Should the UK have immigration controls?

[mk12]

You moved right with a vengence matt.

I don't think you can judge whether you are "left" or "right" by your views on immigration! Was Marx right-wing because he made racist comments?

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.

So why do leftists argue for "no borders" now then? Are you honest with people that open borders is unfeasible now?

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

Well, obviously. But why not look at popular opinion on futher immigration? It's not exactly favourable is it? Are "asylum seekers welcome here"?

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

Do you think people in this country want no borders then?

 

[tbaldwin]

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

I dont know if thats a criticism? But Socialism that rejects the will ofthe majority seems destined for failure to me and well dodgy as well.

 

[mk12]

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

I think he is the reincarnation of JJ Rousseau actually

 

[audiotech]

I don't think you can judge whether you are "left" or "right" by your views on immigration! Was Marx right-wing because he made racist comments?

Which racist comments? Although you've not said it yet you are on the side of capitalism arguing for a control over labour.

So why do leftists argue for "no borders" now then? Are you honest with people that open borders is unfeasible now?

They are internationalists and argue for the free movement of labour. It is feasible and becoming more so in Europe today.

Well, obviously. But why not look at popular opinion on futher immigration? It's not exactly favourable is it? Are "asylum seekers welcome here"?

In some areas yes. Whole communities have built campaigns against the deportation of asylum seekers from their areas. People see immigrants everyday doing jobs that they don't want to do and would welcome them staying and doing those jobs and then moving onto wherever they wish to settle.

Do you think people in this country want no borders then?

A world without borders is what I would like to see. Whether the people in the UK want no borders, after a considered debate, instead of the usual hysterical type, then all fair and good.

 

[mk12]

Although you've not said it yet you are on the side of capitalism arguing for a control over labour.

Surely capitalists want cheap labour? And I am arguing for working class control over labour actually.

Whether the people in the UK want no borders, after a considered debate, instead of the usual hysterical type, then all fair and good.

And what do you think the majority want now?

 

[audiotech]

Surely capitalists want cheap labour? And I am arguing for working class control over labour actually.

They also require highly skilled labour, which they pay top whack for. The capitalists control markets, arguing for workers control is a left reformist position and has failed miserably.

And what do you think the majority want now?

They want managed migration and that's what they have.

 

[mk12]

Who has control over it now?

The state and capital. I am arguing for the control by areas' communities.

 

[audiotech]

The state and capital. I am arguing for the control by areas' communities.

Of course you are.

 

[mk12]

My first post on this topic:

"I think communities should decide themselves if they want immigration controls."

 

[big footed fred]

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"?

The debate is about controls.
I am saying that we need controls to decide who is allowed to come here.
(much better ones that we have at the moment)
Those that say all controls need to be scapped by definition say that anyone can come here.
There are those who would argue that as the death penalty is inhumane and we should allow those who face it to remain in this country.
It is EU policy that we are unable to deport anyone facing the death penalty in their own country - that's why we have had so much trouble dumping the terrorist doctor hook.
In cases like his where we are aware that he preaches hate and killing we should be allowed to remove him to face the results of his evil.

We also need health check on people coming here. Those with medical problems that may spread to the UK population also need stopping from coming here.
In other countries you need to prove you are a fit person to enter the country and prove you can support yourself. What's wrong with the same thing here ?
I watch my friends being refused visas knowing that when they came they would contribute to the UK. I am sure this is a direct result of the ass ylum policy and trying to keep the silly left and right wings of politics happy.
The numbers are too high so to reduce the numbers stop the easy targets from coming to the UK but leave the asylum seekers (illegals) alone as that would upset the left wing and the EU.
Don't want anything to spoil Tony's chances of getting a plum job in Europe do we.

 

[audiotech]

My first post on this topic:

"I think communities should decide themselves if they want immigration controls."

I'm asking if you want more control over labour?

 

[audiotech]

The debate is about controls.
I am saying that we need controls to decide who is allowed to come here.
(much better ones that we have at the moment)
Those that say all controls need to be scapped by definition say that anyone can come here.
There are those who would argue that as the death penalty is inhumane and we should allow those who face it to remain in this country.
It is EU policy that we are unable to deport anyone facing the death penalty in their own country - that's why we have had so much trouble dumping the terrorist doctor hook.
In cases like his where we are aware that he preaches hate and killing we should be allowed to remove him to face the results of his evil.

