would anyone- mc liberal or otherwise- benefit from a "cheap tenant"?



No mate- it's a statement of the frickin obvious. If immigration provides a pool of cheap, unskilled labour, it's fairly fucking clear that immigration can not simply mean that immigration means that "poor countries lose the people they need most." The situation must be more complex than you, with your 2 endlessly parroted mantras, describe it as.

And, unfortunately, you can't coherently make either point, despite endless repetition.

Crikey this is funny.

Cheap tenant indeed fuck me were you Dr Goebbels in a past life?
You might have noticed the/ between cheap labour/tenants but then again maybe not.
Maybe you will try and give me an English lesson?

The situation is indeed complex which does not mean either of my statements is untrue. You obviously think that i am unable to realise that immigration has more than one effect despite the fact that as you say i keep mentioning these 2 effects not exactly the brightest button in the box are you.

 

[Isambard]

were you Dr Goebbels in a past life?.

Game over.

 

[Patty]

It's pretty indisputable that immigrants serve as source of cheap labour for the bosses. They also do what the bosess(government included) call "plug the skills gap" and yes that means taking much needed skills away from areas where they are needed.
Ill go back to the point that I made what seems like months ago now on this thread. Who is going to stop this? Should states stop people from moving around? I don't think that any genuine socialist would advocate either locking people in to countries that they want to leave or locking people out. Especially if this just gives the state/bosses yet more power over working class people's lives.

The left take the middle class liberal view handed down by the people most likely to benefit from cheap migrant labour with nannies,cleaners etc who are more likely to eat out at restauraunts.
They dont take the views of people competing for Jobs and Housing.

Depends who you mean by the left. I'm much more in favor of working to organise immigrants/ british workers in a fight against the system that compelles us to compeat on a labour market or deprives people of decent housing. Not just to accept it and draw the dividing line. Obvoisly the fight against capitalism is an international one but ill stick to britain here for the sake of keeping it brief(ish).
On the basis that you wont stop economic immigration untill the economic system that causes it is done away with. And that you won't be able to force immigrants allready here out (with out one hell of a divisive fight). I feel it's much better to be calling for community controll of housing and organising in the work place against low wages. Other good points have been made in this thread that I agree with but just to say that only mc liberals aren't anti immigration because they benefit from cheap nannies isn't one of them.

 

[exosculate]

I think people are getting ideals and realities mixed up alot on this thread.

The cheap labour brigades of the EU are now voting on Turkeys behalf for xmas it would appear. More undercutting of wages to follow in the new year then.

 

[Isambard]

Of course the expansion of the EU is partly as western capital seeks new markets and resources and we have to criticise that. But the idea that the EU needs to be based "Judaeo-Christian values" and thus excluding Turkey in perpetuity is based on racism.

So, a direct question to tbaldwin. Was the GDR correct then to forcibly stop its citizens from leaving the country? After all, the building of the Berlin Wall to stop a haemorrage of the most skilled.

 

[exosculate]

Well

Of course the expansion of the EU is partly as western capital seeks new markets and resources and we have to criticise that. But the idea that the EU needs to be based "Judaeo-Christian values" and thus excluding Turkey in perpetuity is based on racism.

Why is it based on racism?

So, a direct question to tbaldwin. Was the GDR correct then to forcibly stop its citizens from leaving the country? After all, the building of the Berlin Wall to stop a haemorrage of the most skilled.

A wall within one country is a bit absurd though, its like arguing whether it would be reasonable to split London in half.

 

[Isambard]

Depends what you mean by one country.

A soverign state was haemoriging its most skilled citizens who were emigrating. To maintain its skills base domestically the government forcibly stopped people leaving. Was that correct?

Opposition to Turkey joining the EU coming from German and most recently Austrian conservatives is based on racism. That ethnic Turks living in Germany and Austria are a "problem" in themselves and that more ethnic Turks will "swamp" local culture.

 

[exosculate]

Depends what you mean by one country.

A soverign state was haemoriging its most skilled citizens who were emigrating. To maintain its skills base domestically the government forcibly stopped people leaving. Was that correct?

Opposition to Turkey joining the EU coming from German and most recently Austrian conservatives is based on racism. That ethnic Turks living in Germany and Austria are a "problem" in themselves and that more ethnic Turks will "swamp" local culture.

Artificial state, sovereign state my buttocks.

The 'swamping' is all about economics.

So Germany/Austria are racist and all the others aren't because they agree with you? Sorry whose racist?

 

[Isambard]

Both Germany and Austria have ethnic Turks as their largest (well certainly in Germany) ethnic minorities. Effectively immigrants and ethnic minorities are denied the right to vote. So it is VERY popular for politicians of the right (and sometimes the left) to play the racism card.

eg it is implied: Don't let Turkey then because all the Turks will move to your village and replace with bratwurst with kebabs and turn your churrch into a mosque and we know that all Turks are dealing thieving terrorist dole scroungers anyway.

