Immigration .. part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism??

[tbaldwin]

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?

They suffer from having their most skilled workers poached by western countries.

My arguement against mass migration is based on Internationalism and the International consequences.

 

[belboid]

well strangely enough, i find your proclomatins of 'socialism' about as convincing as that other TB's.

Note how the sane pople on this thread (ie everyone else) has pointed out that in terms of immigration policy, there is no 'local solution', and that the local solutions that are supportable are to demand full rights and facilities etc, for all workers on that locality, however they came to be there.

Why am I bothering? I should just put the prat on ignore really.

 

[tbaldwin]

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

Racist?
We exacerbate the problem of a world divided by race and finance if we support taking the people poorer countries need most.
Your arguements are a mixture of Liberalism and Nationalism. eg Be nice to the Immigrants and People of other races but you leave out the effect it has on people across the world.

 

[tbaldwin]

well strangely enough, i find your proclomatins of 'socialism' about as convincing as that other TB's.

Note how the sane pople on this thread (ie everyone else) has pointed out that in terms of immigration policy, there is no 'local solution', and that the local solutions that are supportable are to demand full rights and facilities etc, for all workers on that locality, however they came to be there.

Why am I bothering? I should just put the prat on ignore really.

You might find my Socialism unconvincing,but unlike some other people im looking at the consequences migration has Internationally and On a Class basis.
Liberals cant do that. So your a bit stuck, maybe you should just try and ignore it?

 

[belboid]

bollocks you are. funny how you simply re-assert your point over and over and don't answer the criticisms put to you - unlike everyone else on the thread. you convince no one.

 

[Epicurus]

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.

But people are people and will vote for self interest.

I posted a problem up on Urban a while ago that dealt with a number of small groups of people who got land under land reform, they got their land with the help of others and would never had got the land without that help, but now others want land that does not take land from them but means a water supply would have to be moved to open up the other bits of land, many of these people have voted not to move the water supply, they have done so purely out of self interest.

Are you saying that this small group is right in that decision? How local do you want to go with your decision making; would it be right for a group of workers in one factory to say we don’t want black workers here?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Racist?
We exacerbate the problem of a world divided by race and finance if we support taking the people poorer countries need most.
Your arguements are a mixture of Liberalism and Nationalism. eg Be nice to the Immigrants and People of other races but you leave out the effect it has on people across the world.

So are you for banning women from the workplace as well, because of the effect it has on the family?

and what is your "racist?"? Of course I come across people who make racist arguments. Are you saying there are no such arguments, there is no such thing as racism?

on another topic, are you suggesting that immigration controls in Britain are applied fairly, have nothing to do with race?

 

[tbaldwin]

bollocks you are. funny how you simply re-assert your point over and over and don't answer the criticisms put to you - unlike everyone else on the thread. you convince no one.

What criticisms bellboid do you want to ask some direct questions. If you do i will give you direct answers.

 

[tbaldwin]

So are you far banning women from the workplace as well, because of the effect it has (poaching) on the family?

and what is your "racist?"? Of course I come across people who make racist arguments. Are you saying there are no such arguments, there is no such thing as racism?

on another topic, are you suggesting that immigration controls in Britain are applied fairly, have nothing to do with race?

banning women??????? Who has suggested that?

My racist is the arguements put forward by durrutti,sihhi,rednblack etc are not racist far from it. But some people have a very racist position on mass migration. They argue for example that Britain needs Immigrants due to a pension crisis etc.

Your third point is bit confusing. But personally i am as much against mass migration of White as Black people.
White South Africans coming here to take the Jobs of Black people. Where do you stand on that issue?

 

[Poi E]

But personally i am as much against mass migration of White as Black people.?

So you'd welcome back some of the population of NZ, Australia, Canada, US etc?

 

[tbaldwin]

So you'd welcome back some of the population of NZ, Australia, Canada, US etc?

You got me on that one.
er NO.

 

[Poi E]

You got me on that one.
er NO.

Too late! We here already, paying taxes and not allowed to collect benefits. Mwahahaha.

 

[tbaldwin]

Too late! We here already, paying taxes and not allowed to collect benefits. Mwahahaha.

Yeah its a bit of a dilemna for me that point. The thought that White South Africans and Australians are taking Jobs off Black people in the UK given their history is preety repugnant.

 

[Poi E]

The thought that White South Africans and Australians are taking Jobs off Black people in the UK given their history is preety repugnant.

So if you're an Australian or a white South African then you're collectively responsible for the injustices perpetrated on Aborigines and black South Africans?

 

[Brainaddict]

Yeah its a bit of a dilemna for me that point. The thought that White South Africans and Australians are taking Jobs off Black people in the UK given their history is preety repugnant.

Are you serious?

 

[TeeJay]

it is obvious to all but that left that the immigration of the last few years is an intregal part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism .. i.e. that the project to destroy the unions and cut wages thru privatisation etc etc could not have been acheived without this new wave of immigration ... show me how this is not true ..

