Marx on immigration ..
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
JHE
.
Marx didn't say or write it, though it's in the spirit of Marx, I think. I don't think Marx would have used the expression 'meaningful action'.
It's from 'As We See It', the position statement of Solidarity - which, AFAIK, is defunct.
http://libcom.org/library/as-we-see-it-solidarity-group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(UK)
It's from 'As We See It', the position statement of Solidarity - which, AFAIK, is defunct.
http://libcom.org/library/as-we-see-it-solidarity-group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(UK)
MC5 said:But it is a moral question (I did mention economics and politics though) whether you give someone treatment for a serious condition, or not. That is the issue, capitalism has no morality. With capitalism it's alway's the bottom line.
However, it's clear that the bourgeoisie are very interested in imposing its moral philosophy upon the working class, hidden under moral abstractions like religion, philosophy, or the nonsense which is called “common sense”. The exposure of their moral deceit is the first duty of anyone that calls themselves a revolutionary.
It will give me the highest moral satisfaction to see the end of their kant.
your moralism that you oppose to capitalisms total lack of morality is so narrow it is a little better
the problem is you only seem to protest or get moral about the refugee denied treatment .. you seem to fail to see over and over the mundane shit that all of us go thru every day and the thousends/millions? of others who lack decent care for cancer or whatever
this is what ordinary people see and hear from you .. they see thru your narrow moarlism and they think and i have to agree with them that you do not care for them but only for the refugees .. and so they do not care for you or your ideas ..
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
durruti02 said:
You're talk about: "the mundane shit that all of us go thru every day" and apparently my inability to "see this" is absolute bollocks, which only shows your lack of knowledge about me and my background. I've seen and experienced more poverty (particularly during my childhood) then you will ever see matey.
Your narrow, petty nationalism being portrayed as some kind of progressive radicalism is not only the 'last refuge of a scoundrel', but also the politics of a charlatan.
As someone who has campaigned and marched with health workers for a better service for all finds ideas both morally repugnant and wrong on all counts.
MC5 said:
yes i have no knowledge of your background .. matey .. how could i???
but how can i judge you otherwise when you react to a simple workerist arguement with accusations of being a nationalist??????
when you opposing my arguements about local sustainable employment/closed shop/rebuilding union organisation etc with liberal tales about refugee denied cancer care etc etc etc
and it is why regardless of your background you and the left are so politically isolated in this country .. don't you ever wonder why you are????
if you bothered to talk deeply to your health workers ( you didn't work there did you .. what campaign were you involved in and how?? ) you will have found
..that they are overwhelmingy angry at the lack of investment in training in this country and the parallel/intregal recruitment abroad of nurses/doctors
.. you would have found that they too think it is wrong that we are taking nurses and doctors from the third world
.. that they oppose tendering out services to low pay companies that ( can only ) exist on cheap imported labour .. and would like workers recruited locally on proper rates ( Is TELCO racist for demanding this!!
).. that they also are not happy that some people come here ( que jump) for treatment when they can not treat properly those who have lived and worked here all their lives
.. and more generally that their kids can no longer get decent jobs or housing because of this process
when diane abbot condemed the NHS for employing finns and philipinos instead of back and white kids from hackney did you call her racist and nationalist??
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
durruti02 said:yes i have no knowledge of your background .. matey .. how could i???
So think before you type.
but how can i judge you otherwise when you react to a simple workerist arguement with accusations of being a nationalist??????
You come over as some petty nationalist to me.
I am not opposed to all those things. I was responding to your anecdote about someone who you had apparently spoken to:
durruti02 said:
I made the point, as I would have made to your apparent bloke in the street, that asylum seekers are now being denied treatments for serious conditions, so is it true that your wife is denied hospital treatment because of asylum seekers?
It's has never been easy getting the ideas of the left over to an audience. Many factors determine that including who controls the mass communications media.
I have friends who work as hospital workers, nurses, a porter. It was in the early eighties health workers actions against cuts.
Are they?
"Wrong" being a moral argument yes? It's maybe "wrong" in some people's eyes, but at this time the health service would collapse without this valuable contribution from immigrant workers. Who is to say if nurses and Doctors from the "third world" would be employed in their chosen careers in their own countries anyway, due to lack of resources/investment in health care etc? At least their valuable skills can be utilised somewhere, money can be sent back home and in the future the valuable skills learnt here may benefit their home countries when some may return?
.. that they oppose tendering out services to low pay companies that ( can only ) exist on cheap imported labour .. and would like workers recruited locally on proper rates ( Is TELCO racist for demanding this!!
I am opposed to this privatised tendering of services.
There are those born here who pay for treatment to lessen the time they have to wait. There are some also who come from overseas and pay privately for treatment. I think you will find that not many people, if any "queue jump" for NHS treatment from overseas. If they are allowed treatment at all then they have to wait like everyone else and sometimes have to pay. Bit like an holidaymaker in Spain who falls over drunk and breaks a leg for example.
Jobs market pretty buoyant at the moment and I am not sure what you mean by "decent" jobs? As for housing? Well we've had this argument already and to reiterate, asylum seekers are not entitled to permanent social housing under law. Just the multi-occupancy type provided by NASS at best and detention, or prison at worst. Those that get refugee status usually end up in housing no one wants and as for immigrants? Similarly, housing no one else wants, or some high priced rented property.
I haven't seen the piece from Dianne Abbott. Have you a link?
MC5 said:So think before you type.
I did .. that is how you come across ..
You come over as some petty nationalist to me.
sorry this is daft .. in what way?? where have i said "england first!" ( or whatever?? i have said over and over people need to organise from the base .. to confuse this with nationalism is why the left have such a problem countering the far right!
I am not opposed to all those things. I was responding to your anecdote about someone who you had apparently spoken to:
yes but the form of your response is indicative is it not??
I made the point, as I would have made to your apparent bloke in the street, that asylum seekers are now being denied treatments for serious conditions, so is it true that your wife is denied hospital treatment because of asylum seekers?
and you were and are right .. i have already agreed with you on this ..
It's has never been easy getting the ideas of the left over to an audience. Many factors determine that including who controls the mass communications media.
cop out mate.. socialism or whatever you call it is beautifully simple and i rarely have problems convincing anyone of its merits .. i always have a problem though explaining the alienated behaviour of the left
I have friends who work as hospital workers, nurses, a porter. It was in the early eighties health workers actions against cuts.
that is over 20 years ago .. the NHS has changed a lot since then ..
