Should the UK have immigration controls?

[big footed fred]

Immigration controls are at bottom racist, and they should be scrapped.

If you want to see racism take away controls and see how long before the BNP or some other group of racist twats gain real power in this country.
Your argument is bolocks and can only be the cause of great problems.

Uk policy is shit.

I have just had two friends refused a visa (education). I know that they are genuine as I paid the tuition fees at Doncaster collage.
Their application was refused as the officer said that he thought they were liers. He flowered it up a bit but that's what it boils down to.
He also refused to speak to me or listen to what I had to say on the subject.

At the same time we don't kick out foreign criminals and it's takes years before we boot out those who would harm us. (old doctor hook comes to mind).

We need a new way to look at the people that come here and the way their cases are looked at.
We do need to reduce numbers but we need to dump the rubbish not go for the easy targets to keep the politicians happy.

 

[mk12]

Immigration controls are at bottom racist, and they should be scrapped.

Poles are white. Yet there was a lot of stuff backlash about the amount of Poles coming in to this country when they joined the EU.

 

[chilango]

I wasn't referring to rich areas. I couldn't give a shit what happens in those places.

...so "working class communities" for want of a better phrase?

 

[mk12]

I guess so! Areas where the majority of people in this country live.

 

[chilango]

I guess so! Areas where the majority of people in this country live.

Problem is we don`t have "working class rule in working class areas" so community control would apply to the rich too - who often happen to own a lot more land than just that which they live on...so you`re talking about fundamental social chnage for your suggestion to be a goer...in which case the whole immigration scenario changes as if we have a succesfull social change it`ll also be happenning on a global scale (not a revolution in one country) so immigration control will be a non issue, no?

 

[tbaldwin]

The world already works like that for the rich.

The world already is a humanitarian disaster.

How are immigration controls for the poor making this better?

Scrapping immigration controls would lead to an almost unimaginable disaster.
If you think things are bad now then you should think about what your supporting could lead to.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

If you look at the history of immigration controls you would see that every piece of legislation has been introduced as a result of racist agitation from the right.

The first immigration controls in the UK were introduced by Balfour (of the Balfour declaration, Palestine fame) in 1905 to keep out Jews. In the 60s, the media whipped up hysteria about commonwealth immigrants, so Labour responded by tightening up immigration controls.

You don't solve racism by pandering to it. At bottom, immigration controls are about dividing workers the better to rule them.

 

[chilango]

Scrapping immigration controls would lead to an almost unimaginable disaster.
If you think things are bad now then you should think about what your supporting could lead to.

hmmm. what d`you mean?

millions dying from famine and civil war?

lets face it, immigration controls are not gonna be scrapped. but our attitudes on this will influence policy on how those who are let in are treated.

 

[mk12]

Problem is we don`t have "working class rule in working class areas" so community control would apply to the rich too

I'd say in most areas, i'd say working people far outnumber rich people. Take any constituency. Only in a minority of cases do rich people outnumber poorer people, as far as i know.

`re talking about fundamental social chnage for your suggestion to be a goer

I don't know. I guess the amount of democracy in policy decisions I am proposing is a bit radical for the government.

I just don't like this idea that the far-left are against what 98% of people in this country want, for some utopian (as in, won't happen any time soon) principle ("free movement of labour"). The question arises: how would it effect the working class, the agent of social change? Well, the working class in this country does not favour open borders for many reasons - a drain on resources (housing, health etc) is one of the most common in my experience.

It seems the far-left simply ignore the majority's view on this. Another case of the left not being relevant and actually pushing away people. They should not go around saying "asylum seekers welcome here" when I don't really think they are! (substitutionism?) And they should be working on issues which they have in common with other people.

 

[mk12]

If you look at the history of immigration controls you would see that every piece of legislation has been introduced as a result of racist agitation from the right.

The first immigration controls in the UK were introduced by Balfour (of the Balfour declaration, Palestine fame) in 1905 to keep out Jews. In the 60s, the media whipped up hysteria about commonwealth immigrants, so Labour responded by tightening up immigration controls.