We also need health check on people coming here. Those with medical problems that may spread to the UK population also need stopping from coming here.
In other countries you need to prove you are a fit person to enter the country and prove you can support yourself. What's wrong with the same thing here ?
I watch my friends being refused visas knowing that when they came they would contribute to the UK. I am sure this is a direct result of the ass ylum policy and trying to keep the silly left and right wings of politics happy.
The numbers are too high so to reduce the numbers stop the easy targets from coming to the UK but leave the asylum seekers (illegals) alone as that would upset the left wing and the EU.
Don't want anything to spoil Tony's chances of getting a plum job in Europe do we.

More controls on labour, health checks at ports, deportations of asylum seekers to face a death penalty. I thought Blair was in favour of such policies.

 

[tbaldwin]

This poll has suprised me a bit i thought most people would be against immigration controls...

 

[Giles]

maybe better sex ed?





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?

A lot of people like the lifestyle in the UK. People of all colours and creeds.

Why do you think so many want to come here?

We may have our faults, but are a lot more tolerant of different cultures etc than many other European cultures. The BNP etc are still nowhere in terms of mass support. Unlike France's FN etc.

I think we should be encouraging the smarter people to have more kids, really.

There seem to me to be too many disincentives for smart people to procreate and too many for the terminally stupid.

Giles..

 

[tbaldwin]

I think we should be encouraging the smarter people to have more kids, really.

There seem to me to be too many disincentives for smart people to procreate and too many for the terminally stupid.

Giles..

I like you Giles you seem to say what you think....

 

[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....

You always argue for immigration control ...... which kind of implies that there should be different nations in the world, with different priorities and interests and objectives.

You state that nations need to keep their "skilled workers" and not let them fuck off abroad to earn more money.

So, how can you now argue against any nation acting in it's own "national interest", when you also argue for immigration controls, precisely to further the same "national interest" of poor countries worried that all the smart people in their country will leave in search of a better life, leaving them with a nation of unskilled thickoes, presumably?

You can't have it both ways.

Giles..

 

[mk12]

I'm asking if you want more control over labour?

I believe local communities should decide if they want immigrants to come to their area.

 

[Crazy_diamond]

Done both skilled and unskilled work abroad.

Have I taken jobs from locals? Yes.

But the economy and society we have deems my labour more desirable than that of a local on many occasions.

I have these oppurtunities because of my place within this society (young, white, british, educated, male). I think others should have the chances I do.

On the other hand, jobs that i would`ve ended up doing a generation ago have dissappeared abroad. There are no borders for the bosses, just for workers. Is that right?

If you’ve managed to get a unskilled job in the developing world good luck to you they work to hard for me to even try

I agree with you that everyone should have the same opportunities but it just doesn’t and will never happen, the problems facing the UK working-class in the UK are no different to the problems facing the working-class in most of the World, I’ve heard many South American complaining that someone else has taken their job for less money.

But if you think that no boarders will sort this problem out I think you are wrong, moving masses of workers around the world isn’t a good idea and doesn’t work, yes the bosses have no boarders but that means workers should pull together to improve wages and conditions for all, unfortunately the Trade Unions don’t see it that way they want to bring up the draw bridge and look inwards.

The problems facing the working-class of the UK are not new or exclusive to the UK but I see no “Workers” group looking to stop it and that is very bad for the working-class of the UK and one of the main reasons I’m leaving.

 

[Crazy_diamond]

I believe local communities should decide if they want immigrants to come to their area.

I hear this sort of thing a lot, can you explain to us how this would work?

Who would have the right to vote?
Who would decide what the areas were?
Could a majority white area vote to remain white?
How would you deal with issues that span more than one “area”?
Could one group vote for something that would effect other groups?
How "local" is local?
Just how would the system you want work in he real world of today?

 

[big footed fred]

More controls on labour, health checks at ports, deportations of asylum seekers to face a death penalty. I thought Blair was in favour of such policies.

If we have no controls on labour there will be mass unemployment as too many will come. Some factories in this area have dumped all their UK workers and have employment agencies who supply cheap foreign workers. We are in a high unemployment area so we don't need them. Cheap for the factory but expensive for those who have no job and expensive for the government as they have to pay benefits to those without work.

