Too many immigration threads on UK P&P?

[Julie]

He's only posted 200-odd times, and two-thirds of it consists of abuse, pissing about with usernames, and rants about how other posters are "middle class".

I think we may have found you a patient!

 

[Julie]

It's human nature to group with people you see as similar to yourself.

But that's not what xenophobia means.

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Xenophobia: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

Racism fits right in, don't you think?

Erm, and may I add that just because something is deemed human nature, it doesn't necessarily make it right. Eee.gee: When we perceive a threat, it's human nature to flee or fight. But what if that perceived threat is a loved one being verbally aggressive towards us, is it right that we fight them? Not really (in my view).

 

[teuchter]

I'm not saying it's "right".

But it isn't the same thing as racism. A racist makes judgements about others based on their race - not culture or nationality.

 

[Pigeon]

btw, too many accussations on this thread, questioning mass immigration is a piolitical question and should be discussed as so,

That's a nice straw man. Did you weave it yourself?

 

[Pigeon]

Oh, the irony. But you're too thick to ever consciously use irony.

I'm sure his shirts get as wrinkly as everyone else's.

 

[Pigeon]

But since not one single person from here has ever met him, the truth about Private Panda remains shrouded in mystery. Its pretty clear he wasn't ever in the army though.

I've met him. Well, I say "him"- to be fair,VP's actually an elderly spinster called Veronica. She lives in sheltered accommodation in Poole. So what?

 

[nino_savatte]

Do you mean nationalist ideology or the fact that nation states exist? Nation states are a reality not an ideological construct.

In what manner do you oppose nationalist ideology? Are all nationalist ideologies the same? Should the SSP be given the same treatment as the BNP?

Do you oppose the nation state because it is national in scope or because it is a state or both?

Do you want to abolish all things national in scope? The NHS? The welfare state? Parliamentary democracy? Doing these things would bring us into line with other countries who lack these things thus making the world a more equal place. I doubt you would agree with that but why would you put progressive politics ahead of 'internationalism'?

This is why it is important to base internationalism on class politics rather than the other way round.

Incidently I'm surprised nobody has countered tbaldwin & treelover by saying that they favour democratic control of borders but within that democracy they would favour open borders. It underscores the fact that the internationalist ideology you and others proclaim doesn't even have democratic character nevermind a socialist character. Unless that is you are arguing for an international (one world?) government and even if you are, then presumably your open borders will have to wait until that government is established.

A nation-state is a construct; it doesn't form itself out of nothing. national identities have to be constructed in order to give those who live in the nation-state, a cause to rally for.

the internationalist ideology you and others proclaim doesn't even have democratic character nevermind a socialist character.

How so? I think I've explained my position: my internationalism is socialist in character, what makes you think it isn't?

Do you want to abolish all things national in scope? The NHS? The welfare state? Parliamentary democracy? Doing these things would bring us into line with other countries who lack these things thus making the world a more equal place. I doubt you would agree with that but why would you put progressive politics ahead of 'internationalism'?

I think you're making too many assumptions which are based on your own antipathy to internationalism. You seem to forget...or deliberately miss the point, that internationalism works to abolish borders and dismantle nation-states. Social programs do not have belong to nations they can belong to everyone. As for parliamentary democracy, it is useless in its current form. Perhaps you think otherwise.

In what manner do you oppose nationalist ideology? Are all nationalist ideologies the same? Should the SSP be given the same treatment as the BNP?

You're using a straw man argument here. If there are no nation-states then there is no need for nationalistic parties. The SSP are clearly quite different to the extreme right wing BNP. Only a fool would associate the two as a single nationalistic bloc.

 

[nino_savatte]

i These narratives automatically carry within them a hidden xenophobic discourse. You may not agree with that but that it the way it works.

I like the way you try to hide behind word.

Xenophobia discoure is not the same as racism. You think some people on these boards are racsist as they disagree with you.Name names fart cushion

I'm not slandering anyone and I anticipated this sort of response from the likes of you. Rather that deal with the points that I have raised you (like too many others who have a vested interest in the subject of immigration)


Looks like insinuations of racsism.Your the only paranoid poster on here my little fluffy weasel

would rather try to smaer and demonise

waaaa mumsy they do not agree with with but nursy told me they would as i went to uni its not fair

Vile likes uniforms! What a suprise. Vile and Nino are the political crankies of Urban

I like the way you can't fathom what I've written and have, instead, made up what you think I wrote. You can't rebut any of the points that I've made an would rather issue insults and accusations. Like baldwin and the rest of his chums, you want any discussion on immigration to conform to the contours of your exceedingly narrow view of the issue.