You don't solve racism by pandering to it. At bottom, immigration controls are about dividing workers the better to rule them.

if immigration controls are racist, then does supporting them mean you are racist?

 

[big footed fred]

hmmm. what d`you mean?

millions dying from famine and civil war?

So what is your idea. Is it that all people from war torn countries come to the UK. Perhaps all rape victims and all criminals from other countries that face a harsh prison or the death penalty could come over as well.

How long before we have a country full of the scum of the earth and a massive bunch of people unable to help themselves.
That can only lead to mass unemployment, social problems on a massive scale and a lot of hatred.

We need to try to help those in trouble but we can't do it by bringing them all here.

 

[chilango]

I'd say in most areas, i'd say working people far outnumber rich people. Take any constituency. Only in a minority of cases do rich people outnumber poorer people, as far as i know.



I don't know. I guess the amount of democracy in policy decisions I am proposing is a bit radical for the government.

I just don't like this idea that the far-left are against what 98% of people in this country want, for some utopian (as in, won't happen any time soon) principle ("free movement of labour"). The question arises: how would it effect the working class, the agent of social change? Well, the working class in this country does not favour open borders for many reasons - a drain on resources (housing, health etc) is one of the most common in my experience.

It seems the far-left simply ignore the majority's view on this. Another case of the left not being relevant and actually pushing away people. They should not go around saying "asylum seekers welcome here" when I don't really think they are! (substitutionism?) And they should be working on issues which they have in common with other people.

I think there is a difference between "leftism" (though the term is misleading anyway - i`m not a leftist) and "populism". the left has always held a lot of positions and principle that are not in accordance with what is commnly held as "what most working people want".

I also think there is a danger of only considering class interests within national boundaries. the ruling class does not operate within the confines of national borders - surely an effective working class opposition would be internationalist too?

I agree that to simply wander around advocating open borders as part of evryday political tactics is a bit dumb, and pointless as it isn`t going to happen within the current system.

...but our attitudes help shape the political climate which can be pushed right and left...at the moment the BNP et al are shaping this climate it appears.

 

[chilango]

So what is your idea. Is it that all people from war torn countries come to the UK. Perhaps all rape victims and all criminals from other countries that face a harsh prison or the death penalty could come over as well.

How long before we have a country full of the scum of the earth and a massive bunch of people unable to help themselves.
That can only lead to mass unemployment, social problems on a massive scale and a lot of hatred.

We need to try to help those in trouble but we can't do it by bringing them all here.

true, but...

rape victims = scum of the earth? take more care how you phrase stuff!

Britain`s business interests are behind/involved in many of the major problems in the world. maybe we should apply more pressure here to stop this, rather simply erecting barricades.

 

[Giles]

Britain is already a densely-populated country, so I don't think we should allow much more big-scale immigration.

I think that maybe we should have a "points" system, favouring those with skills that we are short of, while ensuring that we don't let in loads of people who will be a net drain on the communal pot of money.

Just let in the cream, not the opposite.

And remove foreign criminals and failed asylum-seekers promptly.

Giles..

 

[mk12]

I also think there is a danger of only considering class interests within national boundaries

To an extent. I'm not on about "british jobs for british workers" or anything.

But how do the left expect to win over British workers (that's their aim, after all) to their side, if they say "sod your personaly situation, you should allow any number of people in your community/constituency."

The left apparently supports workers democracy - the working class in control of society. If this is the case, then why shouldn't the working class in different areas decide if they want "open borders"?

at the moment the BNP et al are shaping this climate it appears.

I suppose the question is: is the BNP simply reflecting popular opinion, or formulating it?

 

[tbaldwin]

Britain is already a densely-populated country, so I don't think we should allow much more big-scale immigration.

I think that maybe we should have a "points" system, favouring those with skills that we are short of, while ensuring that we don't let in loads of people who will be a net drain on the communal pot of money.

Just let in the cream, not the opposite.

And remove foreign criminals and failed asylum-seekers promptly.

Giles..