You might be right about the "neo-liberal" bit, but actually there isn't actually any evidence that immigration to the UK has resulted in cut wages.

Here is The Economist's take on it:

Migration fears - Myths and reality

Are immigrants bad for the economy? That depends on who you are

THERE are three big worries about the economic and fiscal consequences of immigration. First, migrants steal jobs. Second, they lower wages. Third, they are benefit-scroungers, generating a net burden on taxpayers. How justified are such fears?

The first is a myth. The accusation that migrants steal jobs is a version of the “lump of labour” fallacy—that there is only so much work to go around. But in a flexible economy the labour market adjusts to an increase in the supply of workers and more jobs are generated.

Research by Christian Dustmann, an economist at University College London, finds no evidence that previous migration flows in the 1980s and 1990s have taken jobs away from the existing population. What's more, today's labour market, with unemployment at a 28-year low and over half a million vacancies, is much tighter than in either of those periods.

Mr Dustmann's research also suggests that wages among existing workers have not been materially affected by immigrants; if anything they have risen...

...The third worry—that migrants are benefit-scroungers—is another myth. The vast majority come here to better their lot in the workplace. Unemployment rates among immigrants—except the Chinese or Indians—are higher than among people born in Britain, but this probably reflects difficulties in finding a job, such as poor language skills. Among those in work, immigrants are more likely to be self-employed than people born in Britain.

Nor are they a net burden on the taxpayer, according to a Home Office study which calculated that in 1999 existing migrants contributed £2.5 billion ($4 billion) more in taxes than they received in benefits and services like health and education. The NRC report, by contrast, suggests that immigration into America initially results in a net cost to the taxpayer partly because of the expense of educating immigrants' children. But in the longer term, it calculated that immigration will generate a substantial budgetary gain.

For immigration to be of mutual advantage, both migrants and the host country have to work hard. Migrants can generally be relied upon to do just that. They are motivated by a desire to get on—a further reason why employers rate them. But they can also do with some help, especially in learning languages, which greatly improves their chances in the labour market. Arguably, it is the host countries like Britain that need to work harder by helping more with such integration.

source: http://www.economist.com/research/a...ubjectid=894664

Re: the "Research by Christian Dustmann, an economist at University College London" - here's the link to this research (nb: pdf report, 67 pages) which people here might be interested in reading:

The local labour market effects of immigration in the UK

page 46: "According to the most robust estimate, an increase in immigration amounting to one per cent of the non-immigrant population would lead to just under a two per cent increase in average non-immigrant wages."

EDIT: SORRY, I FORGOT TO POST THE LINK: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr0603.pdf

 

[Poi E]

Fuck we're good.

 

[TremulousTetra]

banning women??????? Who has suggested that?

My racist is the arguements put forward by durrutti,sihhi,rednblack etc are not racist far from it. But some people have a very racist position on mass migration. They argue for example that Britain needs Immigrants due to a pension crisis etc.

Your third point is bit confusing. But personally i am as much against mass migration of White as Black people.
White South Africans coming here to take the Jobs of Black people. Where do you stand on that issue?

Several people in this thread raised the issue of women, because many of the arguments being used to justify the banning of immigrants, were used to justify the banning of women from the workplace in the 19th-century. There is a direct parallel between your arguments and the arguments that took place then.

Now there are a whole number of ways you can approach this issue, of workers coming into the workplace and undermining wages terms and conditions by accepting low wages terms and conditions. However, in the experience with women Socialists found the best way was not for workers and trade unionist to discriminate against women workers, but to do everything to ensure they was treated equally to male workers. If women workers at receiving exactly the same standards of terms conditions and wages as the male workers, bosses could not bring in women workers to undermine the wages terms and conditions of men could they? And likewise for women.

Now you are saying it is unfair to poach workers, but how is unfair that it that of the last few hundred years British people have gone all over the world, they have not just stole peoples jobs, they've stole entire continents. If you take it on that sort of timescale, the people that have left this country and their subsequent progeny, far far exceed the numbers of immigrants that have come to this country and their progeny. You are saying that now that people from those countries have the opportunity to come here and improve their life they should not have that same opportunity?

If British people really want to do something of about improving the quality of life in "Third World countries", then the solution in my opinion is not about banning people from seeking a better life, it's about stopping our rulers from ruining people's lives.

http://socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7361

 

[Divisive Cotton]

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

I'm unsure about the whole question of immigration controls. But I agree with a lot of posters in that it is a class issue - Frequently, immigrants, such as the Irish, have been the backbone of the labour movement. It is obviously in the interests of the w/c to organise all sections of the workforce. It doesn't matter how long they have been resident in the country. I don't think the current influx of immigrants makes much of a difference to the prospects to the labour movement. What is essential, in regards to the unions, is that they are able to put up a fight - few have the imagination, foresight or competence to do so.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you took away the "non-compulsory" and "if she wanted" bit from that, I'd agree.