There are arguments to be had for and against Turkey in the EU human rights etc. but the Germans and Austrian conservatives use those issues as a fig leaf.

 

[Pigeon]

Crikey this is funny.

Cheap tenant indeed fuck me were you Dr Goebbels in a past life?
You might have noticed the/ between cheap labour/tenants but then again maybe not.
Maybe you will try and give me an English lesson?

Think you mean "try to give me an English lesson..."

Whatever. The fact that you can't express an idea -the same fucking idea day after tedious day, mind- coherently hardly makes me a Nazi, you nob.

The situation is indeed complex which does not mean either of my statements is untrue.

Yet, day after fucking day, you lump the 2 things together without ever trying to unpick the implications of either. You claim to be an internationalist, you claim to be anti-immigration because the effects are that "poor countries lose the people they need most", then you chunter about middleclass liberals benefiting from unskilled labour. Blatantly, if unskilled workers can work here for a higher wage than in their country of origin, it has an effect directly the opposite of the one you repeatedly harp on about. And, that being the case, unskilled labourers also benefit; in fact I've done it myself, working as a waiter in Amsterdam. People like to travel. Deal with it.

You obviously think that i am unable to realise that immigration has more than one effect despite the fact that as you say i keep mentioning these 2 effects not exactly the brightest button in the box are you.

A tip: if you're going to write about how dumb other posters are, try at least to punctuate the diss. Otherwise you just look a cock.

 

[tbaldwin]

Of course the expansion of the EU is partly as western capital seeks new markets and resources and we have to criticise that. But the idea that the EU needs to be based "Judaeo-Christian values" and thus excluding Turkey in perpetuity is based on racism.

So, a direct question to tbaldwin. Was the GDR correct then to forcibly stop its citizens from leaving the country? After all, the building of the Berlin Wall to stop a haemorrage of the most skilled.

I think your first point is probably a bit of an oversimplification. Many people would be against Turkey entering the EU because of its shit human rights record.

As for East Germany,its an interesting question. (The most difficult one put to me so far)Personal freedom always has to be balanced against the greater good.
My arguements against mass migration are not based on shooting people going across borders. But the encouragement people get to leave their home countries.
I am arguing that in taking the people poorer countries need most we are making the world a more unequal place.
All of the arguements advanced against that on here have shown just how little Liberal types have really thought about the issue.

 

[tbaldwin]

Yet, day after fucking day, you lump the 2 things together without ever trying to unpick the implications of either. You claim to be an internationalist, you claim to be anti-immigration because the effects are that "poor countries lose the people they need most", then you chunter about middleclass liberals benefiting from unskilled labour. Blatantly, if unskilled workers can work here for a higher wage than in their country of origin, it has an effect directly the opposite of the one you repeatedly harp on about. And, that being the case, unskilled labourers also benefit; in fact I've done it myself, working as a waiter in Amsterdam. People like to travel. Deal with it.

I think you might just have spent too long in Amsterdam.
You are just repeating nonsense.
1 Of course poor countries are losing the people they need most.
2 Of course some middle class people are benefiting from cheap labour.
Polish nannies and plumbers are pushing down wages across london.
If you dont beleive me ask a plumber etc
3 If people work here for a higher wage than in their country of origin.
How exactly does it contradict either of my two main points?.

 

[ZWord]

I think it would be really interesting if there were completely free movement of people across the world.

My guess is that the early result would be a flood of people descending on some Western countries, and the unstoppable evolution of thirdworld style shanty towns even on the edge of London. The shock of seeing what happens anyway in our own back yard might conceivably wake the countries that rule and own the world enough that they elected people who were committed to ruling for humanity's benefit. That's probably why it's not going to happen.

 

[Isambard]

I think your first point is probably a bit of an oversimplification. Many people would be against Turkey entering the EU because of its shit human rights record..

Yes Turkey has a dodgy record on human rights and treatment of minorities. So does Slovakia, so do the Baltic States.

I suggest then you go away and READ some of the comments over the last couple of years from polticians from the various parties CDU CSU ÖVP FPÖ !

My arguements against mass migration are not based on shooting people going across borders. But the encouragement people get to leave their home countries.

So how should governments stop their citizens leaving if there personal freedoms need to be curtailed for the "greater good" ?

 

[tbaldwin]

Yes Turkey has a dodgy record on human rights and treatment of minorities. So does Slovakia, so do the Baltic States.

I suggest then you go away and READ some of the comments over the last couple of years from polticians from the various parties CDU CSU ÖVP FPÖ !


So how should governments stop their citizens leaving if there personal freedoms need to be curtailed for the "greater good" ?

I think that Turkeys human rights record and number of political prisoners dwarfs the human rights of the baltic countries and slovakia.