If some one has a medical condition that could be passed to others what is wrong with protecting those people who live here.

Excluding those whose crime is to have a political opinion against that of their government if they have the death penalty they will have hurt someone in their own country. If they have done wrong there why do we want them here.

If Mr Blair is in favour of these things then I would have to agree with him.
I can't stand racism but I think that those who would allow an open door policy are a far greater danger than the BNP and their idiots

 

[tbaldwin]

You always argue for immigration control ...... which kind of implies that there should be different nations in the world, with different priorities and interests and objectives.

You state that nations need to keep their "skilled workers" and not let them fuck off abroad to earn more money.

So, how can you now argue against any nation acting in it's own "national interest", when you also argue for immigration controls, precisely to further the same "national interest" of poor countries worried that all the smart people in their country will leave in search of a better life, leaving them with a nation of unskilled thickoes, presumably?

You can't have it both ways.

Giles..

Cant have it both ways....What kind of a silly saying is that?

I can cos,i believe in state planning and reparations to developing nations..That doesnt mean ive fallen for National interest type arguements..To say something is in the National interest implies that all the people in that country have the same interest, which is crap cos the rich and poor in countries have very different interests....But at the same time i want to see poorer nations develop and get more money but i dont want it going into the hands of some shitty dictator etc....
I am arguing for what i see as the majority interest in poorer countries..

 

[mk12]

Who would have the right to vote?
Who would decide what the areas were?
Could a majority white area vote to remain white?
How would you deal with issues that span more than one “area”?
Could one group vote for something that would effect other groups?
How "local" is local?
Just how would the system you want work in he real world of today?

Not for me to answer really, it's up to people in those communities which are targetted for settlement by immigrants to answer them. I live in a predominantly white, "non-immigrant" area. I just think we need to let people decide democratically, through discussion and consultation, how many immigrants/refugees etc they can maintain. Surely that's better than the forced influx of immigrants into an already underfunded area?

 

[Crazy_diamond]

Cant have it both ways....What kind of a silly saying is that?

I can cos,i believe in state planning and reparations to developing nations..That doesnt mean ive fallen for National interest type arguements..To say something is in the National interest implies that all the people in that country have the same interest, which is crap cos the rich and poor in countries have very different interests....But at the same time i want to see poorer nations develop and get more money but i dont want it going into the hands of some shitty dictator etc....
I am arguing for what i see as the majority interest in poorer countries..

How does that work when it is the policy’s of the rich countries that are keeping the poor countries poor.

If the people of the developing world had a free market into which they could sell their goods directly, that would be a start, but rich countries don't let them. But rich countries keep talking aout a free market, free for who?

The yanks are always going on about the price of gas (that’s petrol to you an me) but they make Brazil pay an import duty on every barrel of ethanol they export to the USA, that puts the price up at the pump and so it is the government that is keeping prices high, ethanol is much less polluting and is renewable but still it is almost as expensive as petrol in the States despite costing 50% less to produce.

Unless and until the developed world opens up its markets to the developing world immigration will always be a massive problem, but if you look at the status quo the Government of the rich world have a win-win situation, where they can import cheap labour (immigration) and also keep prices high on the internal market

 

[Crazy_diamond]

Not for me to answer really, it's up to people in those communities which are targetted for settlement by immigrants to answer them. I live in a predominantly white, "non-immigrant" area. I just think we need to let people decide democratically, through discussion and consultation, how many immigrants/refugees etc they can maintain. Surely that's better than the forced influx of immigrants into an already underfunded area?

I don't think it would work as self interest would take over and I don't think you'd ever to get people to agree on where one areas starts and stops.

It sounds like a lovely idea but just isn't workable in the social environment we live there is far to much imbalance in the way wealth is distributed.

I could give you examples of where this system was in place and the big problems came when two or more communities had to agree on something and they couldn’t what would happen under your system in those circumstances.

I will give you an example that EpicureanNo1 posted here I think sometime ago.

