IWCA statement on BNP

[audiotech]

Spot on.

Not an earth shattering revelation though is it?

 

[JHE]

Wonder and distort all you want.

Technically speaking the “indigenous people” of this country are the Welsh and the Cornish, who moved West when Julius Caesar and the boys decided to visit. Not to mention the Picts and Scots, one of JC’s successors Hadrian, who built a wall to keep them out. After that it was pretty much party time with Angles, Saxons, French and whoever coming to these shores.

'Mass immigration'? Go figure.

It amazes me the way that people who are in favour of more immigration present a series of invasions (you forgot the Danes, by the way) ending in 1066 as examples of how OK and normal it all is. Even leaving aside the fact that those invasions ended almost a millennium ago, you'd think the pro-immigration lobby would want to discourage us from seeing contemporary immigration as an invasion.

Perhaps their next trick is to try to con us that the Britons responded to the Anglo-Saxon invasions by telling each other that Britain was and had always been a multicultural island and it would be crass xenophobia to object to these new Germanic arrivals, the Anglo-Saxons responded to Danish raids, rapine and rule by 'celebrating diversity', hanging up signs saying 'welcome' in a variety of Danish dialects, cheerfully paid the Danegeld and later welcomed the Norman conquest as a wonderful exercise in 'cultural enrichment'.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It is also noticeable that the link I made between the free movement of capital and as a consequence the free movement of labour has also been side stepped. Again given the number eager to engage in futile moralising why is this?

I chose not to engage with it because it’s a gross oversimplification at best. The globalization era of free trade agreements has created a borderless world for capital from the rich nations (backed up protectionist tariffs and subsidies to keep the Global South in its place) with nothing like a correlative global free movement of labour to accompany it. Quite the opposite has been the case in fact. Just look at the devastating impact that NAFTA has had on the Mexican economy - 2 million people forced out of agriculture and the reintroduction of sweetshop conditions. It resulted in millions illegally crossing the US border and many dying in desert on the way. Ditto Europe and the Maastricht Treaty – try telling the tens of thousands of asylum seekers/”economic migrants” suffering in the detention camps across the continent that there’s free movement of labour.

Within the EU itself there is free movement of labour and it is true that bosses use some of these migrants as a cheap, expendable labour force to the detriment of British workers – creating divisions and driving down wages and conditions in the process. This is by no means a uniform phenemonom however – research by the TUC suggested that on the whole immigration has not depressed wages or led to job losses and that migrant workers contribute more in tax than they take in benefits.

In the instances where there is exploitation, the answer is simple: Follow the lead of the Lindsey protests and organise, fight back, get results. Adding to scaremongering about “mass immigration” is a disaster (the claim that there is a “defence of mass immigration emanating from the commercial and political elite” is ludicrous – ever picked up a newspaper? Or watched rival political parties engaging in a bout of who can be toughest on the immigrants for the delectation of the Daily Mail swing voters game?) not only do you divide workers on national and ethnic grounds but you play right into the hands of the BNP scum by fueling the fear and resentment they thrive on. A “left” that appeals to, or seeks to capitalize on anti-immigration sentiment isn’t one I’d touch with a barge poll.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It amazes me the way that people who are in favour of more immigration present a series of invasions (you forgot the Danes, by the way) ending in 1066 as examples of how OK and normal it all is. Even leaving aside the fact that those invasions ended almost a millennium ago, you'd think the pro-immigration lobby would want to discourage us from seeing contemporary immigration as an invasion.

Perhaps their next trick is to try to con us that the Britons responded to the Anglo-Saxon invasions by telling each other that Britain was and had always been a multicultural island and it would be crass xenophobia to object to these new Germanic arrivals, the Anglo-Saxons responded to Danish raids, rapine and rule by 'celebrating diversity', hanging up signs saying 'welcome' in a variety of Danish dialects, cheerfully paid the Danegeld and later welcomed the Norman conquest as a wonderful exercise in 'cultural enrichment'.

The latter day ascendants of those invaders are not economic migrants from the developing world but the western transnational corporations that are destroying the local economies and natural environments of the poor countries. What sort of “left” wants to prevent the people suffering the neoliberal pillage and rape of their economies and cultures from seeking something better for themselves? Workers of the world unite - or not?

