Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??

[Epicurus]

I went to Heathrow a couple of weeks back with some friends to support the workers from Gate-Gourmet (sp) I have to tell you that 99% of the people I met there were immigrants and they were protesting because other immigrants were going to take their jobs, do you think all those jobs should be offered to UK born working class before anyone else?

The working class from wherever in the world should work together to improve conditions for all, I am not prepared to work in worse or less safe conditions than a UK citizen, why is it assumed that immigrants have a choice about it?

 

[tbaldwin]

fucking bullshit. ahistorical reactionary drivel.

mass immigraton was needed to fuel a massively growing economy, in order to try and keep up with the USSR and other 'competitor nations'.

I take it you would have oppossed allowing women to work on the same basis?

Workers have no country.

Mass migration from slavery onwards has been something to benefit the wealthy.
For the not so wealthy of this world the effects have not been so positive.

Developing nations find it much harder to develop because they lose skilled workers.

And in the UK large scale migration is pushing down wages and pushing up rents.
That might be good news for a few employers and landlords or even people who go out regularly to restaurants or use nannies or cleaners.
But for a lot of working class people its bad news.
Its ridiculous that organisations supposedly to the Left of Labour are defenders of immigration and shows just how shit their politics really are.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Louis MacNeice:
Do you believe that working class people from other countries should have less rights than working class people in the UK once they are here?

No. Why do you ask?

Louis Mac

 

[rioted]

But for a lot of working class people its bad news.

The attempt to divide people by borders is what is bad news for working class people. Divide and rule.

 

[Epicurus]

Its ridiculous that organisations supposedly to the Left of Labour are defenders of immigration and shows just how shit their politics really are.

But you are looking at it from a UK high wage low housing cost basis, what about the rest of the working class that are not from the UK?

 

[Divisive Cotton]

But this is the question people: 'Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??'

Yes. I can't see how anybody can deny this.

Now, how the left reacts to this point is a different, although obviously not entirely unrelated issue.

 

[Epicurus]

No. Why do you ask?

Louis Mac

It was meant to be a question to a number of posters on this thread not just you, I just forgot to add their names to the top of the post.

I notice that a number of posters seem not to want to answer questions like "should UK working class people be treated better than non UK working class people who are in the UK".

 

[belboid]

fuck off baldwin - you are lying turd and having if you were on the same side as me on anything I'd have to go and look seriously at where I'd gone wrong.

Immigrants do NOT push up rents. Your 'point' is even self-contradictory, if they have worse wages, how can they afford higher rents? Landlords push up rents. Tories pushed up rents by destroying public housing. Similarly with wages, it is not immigrant workers who demand lower wages, it is bosses who attempt to drive wages down, using idiots like you to divide workers and try and get more people to blame others trying to make living. Capitalism drives wages down, and if we are strong enough to change immigraton policy, we are strong wenough to change many more aspects of economic policy, which would surely (unless you just have some innate hatred of 'foreigners') take priority.

I take it you would have oppossed women entering the workplace too baldwin? Or would consistency be too much to ask?

 

[hibee]

All that anyone pro-immigration controls here has said is that 'the bosses try and use immigration to suit them' as if that's bloody surprising! What the hell does anyone expect bosses to do - try and use immigration because its just fair, or to help out 'local workers'? It makes no sense.

Likewise it is unhelpful to say the least that the left talks about immigration as though it were problem-free. To acknowledge this does not make me anti-immigration (I'm second generation immigrant myself) but prepared to use my eyes and ears.

The best case in point were the residents of the sighthill flats in Glasgow. They were talked about by left and establishment alike as though they were bigots to a man and woman. Yet on the rare occassions that anyone bothered to visit and speak to them they said fairly clearly their objection was not to the asylum seekers themselves but to the fact they were, as they saw it, jumping the queue in getting stuff for their flats that the residents had been waiting for. Much of the comment in the liberal Scottish media was about how awful it was for these poor noble refugees to have to live alongside the scheme scruff.

Any large scale shift in population is going to have a social consequence. When immigrants are housed in communities which are both deprived and have severe social problems to begin with there is a strong likelihood of trouble. It is no good descending on these communities, ignoring their difficulties and loftily informing them that "refugees are welcome here."

This is not to say the working class are de facto racist. Far from it. The class which has absorbed the greatest deal of immigration, which sees the most mixed marriages and which culturally has absorbed immigrants the most (genuinely, as opposed to gap year students wearing "ethnic" gear) is the working class.

If the left is going to talk about immigration I would like to see it talking about matching patterns of immigration with resources, facilitating integration and giving communites genuine control of themselves rather than placing them at the mercy of a middle class bureaucracy which knows best. Otherwise they will have no credibility, among immigrants and non immigrants alike.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

But I’d say the same about the private sector. It’s disgusting that you get single people in mansions, far worse than in the public sector. But two wrongs don’t make a right as they say.