Your question on curtailing peoples freedoms is the most difficult to face.
But i would say that at present mass migration is being encouraged and its not a good thing.
I think instead of encouraging people to move to work, we should be encouraging more investment in developing countries which benefits the many not just the few.
Cant pretend that is going to be an easy road to take but the people who are arguing for mass migration. Are going down the completely wrong road.

 

[Isambard]

Cant pretend that is going to be an easy road

But you are offering very easy comments (no need to repeat your "just add water" 2 ) against migration without seeming to understand that it is a complicated picture and there ARE grey zones.

 

[tbaldwin]

But you are offering very easy comments (no need to repeat your "just add water" 2 ) against migration without seeming to understand that it is a complicated picture and there ARE grey zones.

I realise there are complexities but they dont make my 2 main points any less important.
I was watching BBC 4 with my 11 year old son last night the peoples century on African independence.
He said "we were really responsible for fucking up Africa werent we"

I said " Yes and we are still doing it taking away the people they need most and Afrcian countries will never be able to develop if they lose their most skilled workers"


Its a question that nobody on 20 odd pages has been able to counter.

 

[Patty]

I realise there are complexities but they dont make my 2 main points any less important.
I was watching BBC 4 with my 11 year old son last night the peoples century on African independence.
He said "we were really responsible for fucking up Africa werent we"

I said " Yes and we are still doing it taking away the people they need most and Afrcian countries will never be able to develop if they lose their most skilled workers"


Its a question that nobody on 20 odd pages has been able to counter.

Who's this we?
If you claim (rightly) that mass immigration pushes down wages in britain you cant mean we as in the wc. Do you mean the propieters of capital? The very same people who benefit from an unorganised and divided wc.

To say that African countries will never develop if they lose their most skilled workers avoids a wider issue. African countries, under global capitalism could only develop if they were able to provide a pool of cheap and exploitable labour, at best they could expect a relation to the west similar to that of Latin America and South Asia(Swet shop labour, U.S aided dictatorships,vast envoironmental destruction, on an even bigger scale than these things exist there now). The strangle hold of capital over the global economy would have to be revomed before Africa, as a reagion could have any hope of developing in a way that benefits ordinary Africans.

 

[JoeBlack]

I am arguing that in taking the people poorer countries need most we are making the world a more unequal place.

I'm not sure this argument holds even for those who believe in such 'national interests'.

The country I'm in (Ireland) was an economic basket case in the 70's and 80's. At least 30% of college graduates migrated after receiving an education that if not free was very heavily state subsidised. Unemployed was offically just below 20% but was probably nearer 30%.

Now under your theory if those who migrated had stayed at home this would somehow have made the rest of us better off. I don't see how this would have worked - all it would have done was push unemployment higher. It's not like there were job opportunities in say medicine or engineering that no one could be found for. There was a shortage of jobs not a shortage of people.

Note this is seperate from the _need_ for say doctors. The health service was (and is) crap but the state was not going to pay for extra doctors.

I suspect this is a similar situation in a lot of migrant countries today. There may be a need for doctors but the real problem is that there is no one to pay for them.

The other side of the equation is that those who migrated did some good for those who remained. Through
1. Sending money home or spending it on holidays or returning here
2. In working they picked up extra skills which they were able to return with.
3. On the individual level by getting work and accommodation elsewhere they provided resources for those who followed them. There is a huge difference arriving off the boat train at 6 in the morning with no job, no money and no place to stay and arriving with at least a friends floor to crash on and whatever work contacts/hints she may have.
4. Some got very rich and returned home to start companies that provided jobs.

The experience of migrating for work can be pretty awful but so can staying at home. And being forced to stay at home by a trendy leftie who reckons its in the best interests of the country you are trapped in isn't as attractive as you think it is. All the more so because we know the reality is that such controls result in the deaths of migrants (at least 8 deaths last week of those trying to scale the fences into Spanish terretory in North Africa),forcing others into the arms of people smuggling gangsters and leaving those who manage to get in much more vunerable in relation to their boss. I'm going to post something I've written on this last element as a new thread in a moment and would welcome comments.

 

[tbaldwin]

Some good and interesting points Joe.
I would say though that Ireland is a bit different from the main points on migration.
For a start it's in western europe and it got a substantial help from the eu to kickstart the celtic tiger etc
Its great that some people returned there with money but maybe the eu money was the thing to get that ball really rolling.
Generations of Irish people were forced to migrate,I used to know loads in London.
I never thought that was a good thing and im glad that so many more now are likely to stay at home instead.
It would be good if instead of seeing migration as a good thing the Left would argue to take the Jobs to the people not the people to the Jobs.

Your last point on the death of migrants due to immigration controls is with all due respect misplaced.
How many Irish building workers do you think died in the 70s and 80s?.

