Too many immigration threads on UK P&P?

[teuchter]

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.

If we want to be really pedantic:

"Anti-immigration" = against the movement of people into any area.

You can't move into somewhere without first moving out of somewhere and then moving between the origin and the destination; ie. migrating.

Therefore if you are "anti-immigration" you are necessarily also "anti-migration" and of course also "anti-emmigration".

If you are only anti- the movement of people into your area, then you are "anti-immigration-to-my-area". Different to being "anti-immigration".

 

[chilango]

In case you`ve all been distracted by the bickering there is still no response to this point:

I strongly believe that the whole economic migrants cause low wages is a red herring.

Yes, you`re right its easy(ish) for the bosses to implement, but say we stop immigration...what happens then? the bosses go for one of the many other options I listed, most of which are just as easy, and wages fall anyway.

However, we are left with a political climate far to the right (cos any succesful anti-immigration campaign will benefit the right) and a divided and weakned left...leaving us in a far worse position to organise in order to raise wages etc.

Well?

 

[Knotted]

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.

Not nitpicking, I just wasn't sure if it was a mistake on your part. If you said "it doesn't form itself out of something" it would have supported what you said better. I'm just baffled as to what you were arguing now.

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.

We're getting somewhere here, but first I would point out that what you say seems to be circular - the nation is created by the nation state. So why is the nation state national? How come there are multinational states like the UK?

But leaving that aside I think you are correct to identify national myths, notions of eternal nations, core national values and other types of unchanging national identities etc etc. This type of nationalism is false ideology. But the fact that nations are not god given entities with key identifiable characteristics does not mean they do not have an historical existance. You have the same idea of what nations are as nationalists of this sort do, you add that nations do not exist. I prefer to say that nationalists of this sort are just talking bollocks.

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.

Yes...

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.

But how can nationalism have any flaws if nations do not exist. It would be like the belief in the tooth fairy. Daft but harmless. How did nation-states come about? You don't get tooth-fairy states.

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".

Did I really say you are engaging in simplistic anti-nationalism? My apologies if I did. You are merely declaring yourself in favour of simplistic anti-nationalism - you call this "internationalism". You have yet to identify what nationalism is, so you have yet coherently explain what you but it defently sounds simplistic. How do you apply your internationalist principles in practice? Why do two different nationalist organisations such as the BNP and SSP have nothing in common? Why do you take such different attitudes to them if they are both nationalist?

In short I have no reason to think that your stated beliefs are your real beliefs. Your real beliefs are much more complex and nuanced. In reality you are not a simplistic anti-nationalist even if you like to think you are.

Furthermore, is there anything wrong with being against nationalism? I see plenty of problems with nationalism. How about you?

Yes, of course. I would like to see nations wither away one day, but I don't see how simplistic anti-nationalism would achieve this.

Mind you, I doubt anyone here sees nationalism as flawless...

 

[Knotted]

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).

Fair enough, but this would tend to make nation states more real and less like ideological constructs than [other] organisations. Territory is a physical property after all. Wealth has economic reality. Military domination is a social reality.

By the way I appreciate that I am taking the easy option arguing that nation states are real rather than arguing nations are real. Possibly a bit cowardly - but it suffices for my purposes. Feel free to claim that nation states are real but nations aren't and then watch me try to get out of that one!

 

[chilango]

But how can nationalism have any flaws if nations do not exist. It would be like the belief in the tooth fairy. Daft but harmless. How did nation-states come about? You don't get tooth-fairy states.

To be fair...

I think Nino is saying (and I`d certainly say) that nations as clearly defined entities do not exist, but the that the process of nation-building i.e. the creation of a nation-state substitutes an artificially defined and constructed entity in its place.

You can have nationalism without a nation, I guess, there are examples of nationalist movements that create an imagined nation from the most tenuous of bases.

You also have states founded upon the basis of a god that may well not exist.

Myth is a powerful tool....

 

[Knotted]

To be fair...

I think Nino is saying (and I`d certainly say) that nations as clearly defined entities do not exist, but the that the process of nation-building i.e. the creation of a nation-state substitutes an artificially defined and constructed entity in its place.

That's interesting. I see him as saying the opposite if anything. Nations aren't real but the nation building and the state structure are real.

You can have nationalism without a nation, I guess, there are examples of nationalist movements that create an imagined nation from the most tenuous of bases.

You also have states founded upon the basis of a god that may well not exist.

Myth is a powerful tool....

Nations and nation states are fairly arbitrary. What links a people more than they are linked with other people is arbitrary. My point is that the very fact that it is arbitrary means that there is a social force to bind it otherwise nations would not exist. You can't argue away a social force, you can only undermine it.

 

[chilango]

that's interesting. I see him as saying the opposite if anything. Nations aren't real but the nation building and the state structure are real.

isn`t that what I just said?

Nations and nation states are fairly arbitrary. What links a people more than they are linked with other people is arbitrary. My point is that the very fact that it is arbitrary means that there is a social force to bind it otherwise nations would not exist. You can't argue away a social force, you can only undermine it.

Its one of many conflicting social forces....the impulse for mutual aid being another, no?

 

[phildwyer]

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?