 

[smokedout]

In the instances where there is exploitation, the answer is simple: Follow the lead of the Lindsey protests and organise, fight back, get results. Adding to scaremongering about “mass immigration” is a disaster (the claim that there is a “defence of mass immigration emanating from the commercial and political elite” is ludicrous – ever picked up a newspaper? Or watched rival political parties engaging in a bout of who can be toughest on the immigrants for the delectation of the Daily Mail swing voters game?) not only do you divide workers on national and ethnic grounds but you play right into the hands of the BNP scum by fueling the fear and resentment they thrive on. A “left” that appeals to, or seeks to capitalize on anti-immigration sentiment isn’t one I’d touch with a barge poll.

well put

 

[tbaldwin]

can you back that statement up with anything, anything at all

Every poll ever taken in the UK on the subject......Personal experience....Do you serioulsy think even for one second that most Black and Asian people in the UK want to see an increase in immigration?

 

[audiotech]

It amazes me the way that people who are in favour of more immigration present a series of invasions (you forgot the Danes, by the way) ending in 1066 as examples of how OK and normal it all is. Even leaving aside the fact that those invasions ended almost a millennium ago, you'd think the pro-immigration lobby would want to discourage us from seeing contemporary immigration as an invasion.

Perhaps their next trick is to try to con us that the Britons responded to the Anglo-Saxon invasions by telling each other that Britain was and had always been a multicultural island and it would be crass xenophobia to object to these new Germanic arrivals, the Anglo-Saxons responded to Danish raids, rapine and rule by 'celebrating diversity', hanging up signs saying 'welcome' in a variety of Danish dialects, cheerfully paid the Danegeld and later welcomed the Norman conquest as a wonderful exercise in 'cultural enrichment'.

The Danes are included in whoever.

I've never been 'culturally enriched' by watching those silly 1970's lager advertisements it is true.

Used to love their bacon sarnies though, before high cholestrol was diagnosed.

 

[Spion]

Perhaps their next trick is to try to con us that the Britons responded to the Anglo-Saxon invasions by telling each other that Britain was and had always been a multicultural island and it would be crass xenophobia to object to these new Germanic arrivals, the Anglo-Saxons

Probably not as far from the truth as you imagine. There isn't a scrap of evidence to suggest the 'anglo-saxons' invaded at all. In fact these north european people were only the latest in a longstanding cultural and economic contact across the north sea. Also Britain was a multicultural island in the first few centuries AD with Britons, people from all over the Roman empire who came as soldiers and traders, numerous connections with Ireland and Britanny. The idea that the anglo saxons invaded belongs to an older view of history conditioned by WW2 where everyone assumed that people only moved by invasion, as was happening at the time

In fact, seeing Britain as an island and therefore somehow isolated is a modern view placed on the past. In the early centuries AD and certainly before that land travel was usually far more difficult than sea travel and peoples' worlds were often governed by connections between places across water rather then between places on land.

</tangent>

 

[smokedout]

Every poll ever taken in the UK on the subject......Personal experience....Do you serioulsy think even for one second that most Black and Asian people in the UK want to see an increase in immigration?

which poll?

and you didn't say that most black and asian people want to see an end to immigration, you said most black and asian people are against mass immigration which is something i presume you think is happening, despite the fact its not

 

[durruti02]

1)The latter day ascendants of those invaders are not economic migrants from the developing world but the western transnational corporations that are destroying the local economies and natural environments of the poor countries.

2)What sort of “left” wants to prevent the people suffering the neoliberal pillage and rape of their economies and cultures from seeking something better for themselves? Workers of the world unite - or not?

1) one your analysis of migrants is ismpky not true .. most from estern europe are not poor and many from the third world are well off .. but hye the poor migrant plays better with the liberals in the boxes

2) a left that is more interested in actually changing the world than crying over its inequalities .. the IWCA quite correctly amongst others have realised that unless you start fromt he very bottom , re building a powerful w/c we will never put a stop to the abomination that is migration .. to simply accept as you appear to is submission and capitulation

 

[durruti02]

1) Within the EU itself there is free movement of labour and it is true that bosses use some of these migrants as a cheap, expendable labour force to the detriment of British workers – creating divisions and driving down wages and conditions in the process.