Are they?
YES!
"Wrong" being a moral argument yes? It's maybe "wrong" in some people's eyes, but at this time the health service would collapse without this valuable contribution from immigrant workers. Who is to say if nurses and Doctors from the "third world" would be employed in their chosen careers in their own countries anyway, due to lack of resources/investment in health care etc? At least their valuable skills can be utilised somewhere, money can be sent back home and in the future the valuable skills learnt here may benefit their home countries when some may return?
sorry that is trying to justify the unjustifyable .. no socialist can justify taking medics from the third world and bringing them here just cos middle england don't want to pay more tax!
I am opposed to this privatised tendering of services.
and all that goes with it???
There are those born here who pay for treatment to lessen the time they have to wait. There are some also who come from overseas and pay privately for treatment. I think you will find that not many people, if any "queue jump" for NHS treatment from overseas. If they are allowed treatment at all then they have to wait like everyone else and sometimes have to pay. Bit like an holidaymaker in Spain who falls over drunk and breaks a leg for example.
i belive private medicine/ BUPA and all are a major problem that needs addressing .. simply it is wrong and yes medics do get upset about that to .. re spain it is an EU country so treatment is paid for and covered by our UK taxes as reciprocal agreement .. E114or whatever it is called .. however i accept that this is NOT a major issue at all and in this case the far rights arguement should be easily challenged .. our failure to do so stems from our inability to accept the other facts re immigration,that are not lies
Jobs market pretty buoyant at the moment and I am not sure what you mean by "decent" jobs? As for housing? Well we've had this argument already and to reiterate, asylum seekers are not entitled to permanent social housing under law. Just the multi-occupancy type provided by NASS at best and detention, or prison at worst. Those that get refugee status usually end up in housing no one wants and as for immigrants? Similarly, housing no one else wants, or some high priced rented property.
if the jobs market is so bouyant , as it is i accept , how come unemployment/incapacity claimers continue to rise?? and decent jobs?? come on mate .. ones with pensions proper pay and unions .. not what the WASP bossses want to offer .. so they go to poland to recruit
re housing not sure if you noticed people mentionning the change in housing allocation which thatcher introduced that benefitted large families over young couples .. this change along with right to buy has almost stopped young couples getting social housing in many areas .. but many immigrant families could be housed .. why do you think Thatch did this??
I haven't seen the piece from Dianne Abbott. Have you a link?
will find
sorry for differrent font reply but there were so many bits to reply to ..
MC5 said:But it is a moral question (I did mention economics and politics though) whether you give someone treatment for a serious condition, or not. That is the issue, capitalism has no morality. With capitalism it's alway's the bottom line.
However, it's clear that the bourgeoisie are very interested in imposing its moral philosophy upon the working class, hidden under moral abstractions like religion, philosophy, or the nonsense which is called “common sense”. The exposure of their moral deceit is the first duty of anyone that calls themselves a revolutionary.
It will give me the highest moral satisfaction to see the end of their kant.
interesting .. will reply
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
I did .. that is how you come across ..
Still confused.
sorry this is daft .. in what way?? where have i said "england first!" ( or whatever?? i have said over and over people need to organise from the base .. to confuse this with nationalism is why the left have such a problem countering the far right!
I would have thought 'organising from the base' didn't involve pandering to ideas about immigration controls.
yes but the form of your response is indicative is it not??
Indicative of what?
and you were and are right .. i have already agreed with you on this ..
OK.
cop out mate .. socialism or whatever you call it is beautifully simple and i rarely have problems convincing anyone of its merits .. i always have a problem though explaining the alienated behaviour of the left
You probably confirm their prejudices.
that is over 20 years ago .. the NHS has changed a lot since then ..
It has and not much protest to some of the privatised affects of change either.
YES!
Not seen much evidence of that.
sorry that is trying to justify the unjustifyable .. no socialist can justify taking medics from the third world and bringing them here just cos middle england don't want to pay more tax!
Nice spin, but it's not what I posted.
and all that goes with it???
I wont be using anti-immigant language if that's what you mean?
i belive private medicine/ BUPA and all are a major problem that needs addressing .. simply it is wrong and yes medics do get upset about that to .. re spain it is an EU country so treatment is paid for and covered by our UK taxes as reciprocal agreement .. E114or whatever it is called .. however i accept that this is NOT a major issue at all and in this case the far rights arguement should be easily challenged .. our failure to do so stems from our inability to accept the other facts re immigration,that are not lies
So you argue that immigration from the "thirld world" of Doctors and nurses should be halted yes? If that is your position, then don't count me as a supporter of that kind of anti-immigrant rhetoric
if the jobs market is so bouyant , as it is i accept , how come unemployment/incapacity claimers continue to rise?? and decent jobs?? come on mate .. ones with pensions proper pay and unions .. not what the WASP bossses want to offer .. so they go to poland to recruit
Structural problems in the labour market affect statistical changes. There is no chance of an immediate change to that affair, nor a general struggle to resist "flexible working patterns" anytime soon either. Polish workers appear to filling gaps in the labour market, some taking unskilled positions even when they may have skills.
re housing not sure if you noticed people mentionning the change in housing allocation which thatcher introduced that benefitted large families over young couples .. this change along with right to buy has almost stopped young couples getting social housing in many areas .. but many immigrant families could be housed .. why do you think Thatch did this??
Thatcher never introduced a change in housing allocation to benefit large families over young couples. Under the Children's Act local authorities have a duty to protect children. This could affect both larger and smaller families if they found themselves homeless, or threatened with homelessness for example. In fact, it is more difficult for larger families to get housed because of a lack of social housing stock with multiple bedrooms of over three.
Most couples these days would like to get on the property ladder and buy their own home rather than throwing money at landlords. However, for those couples who are on the waiting lists with local authorities, or housing associations for social housing, may have to be on the list for some time, as me and my girlfriend found out whilst spending some time living with in-laws and then for some time in the rented private sector. Of course it depends on the specific areas you put down as choices as to whether you're application is successful.
Your talk of "many immigrant families being housed" needs to be backed up with some evidence for whatever area you're referring to?
will find
Thanks.
No problem.
Still confused.
sorry this is daft .. in what way?? where have i said "england first!" ( or whatever?? i have said over and over people need to organise from the base .. to confuse this with nationalism is why the left have such a problem countering the far right!