 

[JoeBlack]

I would say though that Ireland is a bit different from the main points on migration.

True and I gave this some thought but in most if not all cases this makes the argument stronger rather than weaker. Eg in comparing Ireland with Nigeria for instance
1. Nigeria is less rather than more likely to find the money to employ extra doctors
2. Money sent home by a Nigerian migrant would have a much greater impact (because of much greater povderty levels there) than money returned by an Irish migrant (we had a dole).

BTW I'm not claiming migration bears a significant relationship to the celtic tiger - that was driven by very low corporate tax rates and high unemployment among a relatively skilled English speaking workforce. So companies (particularly US companies) got to pay very little tax and low wages. There is probably a small relationship in the sense of returning migrants with skills picked up abraod. But thats another story.

Generations of Irish people were forced to migrate,I used to know loads in London. I never thought that was a good thing and im glad that so many more now are likely to stay at home instead.

I've been thinking about this and I think everyone I know in the 30-45 age bracket with a couple of exceptions had to emmigrate for at least a while. And 15-20% of people I've known in that bracket still live out of the country. So I'm familar enough with how it feels to be forced to migrate. I can however only imagine how much worse things would have been if we were forced to be illegals in the UK as well as the USA.

It would be good if instead of seeing migration as a good thing the Left would argue to take the Jobs to the people not the people to the Jobs.

It's not that simple either. A lot of Irish textile jobs paying 300-400 euro a week moved to Morrocco five years back. The workers there are paid around 40 to 50 Euro a week and are forbidden to join unions. Union organisers in Morrocco have ended up in the underground prisons there. Migration controls are part of the process of keeping Morrocan workers under these conditions as otherwise a good few would migrate to factories in Europe where they would be paid ten times more and have much more freedom to organise. This would force the corporations in Morrocco (Fruit of the Loom is the example here) to raise wages and improved conditions to hold onto workers they had spent time and money training.

Your last point on the death of migrants due to immigration controls is with all due respect misplaced. How many Irish building workers do you think died in the 70s and 80s?.

I would imagine hundreds at least - just as in Ireland 20-40 have died every year under the Celtic Tiger. That however would not have been improved if another 40 or 50 had drowned every year being smuggled across the Irish sea. In fact if they were illegal in London the death rate would almost certainly have been higher as employers would have found it even easier to force them to work in unsafe (and illegal) conditions. I've know a lot of 'illegal' workers in the US and very often their conditions are shit - and quite illegal in terms of safety legislation.

I cover this last point in more length in the other bit I posted but basically unless your going to have an actual Berlin wall then even very strict migration controls will be porous and you'll still have migration. The only difference is that the workers who make it through will be even more isolated and more open to explotation.

Edited to add link to other article referred to - its at http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=134113

 

[Pigeon]

I was watching BBC 4 with my 11 year old son last night the peoples century on African independence.
He said "we were really responsible for fucking up Africa werent we"

I said " Yes and we are still doing it taking away the people they need most "

Comedy gold!

 

[tbaldwin]

It's not that simple either. A lot of Irish textile jobs paying 300-400 euro a week moved to Morrocco five years back. The workers there are paid around 40 to 50 Euro a week and are forbidden to join unions. Union organisers in Morrocco have ended up in the underground prisons there. Migration controls are part of the process of keeping Morrocan workers under these conditions as otherwise a good few would migrate to factories in Europe where they would be paid ten times more and have much more freedom to organise. This would force the corporations in Morrocco (Fruit of the Loom is the example here) to raise wages and improved conditions to hold onto workers they had spent time and money training.

Edited to add link to other article referred to - its at http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=134113

Joe, thanks a few points to make me think.
The Morroco example is important. But what can be done to stop the worldwide exploitation of workers. Should we argue on one hand ( as sections of the left have) to protect jobs in this country and at the same time for the free movement of people. Or for better conditions for workers internationally and the left have not been exactly great at this over the years.
(Though i know No Sweat etc have been a noticeable exception)

I know some people will argue that Western companies going to India etc is a bad thing. But it is a far better thing to take Jobs to the people than the other way round. But Socialists should campaign for all major multinational companies to sign up to International Labour Regulations.

 

[Pigeon]

But Socialists should campaign for all major multinational companies to sign up to International Labour Regulations.

In other words, socialists should ask capitalists to be a bit nicer.

Dear, dear me. How, um, liberal!

 

[tbaldwin]

In other words, socialists should ask capitalists to be a bit nicer.

Dear, dear me. How, um, liberal!

I think putting pressue on Employers especially multinationals is no bad thing. Sorry if this dissapoints you.

 

[Pigeon]

I think putting pressue on Employers especially multinationals is no bad thing. Sorry if this dissapoints you.

Sir, the one thing you could never do is disappoint me.

Now, don't you have an outraged letter to write to Nike?