2)This is by no means a uniform phenemonom however – research by the TUC suggested that on the whole immigration has not depressed wages or led to job losses and that migrant workers contribute more in tax than they take in benefits.

3) In the instances where there is exploitation, the answer is simple: Follow the lead of the Lindsey protests and organise, fight back, get results.

4) Adding to scaremongering about “mass immigration” is a disaster

5) (the claim that there is a “defence of mass immigration emanating from the commercial and political elite” is ludicrous – ever picked up a newspaper?

6) Or watched rival political parties engaging in a bout of who can be toughest on the immigrants for the delectation of the Daily Mail swing voters game?)

7) not only do you divide workers on national and ethnic grounds but you play right into the hands of the BNP scum by fueling the fear and resentment they thrive on. A “left” that appeals to, or seeks to capitalize on anti-immigration sentiment isn’t one I’d touch with a barge poll.

1) yes

2) you believe the TUC? i have read that report and it is rubbish .. they are in new labours pockets .. they have done nothing to resist the loss of rights and terms of w/c people over the decades and this report is a cover up frankly

3) agree

4) disgree .. it is the elephant in the corner .. it is waht everyone is talking about .. .. and it is the left's absence from the debate that has allowed the right to dominate

5) yes i do read the papers .. it seems like it is you who does not read them properly .. if you read them carefully, the sun the mail the express, you see all the right wing rags are 100% pro mass cheap labour migration .. they are also two faced scum and will wind things up when they can .. that is the beauty of immigration, as marx and engles noted over 100 years ago, it not only drives down wages and conditions BUT can be used to divide the w/c

and have you not read what the IoD and CBI etc write??? they are desperate to keep their cheap labour

6) but mate do you believe them to?? they are simply liars playing to the gallery

7) sorry but WHO is talking about using anti immigrant sentiment .. i see NO ONE doing so .. I believe you can use migration as an issue to show how callous and sick is capitalism .. and i think we can use it to kick start campaigns to attack outsourcing, argue for more union power etc etc etc

BUT to remain silent on migration and its causes is to leave an open goal to the far right .. and one they will occupy with racism

 

[Joe Reilly]

Wonder and distort all you want.

Did I distort something you said? Or are you just weasling out - again.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

1) one your analysis of migrants is ismpky not true .. most from estern europe are not poor and many from the third world are well off .. but hye the poor migrant plays better with the liberals in the boxes

2) a left that is more interested in actually changing the world than crying over its inequalities .. the IWCA quite correctly amongst others have realised that unless you start fromt he very bottom , re building a powerful w/c we will never put a stop to the abomination that is migration .. to simply accept as you appear to is submission and capitulation

Oh come off it - if you were a well off Pole would you be keen to leave your family and community behind to work for the minimum wage or less in the construction industry in the UK? What evidence are you basing your assertions on by the way?

I don't think that migration is an "abomination" thank you - its just people moving about - its been happening since the dawn of humanity. I'm more concerned about exploitation and abuses which, contrary to your assertions, are not the same thing.

 

[treelover]

Migration may be 'normal' but the neo-liberal economy of the last twenty years has sen it expand on a scale not seen since the US in the 1900's, after which they(the US) restricted immigration extremely tightly.

 

[durruti02]

Oh come off it - if you were a well off Pole would you be keen to leave your family and community behind to work for the minimum wage or less in the construction industry in the UK? What evidence are you basing your assertions on by the way?

I don't think that migration is an "abomination" thank you - its just people moving about - its been happening since the dawn of humanity. I'm more concerned about exploitation and abuses which, contrary to your assertions, are not the same thing.

lol .. wage differentials of course .. have you not read about the crisis in poland over lack of dentists etc?

and yes migration IS an abomination .. but lets be clear .. we are talking not migration as in "i do not like mountains i like the sea i want to move to brighton' but that 98% of migration globally is forced migration .. economic

you clearly know fuck all about it if you do not think so .. it splits families, takes, usually, fathers from children, destroys communities, takes the brightest and fittest away,creates cheap labour, allows capital to keep exploiting .. yes we celebrate the good it has down .. but any one with any common sense wishes for a world in which we are not forced to move to look after our families