I would have thought 'organising from the base' didn't involve pandering to ideas about immigration controls.
yes but the form of your response is indicative is it not??
Indicative of what?
and you were and are right .. i have already agreed with you on this ..
OK.
cop out mate
.. socialism or whatever you call it is beautifully simple and i rarely have problems convincing anyone of its merits .. i always have a problem though explaining the alienated behaviour of the left You probably confirm their prejudices.
that is over 20 years ago .. the NHS has changed a lot since then ..
It has and not much protest to some of the privatised affects of change either.
YES!
Not seen much evidence of that.
sorry that is trying to justify the unjustifyable .. no socialist can justify taking medics from the third world and bringing them here just cos middle england don't want to pay more tax!
Nice spin, but it's not what I posted.
and all that goes with it???
I wont be using anti-immigant language if that's what you mean?
i belive private medicine/ BUPA and all are a major problem that needs addressing .. simply it is wrong and yes medics do get upset about that to .. re spain it is an EU country so treatment is paid for and covered by our UK taxes as reciprocal agreement .. E114or whatever it is called .. however i accept that this is NOT a major issue at all and in this case the far rights arguement should be easily challenged .. our failure to do so stems from our inability to accept the other facts re immigration,that are not lies
So you argue that immigration from the "thirld world" of Doctors and nurses should be halted yes? If that is your position, then don't count me as a supporter of that kind of anti-immigrant rhetoric
if the jobs market is so bouyant , as it is i accept , how come unemployment/incapacity claimers continue to rise?? and decent jobs?? come on mate .. ones with pensions proper pay and unions .. not what the WASP bossses want to offer .. so they go to poland to recruit
Structural problems in the labour market affect statistical changes. There is no chance of an immediate change to that affair, nor a general struggle to resist "flexible working patterns" anytime soon either. Polish workers appear to filling gaps in the labour market, some taking unskilled positions even when they may have skills.
re housing not sure if you noticed people mentionning the change in housing allocation which thatcher introduced that benefitted large families over young couples .. this change along with right to buy has almost stopped young couples getting social housing in many areas .. but many immigrant families could be housed .. why do you think Thatch did this??
Thatcher never introduced a change in housing allocation to benefit large families over young couples. Under the Children's Act local authorities have a duty to protect children. This could affect both larger and smaller families if they found themselves homeless, or threatened with homelessness for example. In fact, it is more difficult for larger families to get housed because of a lack of social housing stock with multiple bedrooms of over three.
Most couples these days would like to get on the property ladder and buy their own home rather than throwing money at landlords. However, for those couples who are on the waiting lists with local authorities, or housing associations for social housing, may have to be on the list for some time, as me and my girlfriend found out whilst spending some time living with in-laws and then for some time in the rented private sector. Of course it depends on the specific areas you put down as choices as to whether you're application is successful.
Your talk of "many immigrant families being housed" needs to be backed up with some evidence for whatever area you're referring to?
will find
Thanks.
No problem.
are you being a wind up??? 
.. please give evidence of anti immigrant rhetoric/language ?????
will reply in full next week .. you really are having problems with how a i and medics and the WHO ( i think .. will check .. or UN .. someone like that ) can be oppossed to third world medics being used in preference to training more medics here arn't you?? 
"There is no chance of an immediate change to that affair, nor a general struggle to resist "flexible working patterns" anytime soon either. " .. so whats on tele tonight mate .. your a good positive activist arn't you!
.. please give evidence of anti immigrant rhetoric/language ?????will reply in full next week .. you really are having problems with how a i and medics and the WHO ( i think .. will check .. or UN .. someone like that ) can be oppossed to third world medics being used in preference to training more medics here arn't you??
"There is no chance of an immediate change to that affair, nor a general struggle to resist "flexible working patterns" anytime soon either. " .. so whats on tele tonight mate .. your a good positive activist arn't you!
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
durruti02 said:are you being a wind up???
I thought you wanted more controls over immigration? Isn't that being anti-immigrant?
will reply in full next week .. you really are having problems with how a i and medics and the WHO ( i think .. will check .. or UN .. someone like that ) can be oppossed to third world medics being used in preference to training more medics here arn't you??
I don't have a problem!
I take then that you'll be out tonite proudly sacrificing your time and effort building a campaign against "flexible working".
.....MC5 said:I thought you wanted more controls over immigration? Isn't that being anti-immigrant?
FFS mate .. do you really noy understand teh differrence between calling for STATE controls and a union/shop demanding that their company does not bring in cheap labour????
I don't have a problem!
???? you said you did?? .. you said it was ok for the state to bring in medics from the third world so you must oppose medics who think this is wrong
I take then that you'll be out tonite proudly sacrificing your time and effort building a campaign against "flexible working".
i do it day in day out mate .. for my job/type of work we are pretty unique in still being DLO/ 'in house', we are probably the best paid nationally ( though thats not enough in London , we are about the most unionised in the organisation and with the best pensions
http://society.guardian.co.uk/comment/column/0,,1485880,00.html
The NHS goes global
Poaching doctors and nurses from poorer countries will have dire consequences, says Malcolm Dean
Wednesday May 18, 2005
The Guardian
The numbers are hard to believe. Six years on from the health service's ethical recruitment code, more than a third of new nurses (11,500) and two-thirds of new doctors recruited last year were overseas trained, many of them poached from poor states. Cynics may dismiss the new joint campaign by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing to put more pressure on ministers to plug the brain drain from developing states. They may see it as an act of professional self-protection. But they are wrong.
They should heed instead the appeals for help at last year's RCN conference from the leader of the South African nurses association, who was still watching 300 nurses a month moving overseas, despite the appeals from Nelson Mandela to the developed world to stop it. Some 6,000 nurses in four years came to the UK alone.
Or they could talk to the head of Kenya's nursing union, who complained even earlier about their most experienced nurses being poached by British private nursing agencies.
The government has committed the UK to a code of ethics that bans recruitment from developing countries except where there is an inter-governmental agreement permitting it. Yet of the top 20 countries from which the UK recruits, 12 are on a banned list.
Some 7,000 South African doctors were already on the permanent register of the UK's General Medical Council by 2003 - equivalent to half the number working in South African public hospitals - when Britain launched its plan for private independent treatment centres that were required to recruit from overseas. The South African Medical Association responded: "You are increasing your ability to poach by opening these centres that you cannot man yourself." And, indeed, one of the half-dozen overseas corporates that won a contract was South African.