I think I've touched a raw nerve here.

 

[nino_savatte]

You could say that about about pretty much any social/political/economical organisation. You would even be able to leave out the caveat of 'geographically bounded'. Every human organisation is just a bunch of people and all that. Not a particularly useful starting point.

Hmm, you're attempting to conflate the nation-state with the people who live in that state, who organise themselves into social formations. The nation-state has been entirely constructed by the ruling classes. There is no direct involvement from the people who live within the territorial boundaries of the state; they exist to serve the state.

 

[nino_savatte]

you have got in in one there: race has now replaced class as the oppression of choice for the far left.

Who forms this "far left"? What do you mean by this bizarre statement? You and baldwin use the word "left" as though it was some sort of pejorative. I'd like to know why...or do you see yourselves as the "real left" or maybe you're actually on the right but can't summon up the courage to admit it here.

 

[nino_savatte]

But that's not what xenophobia means.

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Xenophobia: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

Racism fits right in, don't you think?

Erm, and may I add that just because something is deemed human nature, it doesn't necessarily make it right. Eee.gee: When we perceive a threat, it's human nature to flee or fight. But what if that perceived threat is a loved one being verbally aggressive towards us, is it right that we fight them? Not really (in my view).

Exactly, the two are bed fellows.

 

[nino_savatte]

I imagine VP and Nino are absolutely gutted after this barrage of venom.

Oh aye, I'm suicidal with...something...

 

[Knotted]

Hmm, you're attempting to conflate the nation-state with the people who live in that state, who organise themselves into social formations. The nation-state has been entirely constructed by the ruling classes. There is no direct involvement from the people who live within the territorial boundaries of the state; they exist to serve the state.

No, I was refering to the state not the people.

 

[nino_savatte]

No, I was refering to the state not the people.

Individual organisations (formed by individual people) cannot be properly compared to the state since they are not constructed in the same way nor are they run along the same, or even similar, lines. Organisations, clubs and groups do not seek to acquire territory or greater wealth (unless that is the reason they have been formed in the first place...the IoD and CBI are notable exceptions). Nation-states also seek to control their economic destiny by controlling or dominating the economies of other countries (not always but it happens - the US and UK being good examples).

 

[Knotted]

A nation-state is a construct; it doesn't form itself out of nothing. national identities have to be constructed in order to give those who live in the nation-state, a cause to rally for.

I'm not sure if the double negative in the above is intentional or not.

But in either case, which came first the construct or those who constructed it?

Who invented national identity? Who invented the nation state? Give me a bit of history.

How so? I think I've explained my position: my internationalism is socialist in character, what makes you think it isn't?

I tend to think that socialism needs to be democratic in character.

I think you're making too many assumptions which are based on your own antipathy to internationalism. You seem to forget...or deliberately miss the point, that internationalism works to abolish borders and dismantle nation-states. Social programs do not have belong to nations they can belong to everyone. As for parliamentary democracy, it is useless in its current form. Perhaps you think otherwise.

I am well aware that I am making assumptions that you do not make. The point is that your definition does not rule out these assumptions.

You're using a straw man argument here. If there are no nation-states then there is no need for nationalistic parties. The SSP are clearly quite different to the extreme right wing BNP. Only a fool would associate the two as a single nationalistic bloc.

Of course. The point is that you need a more sophisticated idea than simplistic anti-nationalism. Your stated internationalism begs more questions than it answers.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well, what a lot of fun everyone's having on this thread.

I note the tendency to throw in the old "racism" accusations in response to any suggestion that there are problems associated with mass migration.

I think that a few posters out of many hardly constitutes a "tendency", and it's "mass immigration" that's being debated, rather than "mass migration".

It reminds me of the tendency to accuse anyone deviating from the "socialist" line as having a hatred of the working classes, or suchlike.

Another "tendency" which is usually adhered to by the few rather than the many (usually Trots in my experience).

And it always seems to come from the same people who like to make a big deal out of their disapproval of "daily mail" attitudes ... but really they're being just as narrow minded and reactionary themselves.

By the way, I think there's a difference between xenophobia and racism. Personally I think everyones xenophobic to a degree. It's human nature to group with people you see as similar to yourself. There was an interesting thing about it in the New Scientist a couple of weeks ago.