A very nationalist point of view.....In my view the UK should be proud of taking people who face genuine persecution and murder but taking skilled workers from poorer countries is something we should be ashamed of.

 

[audiotech]

Perhaps...all criminals from other countries that face a harsh prison or the death penalty could come over as well.

You always seem to take an argument and then set some ridiculous scenario to then derail it in your fantasy land.

Who the fuck is arguing that the UK shuould accept "all criminals from other countries that face a harsh prison or the death penalty"?

 

[Ryoma]

My Views are as follows: It would be good to have unrestricted movement of people around the globe but given the present economic set up this would prove impossible. Basically such a system could only work if there wasn't such vast differences in wealth between nations. Immigration controls tend to point the finger at the wrong people: they blame the presence of foreigners, usually poor and vunerable, for problems in the welfare state and divert the host nation's people away from blaming things like underinvestment and wrong priorities (i.e. let's spend billions on a successor to Trident instead on investing in welfare). Also for the super rich immigration controls are not an issue - London is full of resident oil sheikhs and Russian multi-millionaires - bet they don't get their passports scrutinised at Heathrow! I think Socialists and Progressives should not advocate greater immigration controls - it's a issue that we cannot and should not compete with the Right - but accept that while economic competition exists we are stuck with them.

 

[Giles]

A very nationalist point of view.....In my view the UK should be proud of taking people who face genuine persecution and murder but taking skilled workers from poorer countries is something we should be ashamed of.

Well, surely every country should act in it's own best interest.

And, the problem with this "taking skilled workers" argument, is that it seems to assume that these skilled workers have no will of their own, and are just "taken" as if they were slaves.

These are intelligent individuals with their own desires and lives to live.

Do you think poor countries should build big fences around their borders, like the Berlin wall, or the Israeli "separation barrier", in order to stop their populations escaping? And if not, how will you stop them?

Giles..

 

[Udo Erasmus]

I just don't like this idea that the far-left are against what 98% of people in this country want, for some utopian (as in, won't happen any time soon) principle ("free movement of labour"). The question arises: how would it effect the working class, the agent of social change? Well, the working class in this country does not favour open borders for many reasons - a drain on resources (housing, health etc) is one of the most common in my experience.

As a former SWP member, I would have thought that opposing immigration controls would be part of your ABC? It has always been orthodoxy on the marxist left, their is an excellent book by Teresa Hayter (former IMG) called "The Case against Immigration Controls" I can recommend, there are scores of SWP books and pamphlets that explain the case quite well, and I think that Respect is handicapped in it's fight against racism by not taking a harder and sharper stance on this issue.

The idea that their is a limited pool of dosh is bad economics, immigrants work and therefore generate money, when they travel to work they use public transport, eat food, therefore generating more work and money.

Once again, your arguments against scrapping immigration controls pander to capitalist ideology. We live in a society where wealth is heavilly concentrated with the top 2%, that is what is draining resources, not people coming to this country trying to make a better living.

There is also a pragmatic argument for immigration. The UK has an aging and declining population, therefore we actually need immigrant labour.

Matt, up until the 60s anybody from the commonwealth could come to Britain. People didn't flood into the country (as people claim they would do, if we scrapped immigration controls), when there were jobs they would come, and if there wasn't they would stay at home, as not many people want to travel around the world to sign on!

On the issue of asylum seekers, we need to expose the hypocrisy of bomb them there, lock 'em up here. The majority of asylum seekers come from countries that are the victims of western intervention

 

[chilango]

Britain is already a densely-populated country, so I don't think we should allow much more big-scale immigration.

maybe better sex ed?

Just let in the cream, not the opposite.

do the cream want to come to the uK though? my experience is that they have better lefestyles back home. its those denied these oppurtunities who might want to come?

 

[mk12]

Udo Erasmus:

I am familiar with the far-left's views on immigration controls. I just don't necessarily agree with them!

Obviously, a world without borders is something that would be fantastic. But in the here and now? Do you really see it as a possible, realistic situation? Do you think everything would be fine if borders were abolished tomorrow?