 

[durruti02]

Migration may be 'normal' but the neo-liberal economy of the last twenty years has sen it expand on a scale not seen since the US in the 1900's, after which they(the US) restricted immigration extremely tightly.

hi treelover .. migration imho is only 'normal' in unequal societies .. bizarrely as it is a consequence of capital many on the left have almost championed it .. we do not support sweat shop economies when we sympathise with those workers in sweat shops so why do so many defend migration economies?? make sno sense to me

 

[tarannau]

Are you plucking that assertion that migration is 'only 'normal' in unequal societies' out of your arse then Durrers? Sure doesn't seem to hold much logic tbh.

What societies count as near equal in your book? Are, for example, the Scandanavian countries renown for their insular, non migrating population. On the flipside countries with high levels of inequality, say the US and UK, suffer net mass emigration? Are man's massively impressive feats of early migration reflective of early inequality with. say, caveman bankers causing a schism in society.

Inequality in many developing nations can often be directly linked to colonial interference - trying to hinder migration back to the 'home' nations is somewhat akin to trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

What point are you trying to make Durrutti? It seems one of those facetious, grandstanding assertions which seems to add sod all the more I think about it.

 

[smokedout]

hi treelover .. migration imho is only 'normal' in unequal societies

such as middle class australia for example

 

[Joe Reilly]

I chose not to engage with it because it’s a gross oversimplification at best. The globalization era of free trade agreements has created a borderless world for capital from the rich nations (backed up protectionist tariffs and subsidies to keep the Global South in its place) with nothing like a correlative global free movement of labour to accompany it. Quite the opposite has been the case in fact. Just look at the devastating impact that NAFTA has had on the Mexican economy - 2 million people forced out of agriculture and the reintroduction of sweetshop conditions. It resulted in millions illegally crossing the US border and many dying in desert on the way. Ditto Europe and the Maastricht Treaty – try telling the tens of thousands of asylum seekers/”economic migrants” suffering in the detention camps across the continent that there’s free movement of labour.

Within the EU itself there is free movement of labour and it is true that bosses use some of these migrants as a cheap, expendable labour force to the detriment of British workers – creating divisions and driving down wages and conditions in the process. This is by no means a uniform phenemonom however – research by the TUC suggested that on the whole immigration has not depressed wages or led to job losses and that migrant workers contribute more in tax than they take in benefits.

In the instances where there is exploitation, the answer is simple: Follow the lead of the Lindsey protests and organise, fight back, get results. Adding to scaremongering about “mass immigration” is a disaster (the claim that there is a “defence of mass immigration emanating from the commercial and political elite” is ludicrous – ever picked up a newspaper? Or watched rival political parties engaging in a bout of who can be toughest on the immigrants for the delectation of the Daily Mail swing voters game?) not only do you divide workers on national and ethnic grounds but you play right into the hands of the BNP scum by fueling the fear and resentment they thrive on. A “left” that appeals to, or seeks to capitalize on anti-immigration sentiment isn’t one I’d touch with a barge poll.

Try and leave the self-righteousness at the door for a moment and answer this one question: is their a net economic gain as a result of immigration or not?

 

[smokedout]

Try and leave the self-righteousness at the door for a moment and answer this one question: is their a net economic gain as a result of immigration or not?

depends on the type of immigration

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Try and leave the self-righteousness at the door for a moment and answer this one question: is their a net economic gain as a result of immigration or not?

You have to be careful when answering a question about net economic gain - gain for whom? But at an elementary level, as I have already stated, migration to the UK has produced an net economic gain in the sense that migrants have contribute more in taxes than they take in services. How this increase in tax revenue is spent is a different question - it could be used to fund social services, care for the elderly and invest in jobs for our children or it could be used to bail out billionaires, fund imperialist misadventures abroad and to invest in deadend PFI schemes. Equally, the extent to which bosses use and abuse migrant labour will depend on the enforcement of employment legislation and how organised workplaces are. It's these political questions that should be engaged with - debates about levels of immigration are a distraction.

 

[becky p]

There is a net gain for better off people from immigration but not for people further down the income scale. Which makes it slightly perverse for left wing inclined people to be so pro immigration.
They seem totally out of touch with what most people think and indeed experience.