Ghana is in even more serious trouble, with just 1,500 doctors for a population of 20m. Two-thirds of its young doctors leave the country within three years.
A new report, commissioned by the RCN from James Buchan, of Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, shows the startling rise in non-EU overseas trained nurses registering in the UK in the last decade. It grew from fewer than 2,000 in 1994/95 up to 15,000 in 2001/02. In the last five years, more than 50,000 overseas trained nurses have been registered here - most from "banned" African countries.
The chairman of the BMA, James Johnson, was right to talk of the "devastating consequences" on developing nations of the failure of developed states to train sufficient medical staff.
A report produced by Medact, the international health charity, estimated the cost to Ghana alone from the loss of medical staff came to £100m. The gain to developed states was much bigger. It costs almost £250,000 to train a doctor in the UK.
True, the picture is more complicated than some statistics suggest. Three countries - the Philippines, India and Indonesia - have an intergovernmental agreement with the UK because of surplus numbers. The Philippines deliberately produces a surplus to attract remittances from abroad. Nurse numbers from there peaked at 7,000 in 2001-02 but have fallen since. Remittances (from all sectors) are now providing developing states with almost twice as much as international aid, more than £75bn a year.
Yet, as the UN Commission on Migration has warned, too high an expectation has been placed on these financial flows. Socially, they break up families while economically, they deprive the developing countries of entrepreneurial talent.
Then, as Hilary Benn, the international development secretary, wrote in our letter columns last week, the shortage of health workers in developing states has other causes apart from migration. He listed inadequate investment in health services, poor working conditions, poor pay and lack of career development. He pointed to the UK's aid programme that is helping to meet these shortfalls - more than £560m to Africa in the last five years. But divided equally, that would come to little more than £2m for each African country each year.
The current code was tightened in 2004. A loophole under which overseas staff could be taken on by the NHS as locums on renewable short-term contracts that could be extended indefinitely was blocked. But it should be tightened further. There is nothing to stop private hospitals, private nursing homes or 250 private recruitment agencies from poaching.
What is needed even more urgently is a debate about how developed nations which use overseas trained staff should compensate the developing nations for their loss. Some 22 Commonwealth countries have signed up to such an approach, but not the UK. It would not just be ethical but in our own self-interest. An RCN survey of overseas nurses working in London, published today, suggests four in 10 are considering a move to another country that offers better pay, such as the US. As the RCN asserts, the NHS expansion is "being built on sand".
The NHS goes global
Poaching doctors and nurses from poorer countries will have dire consequences, says Malcolm Dean
Wednesday May 18, 2005
The Guardian
The numbers are hard to believe. Six years on from the health service's ethical recruitment code, more than a third of new nurses (11,500) and two-thirds of new doctors recruited last year were overseas trained, many of them poached from poor states. Cynics may dismiss the new joint campaign by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing to put more pressure on ministers to plug the brain drain from developing states. They may see it as an act of professional self-protection. But they are wrong.
They should heed instead the appeals for help at last year's RCN conference from the leader of the South African nurses association, who was still watching 300 nurses a month moving overseas, despite the appeals from Nelson Mandela to the developed world to stop it. Some 6,000 nurses in four years came to the UK alone.
Or they could talk to the head of Kenya's nursing union, who complained even earlier about their most experienced nurses being poached by British private nursing agencies.
The government has committed the UK to a code of ethics that bans recruitment from developing countries except where there is an inter-governmental agreement permitting it. Yet of the top 20 countries from which the UK recruits, 12 are on a banned list.
Some 7,000 South African doctors were already on the permanent register of the UK's General Medical Council by 2003 - equivalent to half the number working in South African public hospitals - when Britain launched its plan for private independent treatment centres that were required to recruit from overseas. The South African Medical Association responded: "You are increasing your ability to poach by opening these centres that you cannot man yourself." And, indeed, one of the half-dozen overseas corporates that won a contract was South African.
Ghana is in even more serious trouble, with just 1,500 doctors for a population of 20m. Two-thirds of its young doctors leave the country within three years.
A new report, commissioned by the RCN from James Buchan, of Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, shows the startling rise in non-EU overseas trained nurses registering in the UK in the last decade. It grew from fewer than 2,000 in 1994/95 up to 15,000 in 2001/02. In the last five years, more than 50,000 overseas trained nurses have been registered here - most from "banned" African countries.
The chairman of the BMA, James Johnson, was right to talk of the "devastating consequences" on developing nations of the failure of developed states to train sufficient medical staff.
A report produced by Medact, the international health charity, estimated the cost to Ghana alone from the loss of medical staff came to £100m. The gain to developed states was much bigger. It costs almost £250,000 to train a doctor in the UK.
True, the picture is more complicated than some statistics suggest. Three countries - the Philippines, India and Indonesia - have an intergovernmental agreement with the UK because of surplus numbers. The Philippines deliberately produces a surplus to attract remittances from abroad. Nurse numbers from there peaked at 7,000 in 2001-02 but have fallen since. Remittances (from all sectors) are now providing developing states with almost twice as much as international aid, more than £75bn a year.
Yet, as the UN Commission on Migration has warned, too high an expectation has been placed on these financial flows. Socially, they break up families while economically, they deprive the developing countries of entrepreneurial talent.
Then, as Hilary Benn, the international development secretary, wrote in our letter columns last week, the shortage of health workers in developing states has other causes apart from migration. He listed inadequate investment in health services, poor working conditions, poor pay and lack of career development. He pointed to the UK's aid programme that is helping to meet these shortfalls - more than £560m to Africa in the last five years. But divided equally, that would come to little more than £2m for each African country each year.
The current code was tightened in 2004. A loophole under which overseas staff could be taken on by the NHS as locums on renewable short-term contracts that could be extended indefinitely was blocked. But it should be tightened further. There is nothing to stop private hospitals, private nursing homes or 250 private recruitment agencies from poaching.
What is needed even more urgently is a debate about how developed nations which use overseas trained staff should compensate the developing nations for their loss. Some 22 Commonwealth countries have signed up to such an approach, but not the UK. It would not just be ethical but in our own self-interest. An RCN survey of overseas nurses working in London, published today, suggests four in 10 are considering a move to another country that offers better pay, such as the US. As the RCN asserts, the NHS expansion is "being built on sand".
