Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??

[Isambard]

The idea that the working class could control migration from below somehow assumes that society had been radically changed and would be a different "ball game" Can't think of a better term right now, sorry.

The idea that (self-appointed?) "leaders" of the working class should try and influence / curb migration through a "sons and daughters" policy for example is problematic. It is carrying out capitalisms dirty work by dividing the working class. Secondly, we have seen the bitter results when "the left" (in its broadest sense) rush into local government.

Remind me who was previously a "loony lefty" Leader of Islington?

 

[Pigeon]

So where do you see this mass wc movement coming from? Cant see it coming from people like you who hold the views of wc people in such contempt.

Not now, baldwin. I'm talking to the grown-ups.

 

[Knotted]

The idea that (self-appointed?) "leaders" of the working class should try and influence / curb migration through a "sons and daughters" policy for example is problematic. It is carrying out capitalisms dirty work by dividing the working class. Secondly, we have seen the bitter results when "the left" (in its broadest sense) rush into local government.

Remind me who was previously a "loony lefty" Leader of Islington?

Jeremy Corbyn?

Immigrants are part of the working class and indeed they are more likely to be competing for housing and/or jobs with the newest wave of immigrants than other sections of the working class. The talk about dividing the working class is a boring cliche.

I don't see why it is that only 'leaders' can (should?) have a say in policy, but that's another thread.

 

[Pigeon]

The idea that the working class could control migration from below somehow assumes that society had been radically changed and would be a different "ball game" Can't think of a better term right now, sorry.

Exactly. As things stand, immigration rules and border controls are designed to suit capital's needs. And the creation of a disenfranchised underclass that these controls ensure is an ideal device to hamper the creation of a strong organised labour movement.

 

[Isambard]

The talk about dividing the working class is a boring cliche.

I don't find the idea of working class unity "boring".

Immigration is NOT the reason for the lack of affordable housing, in the whole picture it pays, if any, a tiny role.



@ Pigeon, top post.

 

[Knotted]

Exactly. As things stand, immigration rules and border controls are designed to suit capital's needs. And the creation of a disenfranchised underclass that these controls ensure is an ideal device to hamper the creation of a strong organised labour movement.

Why is one type of reformism profound and another type counterproductive?

How do you propose to abolish all immigration/assylum laws without changing the ball game in one way or another? Which political party is going to do this? The Lib Dems?

Besides just because immigration controls make it easier to exploit illegal immigrants, it doesn't mean that this is the main reason that they are easily exploited. I suspect that the vast majority (sorry there are no statistics to back this up but it fits my experience) are in minimum wage or slightly above minimum wage jobs and are just as exploited as those who are here legally. I suspect that the main factors are 1) the sheer numbers and 2) the fact that a substantial portion (which I would expect would increase if immigration controls were abolished completely) are here for only a few years and have no wish to better their conditions as they won't see the fruits of any struggle.

 

[Knotted]

I don't find the idea of working class unity "boring".

Its boring in the sense that there has been no demonstration of its relevance to the topic being discussed.

 

[Isambard]

Yep, I want to see a totally different "ball game". I'm not expecting it to happen through Westminster.


The division of the working class is indeed central to this discussion.
The boss class use immigrants as scapregoats to try and divide the working class. Sorry, that is a fairly basic concept.

 

[Pigeon]

Why is one type of reformism profound and another type counterproductive?

Sorry- don't quite follow you there, could you expand?

Besides just because immigration controls make it easier to exploit illegal immigrants, it doesn't mean that this is the main reason that they are easily exploited. I suspect that the vast majority (sorry there are no statistics to back this up but it fits my experience) are in minimum wage or slightly above minimum wage jobs and are just as exploited as those who are here legally.

Well, I agree that one doesn't necessarily equal the other. But most of the people I know (and I do know a few) who fit this description are working- when they're working- for well below minimum wage and in conditions far below those experienced by people working here legally.

But I want to get something straight: I'm not saying that scrapping immigration controls will in and of itself bring about the strong w/c movement people here are arguing for. Blatantly it will not. But I do think that immigration controls are couterproductive to the development of w/c unity, and that people arguing for a strong w/c movement do need to counter anti-immigration rhetoric.

 

[Knotted]

The division of the working class is indeed central to this discussion.
The boss class use immigrants as scapregoats to try and divide the working class. Sorry, that is a fairly basic concept.

Sure but this can be countered along the lines that I have outlined. Scapegoating of immigrants does not address the issue of border controls.

Some sections of the working class might identify or indeed exagerate immigration as a problem. If the answer is to encorage repressive measures against immigrants or for that matter intimidate immigrants then this will 1) simply not work and 2) confound the problem by dividing the working class as you rightly say.

 

[Isambard]

Sure but this can be countered along the lines that I have outlined.

Sorry if I missed it but you haven't "outlined" anything apart from saying that you'd think the working class should be controlling immigration policy (how?) and proposing a "sons and daughters" public housing policy which for many is discredited anyway.

 

[Knotted]

Sorry- don't quite follow you there, could you expand?