The first part your reply is exactly why I said 'in practice in the here and now'. As for the two wrongs don't make a right: well I don't see how further entrenching the advantages enjoyed by home owners (many of whom are working class) over their council tenant counterparts benfits those tenants, those arguing for greater local authority provision or the promotion of working class solidarity?

Cheers - Louis Mac

 

[belboid]

But this is the question people: 'Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??'

Yes. I can't see how anybody can deny this.

Now, how the left reacts to this point is a different, although obviously not entirely unrelated issue.

but then it is an almost meaningless question, may as well replace it with 'life - part of neo liberalism'. We live in a neo liberal world, of course almost everything is then a part of neo liberalism!

And why is it still just immigration, the point is surely about igration as a whole, or are British workers to be locked into this country too?

 

[cockneyrebel]

The first part your reply is exactly why I said 'in practice in the here and now'. As for the two wrongs don't make a right: well I don't see how further entrenching the advantages enjoyed by home owners (many of whom are working class) over their council tenant coounterparts benfits either those tenants, those arguing for greater local authority provision or the promotion of working class solidarity?

You talk about "here and now". But the here and now you speak of means that single people can live in four and five bedroom houses while families have to live in hostels if sons and daughters was brought into affect.

 

[Epicurus]

But this is the question people: 'Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism
??'

Yes. I can't see how anybody can deny this.

Now, how the left reacts to this point is a different, although obviously not entirely unrelated issue.

Well if that is the question then I’d say the answer is no it is not.

In my experience immigration in the main is born out of peoples need to support themselves and there families, employers may exploit this and I wouldn’t expect anything else.

 

[belboid]

Likewise it is unhelpful to say the least that the left talks about immigration as though it were problem-free. To acknowledge this does not make me anti-immigration (I'm second generation immigrant myself) but prepared to use my eyes and ears.

The best case in point were the residents of the sighthill flats in Glasgow. They were talked about by left and establishment alike as though they were bigots to a man and woman. Yet on the rare occassions that anyone bothered to visit and speak to them they said fairly clearly their objection was not to the asylum seekers themselves but to the fact they were, as they saw it, jumping the queue in getting stuff for their flats that the residents had been waiting for. Much of the comment in the liberal Scottish media was about how awful it was for these poor noble refugees to have to live alongside the scheme scruff.

Any large scale shift in population is going to have a social consequence. When immigrants are housed in communities which are both deprived and have severe social problems to begin with there is a strong likelihood of trouble. It is no good descending on these communities, ignoring their difficulties and loftily informing them that "refugees are welcome here."

This is not to say the working class are de facto racist. Far from it. The class which has absorbed the greatest deal of immigration, which sees the most mixed marriages and which culturally has absorbed immigrants the most (genuinely, as opposed to gap year students wearing "ethnic" gear) is the working class.

If the left is going to talk about immigration I would like to see it talking about matching patterns of immigration with resources, facilitating integration and giving communites genuine control of themselves rather than placing them at the mercy of a middle class bureaucracy which knows best. Otherwise they will have no credibility, among immigrants and non immigrants alike.

sorry, but who here is arguing that? I dont think the w-c are de facto racists, far far from it. I agree with your last paragraph, but don't think it really has much to do with the topic under discussion. That much of the left act as outraged liberals is hardly anything new.

 

[cockneyrebel]

The points belboid has made about women workers, migration and neo-liberalism affecting every area of work remain totally unanswered. The last two I've also brought up many times and never got an answer.

 

[chegrimandi]

excellent interesting thread....

 

[rioted]

That is my my big fear and something the left fundamentalists on here choose/have to ignore..

Of course there are problems with internationalism. Whoever suggested that the move to socialism would be easy? My big fear is that too many people claim to be "on the left" but in reality are just crass populists.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Well if that is the question then I’d say the answer is no it is not.

In my experience immigration in the main is born out of peoples need to support themselves and there families, employers may exploit this and I wouldn’t expect anything else.

Fair enough if that's you point view. At least we know where we contributors stand.

 

[rednblack]

I notice that a number of posters seem not to want to answer questions like "should UK working class people be treated better than non UK working class people who are in the UK".

foreign workers in the uk should have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as indigenous workers - anything else and it's only the bosses who benefit

 

[TremulousTetra]

When discussing and debating with people topics, and they raise racist arguments, I always point out how the British bosses love immigration, foreigners, and foreign workers IF they can make more money out of them. Take a look at Rupert Murdoch, his newspapers are full of nationalism, and how faithful as he ever been to any country? To the bosses it is not a question of the colour of your skin, but the colour of money that is important. So immigration IS part of Neo liberalism/Thatcherism, but it can also be about building one world working class, not divided by colour or culture. It depends how the left responds to the issue. Do we exacerbate the the situation by siding with the bosses and the BNP, or do we emphasise the unity of interests of the working class that are more important than the divisions of sex, race colour and culture? If we are going to be against different races being used to undermine our wages terms and conditions, when do we start to use the same argument against women in the workplace?