I would have thought 'organising from the base' didn't involve pandering to ideas about immigration controls.
how many times do i have to repeat this ... organising to keep out cheap labour in a workplace is not pandering to immigration controls
cop out mate .. socialism or whatever you call it is beautifully simple and i rarely have problems convincing anyone of its merits .. i always have a problem though explaining the alienated behaviour of the left
You probably confirm their prejudices.
that does not make sense .. read what is said again .. people do not have a problem with socialism generally .. they do have a problem with many leftists/groups
that is over 20 years ago .. the NHS has changed a lot since then ..
It has and not much protest to some of the privatised affects of change either.
sadly true ... i also went on nurses marches back in the 8ts .. nowt since .. part of the problem with agency work is that workers are less inclined to take action as they know it will be less effective
sorry that is trying to justify the unjustifyable .. no socialist can justify taking medics from the third world and bringing them here just cos middle england don't want to pay more tax!
Nice spin, but it's not what I posted.
sorry .. but you imply the process is ok .. which is not what nurses leaders from here and the third world say ..
i belive private medicine/ BUPA and all are a major problem that needs addressing .. simply it is wrong and yes medics do get upset about that to .. re spain it is an EU country so treatment is paid for and covered by our UK taxes as reciprocal agreement .. E114or whatever it is called .. however i accept that this is NOT a major issue at all and in this case the far rights arguement should be easily challenged .. our failure to do so stems from our inability to accept the other facts re immigration,that are not lies
So you argue that immigration from the "thirld world" of Doctors and nurses should be halted yes? If that is your position, then don't count me as a supporter of that kind of anti-immigrant rhetoric
thats what third world medis are arguing and what UK medis are arguing .. so yes .. i guess there may need to be some agreed times scale but in principle yes .. maybe some sort of agreed qoutas from the medics unions?
if the jobs market is so bouyant , as it is i accept , how come unemployment/incapacity claimers continue to rise?? and decent jobs?? come on mate .. ones with pensions proper pay and unions .. not what the WASP bossses want to offer .. so they go to poland to recruit
Structural problems in the labour market affect statistical changes. There is no chance of an immediate change to that affair, nor a general struggle to resist "flexible working patterns" anytime soon either. Polish workers appear to filling gaps in the labour market, some taking unskilled positions even when they may have skills.
this is rubbish .. they are purely cheap labour .. if you feel there is not enough of a struggle then that is my point entirely .. the left are more interested in iraq/lebanon etc
re housing not sure if you noticed people mentionning the change in housing allocation which thatcher introduced that benefitted large families over young couples .. this change along with right to buy has almost stopped young couples getting social housing in many areas .. but many immigrant families could be housed .. why do you think Thatch did this??
Thatcher never introduced a change in housing allocation to benefit large families over young couples. Under the Children's Act local authorities have a duty to protect children. This could affect both larger and smaller families if they found themselves homeless, or threatened with homelessness for example. In fact, it is more difficult for larger families to get housed because of a lack of social housing stock with multiple bedrooms of over three.
no it was the change to the needs based allocation in the early 8ts
Your talk of "many immigrant families being housed" needs to be backed up with some evidence for whatever area you're referring to?
this is a generally acknowledged process .. see next post
how many times do i have to repeat this ... organising to keep out cheap labour in a workplace is not pandering to immigration controls
cop out mate .. socialism or whatever you call it is beautifully simple and i rarely have problems convincing anyone of its merits .. i always have a problem though explaining the alienated behaviour of the left
You probably confirm their prejudices.
that does not make sense .. read what is said again .. people do not have a problem with socialism generally .. they do have a problem with many leftists/groups
that is over 20 years ago .. the NHS has changed a lot since then ..
It has and not much protest to some of the privatised affects of change either.
sadly true ... i also went on nurses marches back in the 8ts .. nowt since .. part of the problem with agency work is that workers are less inclined to take action as they know it will be less effective
sorry that is trying to justify the unjustifyable .. no socialist can justify taking medics from the third world and bringing them here just cos middle england don't want to pay more tax!
Nice spin, but it's not what I posted.
sorry .. but you imply the process is ok .. which is not what nurses leaders from here and the third world say ..
i belive private medicine/ BUPA and all are a major problem that needs addressing .. simply it is wrong and yes medics do get upset about that to .. re spain it is an EU country so treatment is paid for and covered by our UK taxes as reciprocal agreement .. E114or whatever it is called .. however i accept that this is NOT a major issue at all and in this case the far rights arguement should be easily challenged .. our failure to do so stems from our inability to accept the other facts re immigration,that are not lies
So you argue that immigration from the "thirld world" of Doctors and nurses should be halted yes? If that is your position, then don't count me as a supporter of that kind of anti-immigrant rhetoric
thats what third world medis are arguing and what UK medis are arguing .. so yes .. i guess there may need to be some agreed times scale but in principle yes .. maybe some sort of agreed qoutas from the medics unions?
if the jobs market is so bouyant , as it is i accept , how come unemployment/incapacity claimers continue to rise?? and decent jobs?? come on mate .. ones with pensions proper pay and unions .. not what the WASP bossses want to offer .. so they go to poland to recruit
Structural problems in the labour market affect statistical changes. There is no chance of an immediate change to that affair, nor a general struggle to resist "flexible working patterns" anytime soon either. Polish workers appear to filling gaps in the labour market, some taking unskilled positions even when they may have skills.
this is rubbish .. they are purely cheap labour .. if you feel there is not enough of a struggle then that is my point entirely .. the left are more interested in iraq/lebanon etc
re housing not sure if you noticed people mentionning the change in housing allocation which thatcher introduced that benefitted large families over young couples .. this change along with right to buy has almost stopped young couples getting social housing in many areas .. but many immigrant families could be housed .. why do you think Thatch did this??
Thatcher never introduced a change in housing allocation to benefit large families over young couples. Under the Children's Act local authorities have a duty to protect children. This could affect both larger and smaller families if they found themselves homeless, or threatened with homelessness for example. In fact, it is more difficult for larger families to get housed because of a lack of social housing stock with multiple bedrooms of over three.
no it was the change to the needs based allocation in the early 8ts
Your talk of "many immigrant families being housed" needs to be backed up with some evidence for whatever area you're referring to?
this is a generally acknowledged process .. see next post
cut and paste .. cpgb/joseph rowntree on thatcher and housing
"Then Mrs Thatcher came to power in 1979 with the joint policies of selling off council housing and curtailing new build. The waiting list slowed almost to a stop, and what housing there was all began to be allocated on a more and more complicated points-based ‘needs’ system. This had the effect of fuelling racism. It is not clear whether the policy was meant to fuel racism or whether this was an unanticipated benefit to the bourgeoisie (which as part of its overall strategy of dividing the working class likes to have it both ways, fuelling racism while denouncing it at the same time).