You argue that one type of reform (ie. the strengthening of immigration controls) can only have a negative effect while arguing that another type of reform (ie. the abolition of immigration controls) can only have a positive effect.

Of course real life reformist politics involves weighing up pros and cons and I think there is surely a great deal to weigh up on this issue.

Really I'm interested in what sort of politics and outlook a working class movement should have. If must talk about reforms we should talk about the context in which these reforms can take place.

 

[Knotted]

Sorry if I missed it but you haven't "outlined" anything apart from saying that you'd think the working class should be controlling immigration policy (how?) and proposing a "sons and daughters" public housing policy which for many is discredited anyway.

From message 873:
"Immigrants are part of the working class and indeed they are more likely to be competing for housing and/or jobs with the newest wave of immigrants than other sections of the working class."

To expand a bit. Immigrants have the same interests visa vie immigration as the rest of us. There is nothing to divide with them.

 

[Knotted]

Well, I agree that one doesn't necessarily equal the other. But most of the people I know (and I do know a few) who fit this description are working- when they're working- for well below minimum wage and in conditions far below those experienced by people working here legally.

Well you might be right. You certainly have a point with respect to illegal immigrants who are smuggled into the country and have to pay off the smugglers. I suspect that this is a small minority of illegal immigrants though.

However there is nothing great about working for the minimum wage and immigration (legal or illegal) will allow it to be kept low.

 

[Isambard]

Of all the causes of the problem in housing, immigration plays if any, a small role I'd wager.

I dispute that immigration is used / is even able to be used to hold the minimum wage down.

The capitalist class wants more immigrants becuase there is a shortage of qualified labour. It is a fallacy to believe that stopping immigration would mean that the unemployed would suddenly been in work.

It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth as I've only seen fascists and racists using it.

 

[tbaldwin]

The capitalist class wants more immigrants becuase there is a shortage of qualified labour. It is a fallacy to believe that stopping immigration would mean that the unemployed would suddenly been in work.

It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth as I've only seen fascists and racists using it.

If you accept there is any truth to supply and demand,this arguement fails to stand up.
A huge influx of migrant workers has to have an effect on how easy it is to get jobs and housing. To argue otherwise is completely dishonest and flies in the face of reality.

 

[Pigeon]

If you accept there is any truth to supply and demand,this arguement fails to stand up.
A huge influx of migrant workers has to have an effect on how easy it is to get jobs and housing. To argue otherwise is completely dishonest and flies in the face of reality.

If the free market law of supply and demand's the basis for your argument, why are you arguing for immigration control at all? Surely, by that criterion, no one would migrate to a country where it wasn't easy to get jobs and housing?

 

[Knotted]

Of all the causes of the problem in housing, immigration plays if any, a small role I'd wager.

Nationally you are correct but locally its a different question.

I dispute that immigration is used / is even able to be used to hold the minimum wage down.

The government sets it as low as it can do. If people can and will work for less then it will be set for less.

The capitalist class wants more immigrants becuase there is a shortage of qualified labour. It is a fallacy to believe that stopping immigration would mean that the unemployed would suddenly been in work.

A few years ago it was outrageous to say even this in some left wing cirlces! It was an article of faith that the bosses were inherently racist and would not want any immigration at all. The capitalist class wants more labour both skilled and unskilled. They exploit both. Unskilled workers are not paracites.

I agree that stopping immigration does not mean that unemployment would go away but that's different to saying that the two are unrelated.

It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth as I've only seen fascists and racists using it.

They don't say that there is nothing to divide with immigrants though.

 

[Isambard]

Jesus.

Maybe immigration plays some contributory role in the shortage of affordable housing. But it is I'd argue such a small role if any that it is not realistic to argue that immigration = less housing.

If you stopped immigration tomorrow there would STILL be unemployment.
Seeing it in purely in terms of commodities, the problem is often that the unemployed don't "match" the demands of the labour market.

Reality? Yup, my neighbour back turning tricks at the station to pay for her newly won back heroin addiction after she was evicted and her flat privatised for..........Well to do indigenous gentrifyers.


@ Knotted. The capitalist class moves on the issue and is divided on the issue. Some want immigrant labour as a resource, others want less immigration to protect "our way of life" yadda yadda. imvho, it is similar to the whole Europe argument where the ruling class is divided.

 

[tbaldwin]

If the free market law of supply and demand's the basis for your argument, why are you arguing for immigration control at all? Surely, by that criterion, no one would migrate to a country where it wasn't easy to get jobs and housing?

Interesting but a bit silly pigeon.

The truth is people are most likely to move to where they will have a higher standard of living and this obviously has an effect on the competition for jobs and housing.
To argue that that is basically OK to have a free market in migration is consistent with right wing views.But it isnt to left wingers who look at the consequences of those free market policies.

 

[Isambard]

Pigeon bad, tbaldwin better
Pigeon bad, tbaldwin better

ad infiniteum.

Yet again tbaldwin you throw around terms like "left" and "right" simply as being good (always yourself) and bad (always others) without knowing that the terms have a meaning.