Under land reform the MST grabbed loads of land and set up villages, they notice that if they diverted the water supply they could open up more land, they had to get the agreement of the 3 villages (that they had set up) that were there as it as their water supply that needed diverting, two of the villages said no and that meant that many more villages could not be build as they wouldn’t have had an adequate water supply, so a minority of people effected held the majority to ransom and that can’t be right under any system. The people who would have lived in the new villages had a massive interest but didn't have a vote, why didn't they have a vote? it effected them as much if not more than the people whoes water supply would have been dirverted (not reduces just diverted)

It’s the “I’m al right jack syndrome and seems to be part of human conditioning”, under the system you espouse I can see loads of gated “communities” and even more of the haves and have-nots than we do today.

 

[mk12]

Local councils already exist and co-operate?

 

[Crazy_diamond]

Local councils already exist and co-operate?

They also split on political grounds, the Tory’s have a local authority association as do Labour and the Liberals, I think you'll find they HAVE to work together it is a legal duty put on them by central government. I think it is called a statutory obligation and that wouldn't work under your system as you wouldn't let a national government have a final say on local issues would you?

They also work against eachother, remember the scandal of Wandsworth buying up houses in near-by Merton and then putting what they called "problems families" in those out of borough homes, they did it because they could buy the houses on a 60 year mortgage (Debt charge I think it is called) and the rent would cover that, but they saved on all the other cost like schooling. social services and the like as they all went to Merton when the family's moved into that borough.


So lets say under your system a majority white area decided it wanted to be white only and a majority of people in that area agreed what would happen to all the non-white people there?

As I say a nice idea but wouldn't work in the real world

 

[mk12]

a majority white area decided it wanted to be white only

I personally don't believe you'd get many places that would do that.

And i'm talking about an influx of immigrants/asylum seekers. The local area in question should be consulted and empowered. There should be a proper discussion that takes place.

Even at this stage, where a national government exists, we could at least improve local democracy. Even if, as I said, the local areas are consulted on the issue rather than simply ignored.

 

[chilango]

If you’ve managed to get a unskilled job in the developing world good luck to you they work to hard for me to even try

I agree with you that everyone should have the same opportunities but it just doesn’t and will never happen, the problems facing the UK working-class in the UK are no different to the problems facing the working-class in most of the World, I’ve heard many South American complaining that someone else has taken their job for less money.

But if you think that no boarders will sort this problem out I think you are wrong, moving masses of workers around the world isn’t a good idea and doesn’t work, yes the bosses have no boarders but that means workers should pull together to improve wages and conditions for all, unfortunately the Trade Unions don’t see it that way they want to bring up the draw bridge and look inwards.

The problems facing the working-class of the UK are not new or exclusive to the UK but I see no “Workers” group looking to stop it and that is very bad for the working-class of the UK and one of the main reasons I’m leaving.

I`m not saying "no borders" will solve the problems - only a major social change will do that...and as I said above if that was to happen it would be global in scale, and the incentive for masses of workers to move would be gone.

Let`s face most people have no intrinsic desire to uproot themselves and move for the sake of it (okay, some like me do, but i think we`re a minority). Maybe to travel, a bit of temp work etc. but to leave their communities, families, friends, culture blah blah? No. They do it when they have to by and large. Remove these causes (inequality, poverty, oppression etc.) and no borders is a perfectly feasible idea.

 

[tbaldwin]

Let`s face most people have no intrinsic desire to uproot themselves and move for the sake of it (okay, some like me do, but i think we`re a minority). Maybe to travel, a bit of temp work etc. but to leave their communities, families, friends, culture blah blah? No. They do it when they have to by and large. Remove these causes (inequality, poverty, oppression etc.) and no borders is a perfectly feasible idea.

Yes if the world was more equal the no borders arguement would be fine...But as it isnt and poor countries losing skilled workers makes the siuation worse.Noone should really back no borders now...Unless they just dont give a shit about people in poorer countries.

 

[chilango]

Yes if the world was more equal the no borders arguement would be fine...But as it isnt and poor countries losing skilled workers makes the siuation worse.Noone should really back no borders now...Unless they just dont give a shit about people in poorer countries.

Poor countries can have all the skilled workers they want and it won`t rectify the basic inequalities which are inherent in capitalism. Most of these countries have a much more rampant and ruthless version of capitalism than the UK.

Your argument about skilled workers is a red herring, and has nothing to do with either poverty in the developing world or why immigration control is on the agenda in the UK.