For those of you who don’t quite get it, the reason a ‘needs-based’ housing allocations policy fuelled racism was because it appeared to give benefits to immigrants above the indigenous population (immigrants, being newcomers, were more likely to be homeless, or housed in really atrocious private housing, and culturally many had larger families and had serious overcrowding problems above and beyond those of the established population).
And as housing associations came into existence, nearly all dedicated to helping a group with a special need, there can be no doubt that, whatever the theory, in practice a needs-based policy has worked against the white working class without special problems, so much so that at the grassroots, many no longer see housing as a class issue, but as a special interest issue, which doesn’t affect them because they are ‘ordinary’, while, in London especially, most white working-class young couples don’t even think about applying for council housing, but buy a house instead, even though the only affordable places on working-class incomes can be as much as a couple of hours’ commute to London and back each day (the case of the London fireman living in Leicester being yet another head to the hydra of the housing problem)."
The challenge to 'needs-based' systems
Five years ago, those who advocated moving away from lettings based on a strict application of needs criteria seemed to be rejecting a core principle of social housing. However, allocating on the basis of need has of late prompted growing criticisms and concerns because:
applicants tend to have little choice about the property or area they are allocated to;
it is claimed that needs-based allocations have unwittingly compounded the residualisation of social housing as a tenure, as well as reinforcing the social exclusion of the tenants;
existing tenants and those wanting to form households cannot compete with, for example, homeless households in terms of the criteria used to determine housing need;
current allocations policies fail to take into account changing lifestyles and living arrangements and the increasing perception of social housing as a 'tenure of transition' for those currently unable or unwilling to buy, rather than a 'tenure of destination';
needs-based allocations policies have contributed to social, economic and demographic imbalances that affect levels of demand;
the overarching objective of housing those in greatest need has resulted in policies that are not sufficiently flexible to operate in differing (and changing) social housing markets.
Social engineering or consumer choice? Rethinking housing allocations by Ian Cole, Barbara Iqbal, Louise Slocombe, and Tony Trott, is published for the Foundation by the Chartered Institute of Housing (ISBN 1 903208 18 1, price £13.95).
"Then Mrs Thatcher came to power in 1979 with the joint policies of selling off council housing and curtailing new build. The waiting list slowed almost to a stop, and what housing there was all began to be allocated on a more and more complicated points-based ‘needs’ system. This had the effect of fuelling racism. It is not clear whether the policy was meant to fuel racism or whether this was an unanticipated benefit to the bourgeoisie (which as part of its overall strategy of dividing the working class likes to have it both ways, fuelling racism while denouncing it at the same time).
For those of you who don’t quite get it, the reason a ‘needs-based’ housing allocations policy fuelled racism was because it appeared to give benefits to immigrants above the indigenous population (immigrants, being newcomers, were more likely to be homeless, or housed in really atrocious private housing, and culturally many had larger families and had serious overcrowding problems above and beyond those of the established population).
And as housing associations came into existence, nearly all dedicated to helping a group with a special need, there can be no doubt that, whatever the theory, in practice a needs-based policy has worked against the white working class without special problems, so much so that at the grassroots, many no longer see housing as a class issue, but as a special interest issue, which doesn’t affect them because they are ‘ordinary’, while, in London especially, most white working-class young couples don’t even think about applying for council housing, but buy a house instead, even though the only affordable places on working-class incomes can be as much as a couple of hours’ commute to London and back each day (the case of the London fireman living in Leicester being yet another head to the hydra of the housing problem)."
The challenge to 'needs-based' systems
Five years ago, those who advocated moving away from lettings based on a strict application of needs criteria seemed to be rejecting a core principle of social housing. However, allocating on the basis of need has of late prompted growing criticisms and concerns because:
applicants tend to have little choice about the property or area they are allocated to;
it is claimed that needs-based allocations have unwittingly compounded the residualisation of social housing as a tenure, as well as reinforcing the social exclusion of the tenants;
existing tenants and those wanting to form households cannot compete with, for example, homeless households in terms of the criteria used to determine housing need;
current allocations policies fail to take into account changing lifestyles and living arrangements and the increasing perception of social housing as a 'tenure of transition' for those currently unable or unwilling to buy, rather than a 'tenure of destination';
needs-based allocations policies have contributed to social, economic and demographic imbalances that affect levels of demand;
the overarching objective of housing those in greatest need has resulted in policies that are not sufficiently flexible to operate in differing (and changing) social housing markets.
Social engineering or consumer choice? Rethinking housing allocations by Ian Cole, Barbara Iqbal, Louise Slocombe, and Tony Trott, is published for the Foundation by the Chartered Institute of Housing (ISBN 1 903208 18 1, price £13.95).
The Black Hand
Unclean
Migration between countries occurs if and when it "resolves" social and especially class contradictions inside both of them. One set of contradictions pushes people out of a country just as another set of contradictions in other countries pulls them in. Finally, while migration "resolves" some social contradictions, it likewise engenders or aggravates others.
These days, capitalist globalization (e.g., US multinationals producing exports in China) dumps cheap goods into countries whose domestic producers cannot compete with them. It introduces global retail trading corporations (e.g., Wal-Mart) that destroy domestic merchants. Finally, globalization's ups and downs produce sudden inflows and outflows of private capital that further destabilize national economies. In these ways, capitalist globalization exacerbates social contradictions. Migration follows as one way people and corporations try to cope with those contradictions.
In many less developed economies, their two main domestic class structures have been under extreme and rising pressure for some years. Small self-employed producers cannot generate enough value from what they produce and sell to secure their enterprises' reproduction. Domestic capitalist enterprises are rarely capable of competing with multinational corporations as the latter invade their markets, compete for inputs of raw materials, tools, and equipment, and squeeze their access to credit. The capitalist class structures -- the invading multinationals and the surviving domestic capitalists -- rarely generate enough new jobs to absorb the masses rendered unemployed by the multinational invasion. As desperate farmers migrate to the urban and industrial areas internally, they not only swell the already high unemployment there; they also quickly discover the two possible "solutions" for that unemployment.