Obviously you are not a Tory or the like, but I'd certainly plce you on the right of the political spectrum and an aauthoritarian to boot. Somewhere in the top right of the political compass I'd guess, close to Tony. But you wont do the test will you cos you think it's a "bit shit". ie I guess it reveals aspects of your politics that you delude yourself about I guess.

 

[tbaldwin]

Pigeon bad, tbaldwin better
Pigeon bad, tbaldwin better

ad infiniteum.

Yet again tbaldwin you throw around terms like "left" and "right" simply as being good (always yourself) and bad (always others) without knowing that the terms have a meaning.

Obviously you are not a Tory or the like, but I'd certainly plce you on the right of the political spectrum and an aauthoritarian to boot. Somewhere in the top right of the political compass I'd guess, close to Tony. But you wont do the test will you cos you think it's a "bit shit". ie I guess it reveals aspects of your politics that you delude yourself about I guess.

Deluded me..

erm maybe....

 

[Knotted]

Jesus.

Maybe immigration plays some contributory role in the shortage of affordable housing. But it is I'd argue such a small role if any that it is not realistic to argue that immigration = less housing.

I certainly agree that gentrification is a bigger issue.

In London there is a severe shortage of social housing. Is this because of immigration? Is it because of lack of provision? Obviously if there was adequate provision then it would provide for immigrants (including those from other parts of the country). How do you seperate the two issues?

There's been a very good debate on this already on uraban75 by people who know more about this than I do. All I'm saying is that if there is a genuine problem at a local level with immigration outstripping affodable housing then it should be dealt with. Certainly more affordable housing could be demanded, but that might amount to just a moral victory and nothing more.

@ Knotted. The capitalist class moves on the issue and is divided on the issue. Some want immigrant labour as a resource, others want less immigration to protect "our way of life" yadda yadda. imvho, it is similar to the whole Europe argument where the ruling class is divided.

I agree with this except that I would add that the side of the arguement which wants to encorage greater immigration has got much stronger over the past five to ten years. For example there is not a section of the media (including the Sun and the Mail) which does not say that immigration is necessary for the economy.

 

[tbaldwin]

Pigeon bad, tbaldwin better
Pigeon bad, tbaldwin better

ad infiniteum.

Yet again tbaldwin you throw around terms like "left" and "right" simply as being good (always yourself) and bad (always others) without knowing that the terms have a meaning.

Obviously you are not a Tory or the like, but I'd certainly plce you on the right of the political spectrum and an aauthoritarian to boot. Somewhere in the top right of the political compass I'd guess, close to Tony. But you wont do the test will you cos you think it's a "bit shit". ie I guess it reveals aspects of your politics that you delude yourself about I guess.

Id agree that i was authoritarian to a degree,but not right wing.
The test is nonsense it suits politicos who fit into narrow ideas of left and right handed down by the telegraph/guardian etc but is meaningless drivel.

 

[tbaldwin]

I agree with this except that I would add that the side of the arguement which wants to encorage greater immigration has got much stronger over the past five to ten years. For example there is not a section of the media (including the Sun and the Mail) which does not say that immigration is necessary for the economy.

A very good point, that i hope people will not overlook.

 

[Pigeon]

The test is nonsense it suits politicos who fit into narrow ideas of left and right handed down by the telegraph/guardian etc but is meaningless drivel

=bad=liberal.

 

[Pigeon]

I agree with this except that I would add that the side of the arguement which wants to encorage greater immigration has got much stronger over the past five to ten years. For example there is not a section of the media (including the Sun and the Mail) which does not say that immigration is necessary for the economy.

Up to a point. But they're also the same media outlets which are always shrieking the loudest about "bogus" asylum seekers spongeing us out of house and home. They might well be in favour of migration for a favoured few that can afford it, but god forbid any proles should pass through customs.

 

[tbaldwin]

Up to a point. But they're also the same media outlets which are always shrieking the loudest about "bogus" asylum seekers spongeing us out of house and home. They might well be in favour of migration for a favoured few that can afford it, but god forbid any proles should pass through customs.

The Sun and the Mail are not opposed to Economic migrants taking low skilled jobs are they pigeon?
I have not seen any evidence to back that up anyway.

 

[Isambard]

Opens up the "Ladybird Book of Politics" and reads very slowly:

The media as the expression of the ruling capitalist class can accept the "need" of the capitalist economy to import labour and at the same time oppose it editorially so as to divide the working class.

The argument on migration is not a clear cut left/right issue as I pointed out several pages ago.

 

[Knotted]

Up to a point. But they're also the same media outlets which are always shrieking the loudest about "bogus" asylum seekers spongeing us out of house and home. They might well be in favour of migration for a favoured few that can afford it, but god forbid any proles should pass through customs.

I don't believe there is any hint of favouring the favoured few. They want proles. They want hard working proles who are not just in it for the 'generous welfare' but they want proles. Skilled and unskilled.

Indeed the some of the rhetoric of groups like Workers Power and the SWP is identical some of the rhetoric of right wing tabloids. Especially with respect to 'immigrants taking the jobs nobody else wants'. In other words give the foreigners the worst jobs. Now tell me that isn't divisive.