In reality that is what local councils do. The one I work doesn't just evict people but will move them to a property that meets their housing needs.

Problem is that I don't think some councils promote the possibility as well as they could.
Fr'instance, I happen to have a couple of aunts in Lambeth, both living on their own in 3 or 4 bedroom properties, and I know that Lambeth hasn't contacted either to let them know they could move to a smaller property if they wanted.
In fact one of 'em was amazed when I told her that some councils will give you a cash incentive (dunno whether Lambeth does) to "downsize".

The reason I don't think that there should be compulsion is that given the size of some local authorities, a council could end up moving someone well away from their social support network, so I reckon that unless the authority set a distance limit on moves you could be doing tenants a big disfavour.

However the "Decent Homes Scheme" (what an Orwellian name) means that by 2010 there won't be any council housing left if the government gets its way.

I read some of the "decent homes" bumf. If the team that wrote that actually believed any of it I'm a fucking monkey's uncle.
What makes me laugh is the exchequer having a swing at corporates for "off the book" accounting, and what is the attempted shift to ALMOs etc if not more of the same?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Ok Cockney Rebel did a runner from me on the MCB thread so lets carry on here

it is obvious to all but that left that the immigration of the last few years is an intregal part of neo liberalism/Thatcherism .. i.e. that the project to destroy the unions and cut wages thru privatisation etc etc could not have been acheived without this new wave of immigration ... show me how this is not true ..

and p.s. i work regularly with agency workers ( we have had agencies from rumania/congo/ghana/spain/lithuania and probably more where i work lately) who have replaced once full time jobs .. the union is weak .. i treat them as fellow workers .. but i can still see the function of immigration ..

I still think the decline of trade unions in this country has far more to do with a the stupidity of the trade union leaders than Margaret Thatcher. Time and time again if TU leaders had supported those in struggle, ie miners 1984. like they did in the 1970's we could have defeated Neo-liberalism/Thatcherism.

 

[tbaldwin]

Now you are saying it is unfair to poach workers, but how is unfair that it that of the last few hundred years British people have gone all over the world, they have not just stole peoples jobs, they've stole entire continents. If you take it on that sort of timescale, the people that have left this country and their subsequent progeny, far far exceed the numbers of immigrants that have come to this country and their progeny. You are saying that now that people from those countries have the opportunity to come here and improve their life they should not have that same opportunity?


http://socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7361

RPM3.
I'm saying its shit poaching workers but what are you saying? That its OK as a form of payback for what we did years ago.
Its the kind of confused thinking that makes me wonder who really pulls the strings of the far left.
The people most likely to leave poorer countries are those they need most.
HOW CAN ANY SOCIALIST TRY AND JUSTIFY IT OR PRETEND ITS A GOOD THING?
You seem to be for the rights of a small group of individuals to have opportunities but what about the people they leave behind in poorer countries.
Its a question the Orthodox lefties on here just cant face.

 

[TeeJay]

And in the UK large scale migration is pushing down wages and pushing up rents.

This is actually untrue - see my last post.

 

[rioted]

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.

What's local organisation got to do with borders? Think globally, act locally.

People ARE divided by many things. That's no reason to support the divisions.

But I don't believe in the free movement of capital. I believe in its destruction.

 

[tbaldwin]

So if you're an Australian or a white South African then you're collectively responsible for the injustices perpetrated on Aborigines and black South Africans?

Maybe its too harsh to view all white South Africans or Australians as guilty but they have collectivelly benefited from the way Africans and Aborigines were treated. And i think its preety shit that there are so many in London taking Jobs that Black people could do.
What do you think?

 

[tbaldwin]

This is actually untrue - see my last post.

Teejay, Its true.
The economist is hardly interested from a Socialist point of view in how Mass Migration effects different classes in different ways.
The article you posted completely ignores the consequences of mass migartion on the people they leave behind and the people they compete with for Jobs and Housing in the countries they go to..

 

[tbaldwin]

.

But I don't believe in the free movement of capital. I believe in its destruction.

So you think people should be free to go where they like as long as they dont take their money with them?
SURREAL.

 

[TeeJay]

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?

London jobs for London-born people!

Well that's London fucked then, along with most of the people who work there.

 

[Poi E]

Maybe its too harsh to view all white South Africans or Australians as guilty but they have collectivelly benefited from the way Africans and Aborigines were treated.

So did England through it's thievery and murder.

 

[rioted]

So you think people should be free to go where they like as long as they dont take their money with them?
SURREAL.

Hopefully, we'll get to a situation where "money" will have no value. But at the moment I don't think that having money in your pocket means you're a capitalist. There is a difference, you know, between using money for survival and for exploitation.

As for "SURREAL" - have you NO imagination?