Fraternal greetings, ResistanceMP3

 

[hibee]

sorry, but who here is arguing that? I dont think the w-c are de facto racists, far far from it. I agree with your last paragraph, but don't think it really has much to do with the topic under discussion. That much of the left act as outraged liberals is hardly anything new.

I make that argument for two reasons. One to head off in advance clueless trots who have thrown accusations of racism at me when I have raised these subjects (funny how it is only internet lefties and never, ever the majority asian workforce I represent who come out with this rubbish).

Two becasue to talk about workers having no country is all very well but ignores the genuine and - as you acknowledge - non-racist objections to the way immigration is handled. By definition this demands controls on immigration - not the controls of the capitalists but regulation to ensure both the immigrant and non-immigrant working class benefit from the process and are not set against each other. To acknowledge something is to be managed is to accept the need for controls.

 

[Brainaddict]

Like a few people here I'm a bit puzzled by the notion that immigration fundamentally changed and developed a new 'agenda' with thatcherism. I've never heard anything to suggest this is the case. Could the thread starter provide historical evidence for this please?

Otherwise it just looks like you're trying to create an equation that looks like:

Thatcherism=evil=immigration

Which, yes, I find a little suspect.

 

[treelover]

Do you mean some of us on here, who imv have real integrity(well most!) or the SWP, the real crass populists..

Whoever suggested that the move to socialism would be easy? My big fear is that too many people claim to be "on the left" but in reality are just crass populists.

 

[rednblack]

I take it you would have oppossed allowing women to work on the same basis?

er no, of course not it's not the same at all as you well know (yes i'm well aware that some people used similar arguments against allowing women the right to equality, but they were wrong)

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You talk about "here and now". But the here and now you speak of means that single people can live in four and five bedroom houses while families have to live in hostels if sons and daughters was brought into affect.

Let me put this in the context of the IWCA's support for the reintroduction of the 'sons and daughters policy' where the IWCA's aim is to try to tackle:

...the long-term council policy of effectively denying the children of residents the right to council housing in the areas in which they have been reared. This often means that families are broken up and the impact on the integrity, solidarity and sustainability of communities, leading to a situation where neighbours often hardly know each other, is socially disastrous. Not only are children often brought up without regular contact with uncles and aunts, but their grandparents, without family nearby to look out for them, are all too often prematurely forced into hospitals or homes at tremendous cost to them emotionally as individuals and to the NHS economically as an institution.​

In this context the security of tenure afforded by 'sons and daughters' is a means of protecting the need many people feel for continuing social (including familial) networks. I'm not at all sure how you could measure these needs (felt both individually and collectively) in relation to the individual or family needs of newly arrived immigrants. However I am sure that doing so, is potentially very corosive of the very working class solidarity you and I both want to promote.

Cheers - Louis Mac

 

[cockneyrebel]

Louis I can see where you are coming from. But there is no way that I will support a policy that allows single people to stay in four and five bedroom houses while families wait in hostels.

PS This is derailing the thread a bit so maybe we should start another thread if you wanna continue the debate.

 

[belboid]

er no, of course not it's not the same at all as you well know (yes i'm well aware that some people used similar arguments against allowing women the right to equality, but they were wrong)

women were used as a reserve army of labour, to be brought in as and when necessary to attempt to undermine male wages - so what's the difference?

And again, what is the difference betwen a worker from a poor area of the UK moving to one paying better wages, and a worker from a poorer part of the rest of the world doing likewise?

Re sons & daughters - as stated before, I think i'd agree that allocation policy needs changing, but that more social housing is actually the key, and that S&D's is too simplistic,and insufficient, a solution.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Louis I can see where you are coming from. But there is no way that I will support a policy that allows single people to stay in four and five bedroom houses while families wait in hostels.

PS This is derailing the thread a bit so maybe we should start another thread if you wanna continue the debate.

No I don't think I'll start another thread; we've been round these particular houses (the underlying arguments if not this particualr application) an number of times before. The posts so far seem to have outlined our positions fairly well, so I'll leave it there.

Cheers - Louis Mac

 

[Epicurus]

Fair enough if that's you point view. At least we know where we contributors stand.

and can you tell me what is your solution to what you see as the problem?

 

[tbaldwin]

The attempt to divide people by borders is what is bad news for working class people. Divide and rule.

Do you believe in any degree of local organisation? Divide and rule is a good cliche but people are divided by many things not just borders.
If you believe in the free movement of capital and labour well fair enough your a freemarketer. But as a Socialist im opposed to both.