There's been interesting research on identity groups going on for the last 100 years. The problem is that much of the research is polarised into two camps, the "Nature" gang (who attribute "othering" and "identifying" to "human nature", and the "nurture" gang, who attribute everything to socialisation. Any non-sectarian approach tends to find that, surprise surprise, both nature and nurture play their parts, as does free will.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Good coming from you.

Really?

Care to elucidate?

 

[nino_savatte]

I'm not sure if the double negative in the above is intentional or not.

But in either case, which came first the construct or those who constructed it?

Who invented national identity? Who invented the nation state? Give me a bit of history.



I tend to think that socialism needs to be democratic in character.



I am well aware that I am making assumptions that you do not make. The point is that your definition does not rule out these assumptions.



Of course. The point is that you need a more sophisticated idea than simplistic anti-nationalism. Your stated internationalism begs more questions than it answers.

You're nitpicking for the sake of it. The statement "A nation-state is a construct; it doesn't form itself out of nothing" is entirely grammatical given the context.

Who invented national identity? Who invented the nation state? Give me a bit of history.

It's isn't a question of an individual constructing national identity, it is, rather, groups of people who act on behalf of the state who construct the identity. Have a look at De Valera's vision for the newly created Irish Republic, if you want a good example. One has to assemble and synthesise myths and symbols and forge them into a whole in order to create a national identity. In Britain's case, there is no single national identity; it is a collection of other national identities that are co opted to form a single mythological identity.

I tend to think that socialism needs to be democratic in character.

Real socialism is democratic, of course it is. There have been no real socialist states, the USSR, China et al, are about as socialist as Gordon Brown. They ain't. But some parties will claim to be socialist while they promulgate policies which contradict the basic tenets of socialism.

Of course. The point is that you need a more sophisticated idea than simplistic anti-nationalism. Your stated internationalism begs more questions than it answers

So you keep saying but I suspect that your opinion is informed by your inability to see past the nation-state and its obvious flaws. For you to suggest that I am engaging in "simplistic anti-nationalism" is a euphemistic way of saying "there is no solution to the nation-state, so just shut the fuck up, idealist". I'd like you to indicate where I have engaged in "simplistic anti-nationalism". Furthermore, is there anything wrong with being against nationalism? I see plenty of problems with nationalism. How about you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've met him. Well, I say "him"- to be fair,VP's actually an elderly spinster called Veronica. She lives in sheltered accommodation in Poole. So what?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Of course. The point is that you need a more sophisticated idea than simplistic anti-nationalism. Your stated internationalism begs more questions than it answers.

I've always seen "internationalism" as somewhat of a misnomer anyway, unless it's being used to describe a pan-national political bloc or organisation, whereas when, for example, I talk of "internationalism" nowadays I mean expressions of fraternal and sororal connection, friendship and solidarity, and it appears that those I talk to take the word to mean this too.

 

[nino_savatte]

I've always seen "internationalism" as somewhat of a misnomer anyway, unless it's being used to describe a pan-national political bloc or organisation, whereas when, for example, I talk of "internationalism" nowadays I mean expressions of fraternal and sororal connection, friendship and solidarity, and it appears that those I talk to take the word to mean this too.

That's pretty much how I see it. Though an end to nation-states and borders is also what I would like to see. What's wrong with that?

 

[teuchter]

I think that a few posters out of many hardly constitutes a "tendency", and it's "mass immigration" that's being debated, rather than "mass migration".

Maybe. But those posters often seem to be pretty successful in diverting and dominating the debate somewhat.

Isn't immigration just the word the "receiving" country uses to describe migration?

There's been interesting research on identity groups going on for the last 100 years. The problem is that much of the research is polarised into two camps, the "Nature" gang (who attribute "othering" and "identifying" to "human nature", and the "nurture" gang, who attribute everything to socialisation. Any non-sectarian approach tends to find that, surprise surprise, both nature and nurture play their parts, as does free will.

Sure. It's a bit of both. The way I see it, xenophobia is more about nature while racism is more about nurture.

ie. there are good (in evolutionary terms, I mean - not necessarily instincts that are useful in today's society) reasons to be suspicious/fearful of "others" but deciding that you are superior to someone, or making assumptions about them, purely on the basis of their race, is mainly a learnt behaviour, or at least an irrational one.