And you have said immigration controls are racist. If this is true, does that make those who support controls racist?

We live in a society where wealth is heavilly concentrated with the top 2%, that is what is draining resources, not people coming to this country trying to make a better living.

Yes - wealth is concentrated in the top 2%. That's why most people fight for wage increases, better working conditions etc. Bringing in immigrants to an area where there is already a struggle over resources is not going to help the problem, it's going to worsen it. In that sense, I can entirely understand why the overwhelming majority of people oppose "no borders".

 

[tbaldwin]

Well, surely every country should act in it's own best interest.


Giles..

The National interest arguement aaaaaggggghhhhhh. What kind of shit is that that people like you and UDO believe in.
Do workers and owners have the same interests?????
Do people competing for jobs and housing have the same interests as bosses and landlords????

What is the National interest??? A load of bollocks.....
UDO you should be ashamed of yourself for that pensions arguement shit....Call yourself a Socialist dont make me laugh....

 

[Ryoma]

And you have said immigration controls are racist. If this is true, does that make those who support controls racist?

No - just deluded.

 

[durruti02]

I don't know. I guess the amount of democracy in policy decisions I am proposing is a bit radical for the government.

I just don't like this idea that the far-left are against what 98% of people in this country want, for some utopian (as in, won't happen any time soon) principle ("free movement of labour"). The question arises: how would it effect the working class, the agent of social change? Well, the working class in this country does not favour open borders for many reasons - a drain on resources (housing, health etc) is one of the most common in my experience.

It seems the far-left simply ignore the majority's view on this. Another case of the left not being relevant and actually pushing away people. They should not go around saying "asylum seekers welcome here" when I don't really think they are! (substitutionism?) And they should be working on issues which they have in common with other people.

steady on my man .. rmp3 and the rest will be accusing you of being BNP if you are not carefull!!

 

[mk12]

No - just deluded.

so 98% of people are "deluded". Except you of course.

 

[tbaldwin]

steady on my man .. rmp3 and the rest will be accusing you of being BNP if you are not carefull!!

I dont want to say anything nice about Matt incase people use it against him. But its good to see some people realise that Socialism means respecting the views of the majority of the population not dismissing them as uneducated bigots etc....

 

[audiotech]

I am familiar with the far-left's views on immigration controls. I just don't necessarily agree with them!

You moved right with a vengence matt.

Obviously, a world without borders is something that would be fantastic. But in the here and now? Do you really see it as a possible, realistic situation? Do you think everything would be fine if borders were abolished tomorrow?

If borders were abolished tomorrow that would mean we would have a workers state today, which is obviously not the case and unlikely to happen anytime soon.

And you have said immigration controls are racist. If this is true, does that make those who support controls racist?

Historically immigration controls have alway's been racist. Doesn't mean those who believe this as a solution today are racist. They are probably not aware it is a control on labour though.

Yes - wealth is concentrated in the top 2%. That's why most people fight for wage increases, better working conditions etc. Bringing in immigrants to an area where there is already a struggle over resources is not going to help the problem, it's going to worsen it. In that sense, I can entirely understand why the overwhelming majority of people oppose "no borders".

Immigrants have alway's settled in areas where there are few resources (poor areas) because that is usually the only place they can afford to settle. There has been hostility towards immigrants (Notting Hill, Lewisham, Leicester, East London and many other places), but there as also been solidarity, anti-fascism, anti-racism and people being welcomed into working class communities to fight for better resources for all.

I'm not sure your claim that "the overwhelming majority of people oppose no borders" is valid historically?

 

[tbaldwin]

MC5 i think Matt has moved to the left. He seems to realise that you can not consistently reject the will of the majority and call yourself a Socialist. What you seem to favour is some kind of benevolent dictatorship and that is not Socialism.

 

[audiotech]

MC5 i think Matt has moved to the left. He seems to realise that you can not consistently reject the will of the majority and call yourself a Socialist. What you seem to favour is some kind of benevolent dictatorship and that is not Socialism.

This majority and rejecting it's will speak sounds suspiciously Orwellian to me tB.