 

[audiotech]

Did I distort something you said? Or are you just weasling out - again.

I'm a pro-immigrant, capitalist lackey apparently.

 

[audiotech]

There is a net gain for better off people from immigration but not for people further down the income scale. Which makes it slightly perverse for left wing inclined people to be so pro immigration.
They seem totally out of touch with what most people think and indeed experience.

The left usually doesn't acquiesce to reactionary notions such as xenophobia. Instead, the left organises amongst all workers to unify and fight for better pay and conditions for all.

The recent announcement on a public sector pay freeze and the assault on jobs and conditions generally has nothing to do with immigration, yet will affect the low paid (including migrants) a hell of a lot more than the numbers of migrants working here in food processing, hotel kitchens and the care sector.

It is to be against the ravages of neoliberalism, the racism of the bosses, the media, the government and not to end up in the camp of those scapegoating immigrants. An idea I find more than 'slightly perverse'.

 

[audiotech]

1) one your analysis of migrants is ismpky not true .. most from estern europe are not poor and many from the third world are well off .. but hye the poor migrant plays better with the liberals in the boxes

2) a left that is more interested in actually changing the world than crying over its inequalities .. the IWCA quite correctly amongst others have realised that unless you start fromt he very bottom , re building a powerful w/c we will never put a stop to the abomination that is migration .. to simply accept as you appear to is submission and capitulation

Migration is moving from one country to another. Many take dangerous risks to do just that. An 'abomination' though seriously?

The working class builds it's own confidence in itself as a class. A bob the builder approach is not one I take to kindly.

 

[tbaldwin]

Inequality in many developing nations can often be directly linked to colonial interference - trying to hinder migration back to the 'home' nations is somewhat akin to trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

What point are you trying to make Durrutti? It seems one of those facetious, grandstanding assertions which seems to add sod all the more I think about it.

Inequality in developing nations is made considerably worse by migration.
It is the worst kind of intereference possible to take a countrys most valuable resources without paying any compensation.

The people who support free market policies on migration, need to take a good look at what it is they actually support.

 

[durruti02]

Migration is moving from one country to another. Many take dangerous risks to do just that. An 'abomination' though seriously?

The working class builds it's own confidence in itself as a class. A bob the builder approach is not one I take to kindly.

the millions who have had families split .. yes it is an abomination .. a father or mother should NEVER have to leave their child for work ..

 

[audiotech]

Speaking of masses, here's opening remarks at this years Marxism:

The irrationality of the system right now is fairly clear, you have masses of capital and masses of labour, unemployed, side by side, in
a world that's full of social need. How stupid is that?

 

[Joe Reilly]

You have to be careful when answering a question about net economic gain - gain for whom? But at an elementary level, as I have already stated, migration to the UK has produced an net economic gain in the sense that migrants have contribute more in taxes than they take in services. How this increase in tax revenue is spent is a different question - it could be used to fund social services, care for the elderly and invest in jobs for our children or it could be used to bail out billionaires, fund imperialist misadventures abroad and to invest in deadend PFI schemes. Equally, the extent to which bosses use and abuse migrant labour will depend on the enforcement of employment legislation and how organised workplaces are. It's these political questions that should be engaged with - debates about levels of immigration are a distraction.

What your ignoring for some reason is that immigration legal and better still illegal is used to circumvent employment legislation and disorganise workplaces. Trade unions are themselves too weak to do anything about it even if they could. They can only recover if capitalism recovers.

The reason I asked about the 'gain' issue is one because it is debatable and two because the reason forwarded by you for supporting immigration previously had very much to do with some poor bastard 'wanting a better life'.

But once he has achived that better life, becomes settled, then for the 'net gain' argument to kick he will need to be replaced with yet another immigrant who will do the same menial jobs at menial rates. And so on ad infinitum.

Ultimately when the economic requirements come up against political realities, say for instance when the far-right start to become the champions of the existing working class, and start nudging the political centre to the right, what then?

 

[Joe Reilly]

The left usually doesn't acquiesce to reactionary notions such as xenophobia. Instead, the left organises amongst all workers to unify and fight for better pay and conditions for all.

Is that really what Respect was all about?