One group's solution is to enter the vast, poor, and insecure "informal sector" (an unstable mix of the legal and illegal small-scale producers of very low-price and low-profit goods and services). The customs of that overcrowded sector often differ radically from everything this group knew and believed before their class structures were dissolved by or subordinated to the invading multinationals. Across the globe, the masses are traumatized on a vast scale through their passage into the informal sectors. Long-standing conventions of work, dress, family life, sexual activity, kinship, religious activity, and so on break down quickly and thoroughly. Another group's solution is emigration -- either instead of entry into the informal sector or after experiencing it.
It is important to note that it is not poverty that produces emigration. Poverty has been the norm in many parts of the world for long periods of time without provoking emigration. Emigration is usually a result of the interaction of external and internal conditions dissolving deep structures of production and patterns of social life generally. Recent waves of emigration are no exception. The catalyst was the dissolution of the class structures of the self-employed and the smaller capitalist producers in the Third World. Indeed, the few Third World capitalists who prospered -- usually by finding ways to serve and thereby survive the multinationals' invasions -- also supported (overtly or covertly) mass emigration. Their societies were polarizing into a "modern" sector (the relatively few successful capitalists and their hangers-on among the professionals, state officials and workers, upscale retailers, and various personal service providers) and that "informal" sector. The political problem everywhere was and remains how to manage and contain the potential explosion of masses of traumatized internal migrants living in extremely precarious conditions. They represented a frightening specter of potential political opposition to the local "modernizing" classes. How much better to have them leave and perhaps send back money to desperate relatives left behind!
The prospect of mass emigration struck the modernizers as the best available solution to the problem of their "informal sectors." They did not want to undertake (much less pay for) mass work programs financed, say, by taxes on domestic and multinational capitalists or domestic redistributions of wealth and income. They did not dare take any domestic steps that risked the enmity of the multinational "bloc" comprising corporations and the international agencies they or their home governments controlled. Such enmity could lead to capital outflows, currency collapses, and the social unrest thereby further provoked. Nor did they imagine the possibility of confronting the multinational bloc through coordination of multiple Third World economies (such as one that is struggling to be born now in Latin America). Thus, leaders of many Third World governments, together with their corporate supporters, found ways to facilitate mass emigration.
At the same time, globalization's other side -- the rich industrial capitalist economies (RICEs) -- has also been experiencing class contradictions and crises. Global competition drives all capitalists in the RICEs aggressively to lower commodity prices without reducing profits. One key means to this end entails moving jobs to cheaper workers overseas (outsourcing, capital exports, etc.). Another involves moving cheaper workers, via immigration, into jobs inside the RICEs. Thus, such US industries as agriculture, construction, tourism, restaurants and hotels, and hospitals -- all industries that cannot readily outsource -- have long recruited and supported the immigration of low-wage workers, legally or illegally. Immigration "solves" their competitive problems.
However, solving one problem provokes another. Mass immigration of low-wage workers has all sorts of contradictory effects on the host society. The resources available to (especially local) governments and the demands on public services change, often in ways provoking conflicts between new immigrants and their non-immigrant neighbors. Conflicts also result as immigrants raise and lower various wage and price levels, shift housing patterns and conditions, increase profits for some enterprises while diminishing those of others, change party memberships and politics, and alter the mix of religious institutions and practices where they settle.
US corporate recruiters and employers of immigrants bear no responsibility to finance and thereby ease their integration into local communities. The burden thus falls on the government at a time, especially in the US, when state resources are already stretched and objects of significant social conflict. Immigrants and immigration get caught up in aggravated domestic conflicts, often as scapegoats in a nation with a long history of displacing class conflicts onto anti-immigrant agitation as well as inter-racial, inter-ethnic, and inter-religious tensions. Immigrants today, like those before them, suffer all sorts of discriminations.
Today as in the past, the issue is political. Will immigrants and non-immigrants seek to solve their economic and social problems by battling each other or will they unite to seek other solutions? Will domestic social policies in their new countries provide all immigrants as well as natives with jobs, homes, and schools of quality to facilitate their integration while minimizing discriminations against them? Will those domestic policies be financed by funds drawn chiefly from the corporate profits fattened by cheap immigrant labor? Will foreign policies of leading nations require the immigrants' countries of origin to provide decent economic options for their people so that emigration becomes a genuine choice rather than a desperate last resort? It is difficult to see such changes emerging so long as the class structures and imperatives of capitalism remain hegemonic in the economies at both ends of the migrants' journey.
What the immigrants and the natives thus need most -- and what might therefore be a basis for strategic unity -- is a change in the class structures as both ends. To say that such a strategy is not "realistic" neglects the fact that 200 years of capitalism as the hegemonic class structure and countless "realistic immigration reforms" have not fundamentally altered modern migration. It remains the scene of mass suffering, social and personal trauma, grotesque injustice, and painful struggles pitting immigrants against non-immigrants while migration's capitalist beneficiaries keep profiting from it.
These days, capitalist globalization (e.g., US multinationals producing exports in China) dumps cheap goods into countries whose domestic producers cannot compete with them. It introduces global retail trading corporations (e.g., Wal-Mart) that destroy domestic merchants. Finally, globalization's ups and downs produce sudden inflows and outflows of private capital that further destabilize national economies. In these ways, capitalist globalization exacerbates social contradictions. Migration follows as one way people and corporations try to cope with those contradictions.
In many less developed economies, their two main domestic class structures have been under extreme and rising pressure for some years. Small self-employed producers cannot generate enough value from what they produce and sell to secure their enterprises' reproduction. Domestic capitalist enterprises are rarely capable of competing with multinational corporations as the latter invade their markets, compete for inputs of raw materials, tools, and equipment, and squeeze their access to credit. The capitalist class structures -- the invading multinationals and the surviving domestic capitalists -- rarely generate enough new jobs to absorb the masses rendered unemployed by the multinational invasion. As desperate farmers migrate to the urban and industrial areas internally, they not only swell the already high unemployment there; they also quickly discover the two possible "solutions" for that unemployment.