Part of the thing about tackling racism is to make people realise that the people of a different colour to them aren't necessarily "other", isn't it?

But that's probably trying to oversimplify it somewhat. The two things are obviously closely tied up with each other.

 

[chilango]

ditto

 

[Lock&Light]

Isn't immigration just the word the "receiving" country uses to describe migration?

It takes time to get used to Panda's pedantry.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Do you think that kind of preaching is going to do any good? Do you think that occasionally that people who disagree with you actually have a point?

This was becky p's response to my post-
I wrote
"I agree with t'baldwin here only in the very specific sense that the left should address the concerns of these ordinary trade unionists and workers from different races who may have feelings of resentment towards immigrants or feel that migrants are undercutting their jobs.

How should we address it? Partly by taking seriously the issues of organisation on the ground and partly making sure we address the problems of racism and state attacks on immigrants' rights to stay and work, in the workplaces, organising over bread and butter issues, and showing how the struggles that affect ordinary settled working class people black and white also affect in similar ways migrant workers (black and white) and actually by calling on the unions to organsie migrants and supporting migrants entry into the organised struggles of the wider working class we all benefit. Migrants don't cause our problmes even when they are being used as a tool of the bosses in particular situations.

The recently unprecedented wave of migration into this country is partly an effect of the economic upturn. We should seek to organise the whole working class including iteinerant labour and their families.

I repeat t'baldwin the question you have consistently evaded:
"Militant trade unionism and a united working class is necessary to fight against low wages, to fight job cuts, to fight casualisation.

If the unions don;t also fight for the rights of migrant labour, to fight against immigration controls and thew shit wages and conditions of illegal jobs then the bosses will obviously exploit any division in the working class.

Tbaldwin and his 'left' friends never answer these points."

I'm sorry if you think that's poreaching. I actually tried quite hard to engage with the points and I think it should be reasonably clear from the above post that I am not advocating preaching but seriously engaging with the issues- for example in anti-deportation campaigns, anti0racist campaigns and trade union work- all, of which I do.

But unless I have missed it no has responded to the point that immigration controls divide the working class and that it is controls that allow the bosses to divide and rule us.

As I said on another thread "
What we need is a massive community and trade union defence of migrants both against the appalling human rights abuses, arbitrary detention without trial, mass deportation, withdrawal of benefits and the right to work and for the unions to organise all workers irrespective of immigration status so that the ruling class can no longer play off one section against another."

I'm not advocating preaching to address these problems but actually doing something about it. Would tbaldwin care to address the point that it is immigration controls that divide and weaken us?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Maybe. But those posters often seem to be pretty successful in diverting and dominating the debate somewhat.

Isn't immigration just the word the "receiving" country uses to describe migration?

Yes, but that's the particular context of migration that this thread is making apoint about, whereas migration could mean any movement of any peoples within oroutwith national borders.

Sure. It's a bit of both. The way I see it, xenophobia is more about nature while racism is more about nurture.

ie. there are good (in evolutionary terms, I mean - not necessarily instincts that are useful in today's society) reasons to be suspicious/fearful of "others" but deciding that you are superior to someone, or making assumptions about them, purely on the basis of their race, is mainly a learnt behaviour, or at least an irrational one.

Part of the thing about tackling racism is to make people realise that the people of a different colour to them aren't necessarily "other", isn't it?

But that's probably trying to oversimplify it somewhat. The two things are obviously closely tied up with each other.

Yep.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This message is hidden because Lock&Light is on your ignore list.

He's never got anything to say that isn't either grovelling or carping, so why waste effort on the old oxygen thief?

 

[teuchter]

Yes, but that's the particular context of migration that this thread is making apoint about, whereas migration could mean any movement of any peoples within oroutwith national borders.

True. But does it really matter?

 

[ViolentPanda]

True. But does it really matter?

Of course it does.

If you say "I'm anti-immigration", the conclusion people will most often jump to is that you're antianyone entering your home country.

If you say "I'm anti-migration" they'll conclude that you oppose the movement of people per se.

 

[becky p]

Really?

Care to elucidate?

You get very boring with your oh so funny quips and put downs.You appear to think your above people,who have any opinion that might get you to actually question some of your own prejudices.

I don't know if there is any truth to your claim to have been in the army! But you do show some worrying signs of believing you are some kind of divine authority.
Are you sure your not in the Panda Pops Jesus Army?