One group's solution is to enter the vast, poor, and insecure "informal sector" (an unstable mix of the legal and illegal small-scale producers of very low-price and low-profit goods and services). The customs of that overcrowded sector often differ radically from everything this group knew and believed before their class structures were dissolved by or subordinated to the invading multinationals. Across the globe, the masses are traumatized on a vast scale through their passage into the informal sectors. Long-standing conventions of work, dress, family life, sexual activity, kinship, religious activity, and so on break down quickly and thoroughly. Another group's solution is emigration -- either instead of entry into the informal sector or after experiencing it.
It is important to note that it is not poverty that produces emigration. Poverty has been the norm in many parts of the world for long periods of time without provoking emigration. Emigration is usually a result of the interaction of external and internal conditions dissolving deep structures of production and patterns of social life generally. Recent waves of emigration are no exception. The catalyst was the dissolution of the class structures of the self-employed and the smaller capitalist producers in the Third World. Indeed, the few Third World capitalists who prospered -- usually by finding ways to serve and thereby survive the multinationals' invasions -- also supported (overtly or covertly) mass emigration. Their societies were polarizing into a "modern" sector (the relatively few successful capitalists and their hangers-on among the professionals, state officials and workers, upscale retailers, and various personal service providers) and that "informal" sector. The political problem everywhere was and remains how to manage and contain the potential explosion of masses of traumatized internal migrants living in extremely precarious conditions. They represented a frightening specter of potential political opposition to the local "modernizing" classes. How much better to have them leave and perhaps send back money to desperate relatives left behind!
The prospect of mass emigration struck the modernizers as the best available solution to the problem of their "informal sectors." They did not want to undertake (much less pay for) mass work programs financed, say, by taxes on domestic and multinational capitalists or domestic redistributions of wealth and income. They did not dare take any domestic steps that risked the enmity of the multinational "bloc" comprising corporations and the international agencies they or their home governments controlled. Such enmity could lead to capital outflows, currency collapses, and the social unrest thereby further provoked. Nor did they imagine the possibility of confronting the multinational bloc through coordination of multiple Third World economies (such as one that is struggling to be born now in Latin America). Thus, leaders of many Third World governments, together with their corporate supporters, found ways to facilitate mass emigration.
At the same time, globalization's other side -- the rich industrial capitalist economies (RICEs) -- has also been experiencing class contradictions and crises. Global competition drives all capitalists in the RICEs aggressively to lower commodity prices without reducing profits. One key means to this end entails moving jobs to cheaper workers overseas (outsourcing, capital exports, etc.). Another involves moving cheaper workers, via immigration, into jobs inside the RICEs. Thus, such US industries as agriculture, construction, tourism, restaurants and hotels, and hospitals -- all industries that cannot readily outsource -- have long recruited and supported the immigration of low-wage workers, legally or illegally. Immigration "solves" their competitive problems.
However, solving one problem provokes another. Mass immigration of low-wage workers has all sorts of contradictory effects on the host society. The resources available to (especially local) governments and the demands on public services change, often in ways provoking conflicts between new immigrants and their non-immigrant neighbors. Conflicts also result as immigrants raise and lower various wage and price levels, shift housing patterns and conditions, increase profits for some enterprises while diminishing those of others, change party memberships and politics, and alter the mix of religious institutions and practices where they settle.
US corporate recruiters and employers of immigrants bear no responsibility to finance and thereby ease their integration into local communities. The burden thus falls on the government at a time, especially in the US, when state resources are already stretched and objects of significant social conflict. Immigrants and immigration get caught up in aggravated domestic conflicts, often as scapegoats in a nation with a long history of displacing class conflicts onto anti-immigrant agitation as well as inter-racial, inter-ethnic, and inter-religious tensions. Immigrants today, like those before them, suffer all sorts of discriminations.
Today as in the past, the issue is political. Will immigrants and non-immigrants seek to solve their economic and social problems by battling each other or will they unite to seek other solutions? Will domestic social policies in their new countries provide all immigrants as well as natives with jobs, homes, and schools of quality to facilitate their integration while minimizing discriminations against them? Will those domestic policies be financed by funds drawn chiefly from the corporate profits fattened by cheap immigrant labor? Will foreign policies of leading nations require the immigrants' countries of origin to provide decent economic options for their people so that emigration becomes a genuine choice rather than a desperate last resort? It is difficult to see such changes emerging so long as the class structures and imperatives of capitalism remain hegemonic in the economies at both ends of the migrants' journey.
What the immigrants and the natives thus need most -- and what might therefore be a basis for strategic unity -- is a change in the class structures as both ends. To say that such a strategy is not "realistic" neglects the fact that 200 years of capitalism as the hegemonic class structure and countless "realistic immigration reforms" have not fundamentally altered modern migration. It remains the scene of mass suffering, social and personal trauma, grotesque injustice, and painful struggles pitting immigrants against non-immigrants while migration's capitalist beneficiaries keep profiting from it.
The Black Hand
Unclean
durruti02 said:
Spreading struggles... thru participation, solidarity, propaganda and any other means possible...
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
...you know when I said "that's enough bumping"?
YOU don't seem to understand that you are, every time you make these kind of statements, OBVIOSULY only including Britsish workers in your "workers control". I find it a little sad that you can make the same mistake, time and time again. SO lets have a discussion about whether immigration harms all workers whether British or not. And please, I don't want to be flamed, i've had a peaceful few months on the internet. Bite your fingers, or whatevertbaldwin said:
118118 said:YOU don't seem to understand that you are, every time you make these kind of statements, OBVIOSULY only including Britsish workers in your "workers control". I find it a little sad that you can make the same mistake, time and time again. SO lets have a discussion about whether immigration harms all workers whether British or not. And please, I don't want to be flamed, i've had a peaceful few months on the internet. Bite your fingers, or whatever
hi 118118 .. TB and myself mean people who are here now .. where both he and i live that actually means a probable majority of non white and former immigrants ( though of course c.90% of londoners are immigrants in the last 100 years!)
the debate is not about race or creed or colour but about power of ordinary people and that, having the bosses use and abuse immigrants in the way they do, disempowers us all. so yes immigration AS PART OF NEO LIBERALISM does harm us all. though it can have many and wonderfull side effects as TB will vouch for!
Spion
I hear ya
So, start arguing for stong workplace organisation and minimum rates of pay so that migrants are not able to be used to undercut wages. It'd make a lot more sense than your hobby-horse 'workers control of immigration controls', which seems to me to be an open invite to racist anti-immigration campaigningdurruti02 said:
Similar threads