A lot of people call Panda "Pops." But he *claims* not to be the Jesus-following type.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You get very boring with your oh so funny quips and put downs.

You get very boring with your use of the rolleyes smilie.

You appear to think your above people,who have any opinion that might get you to actually question some of your own prejudices.

Ah, so your critique is based on your perception of me.
Perhaps you should question your own prejudices before worrying about those of others?

I'm happy to listen to peoples' opinions if they bother to back them up with substantive arguments, but I don't see why I should give similar consideration to opinions that the poster can't even bother to back up.

I don't know if there is any truth to your claim to have been in the army!

Whatever. Why do you think I'd give a flying one what you (or dwyer) believe? Like I said to him, I don't need your belief to validate myself.

But you do show some worrying signs of believing you are some kind of divine authority.

What signs are they?

Are you sure your not in the Panda Pops Jesus Army?

No, I leave that to Christians.

 

[phildwyer]

I don't know if there is any truth to your claim to have been in the army!

There isn't.

 

[ViolentPanda]

A lot of people call Panda "Pops." But he *claims* not to be the Jesus-following type.

hello phil, no students to pester?

 

[ViolentPanda]

In case you`ve all been distracted by the bickering there is still no response to this point:

Well?

Not much point in responding to something that makes perfect sense, is there?

 

[Knotted]

isn`t that what I just said?

Oops, so it is.

Its one of many conflicting social forces....the impulse for mutual aid being another, no?

Yes, I suppose. The formation of nations strikes me as the result of a whole complex of social forces. I'm not saying I can explain what nations are, I'm just saying that they are more than ideological constructs. In fact its pretty clear to me that they are not constructs of any sort. Construction implies there is rational purpose behind the construction. History on the other hand is pretty messy.

 

[chilango]

Yes, I suppose. The formation of nations strikes me as the result of a whole complex of social forces. I'm not saying I can explain what nations are, I'm just saying that they are more than ideological constructs. In fact its pretty clear to me that they are not constructs of any sort. Construction implies there is rational purpose behind the construction. History on the other hand is pretty messy.

I dunno about rational, but we`ve seen some very deliberate and calculated nation building in history....

...Israel, the Balkans, the USA, Australia, Iraq to name 4 recent examples that have had some pretty nasty consequences...

 

[Knotted]

I strongly believe that the whole economic migrants cause low wages is a red herring.

Yes, you`re right its easy(ish) for the bosses to implement, but say we stop immigration...what happens then? the bosses go for one of the many other options I listed, most of which are just as easy, and wages fall anyway.

Nobody here is in a postion to do anything about immigration controls one way or another. But its worthwhile understanding what's going on. Its worthwhile understanding when you are propagandising for something harmful or not. Its worthwhile being able to predict what problems are ahead and what areas are likely to be under attack. Its worthwhile getting seeing past one's own kneejerk reactions when dealing with problems.

However, we are left with a political climate far to the right (cos any succesful anti-immigration campaign will benefit the right) and a divided and weakned left...leaving us in a far worse position to organise in order to raise wages etc.

I'm not entirely sure what an anti-immigration campaign would involve. I prefer to see it not as anti-immigration but as anti the globalisation of labour. Besides are the right really anti-immigration? Why do the right wing press talk about assylum seekers rather than immigration in general? The BNP are anti-immigration only because they are anti-immigrant - the policy of voluntary repatriation is not logically connected to any argument about immigration lowering wages.

 

[Knotted]

I dunno about rational, but we`ve seen some very deliberate and calculated nation building in history....

...Israel, the Balkans, the USA, Australia, Iraq to name 4 recent examples that have had some pretty nasty consequences...

I would see the Balkans and Iraq as excercises in nation destroying rather than nation building.

Settler states like Israel, the US, Australia etc. are considerably more artificial than other states. However there is a very real colonial drive that helped (is helping in Israel's case) form them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There isn't.

You're trying so hard, aren't you? It's a shame that your "tyrannical vehemence of expression" is mere wind, and that your "ability to appear authoritative..." is malfunctioning.

Only your "...faculty of forming judgments and opinions rapidly and coherently" seems to be working, albeit in a haphazard manner that draws you to incorrect conclusions.

Poor phil.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I would see the Balkans and Iraq as excercises in nation destroying rather than nation building.

A good point, but what is the motivation for that destruction if not a remoulding of the "nation" into a more amenable (to Capitalism, to security considerations etc) form?

 

[chilango]

I would see the Balkans and Iraq as excercises in nation destroying rather than nation building.

Settler states like Israel, the US, Australia etc. are considerably more artificial than other states. However there is a very real colonial drive that helped (is helping in Israel's case) form them.

I don`t mean Iraq now particularly, rather the creation of Iraq....

 

[chilango]

Nobody here is in a postion to do anything about immigration controls one way or another. But its worthwhile understanding what's going on. Its worthwhile understanding when you are propagandising for something harmful or not. Its worthwhile being able to predict what problems are ahead and what areas are likely to be under attack. Its worthwhile getting seeing past one's own kneejerk reactions when dealing with problems.

Of course....

I'm not entirely sure what an anti-immigration campaign would involve. I prefer to see it not as anti-immigration but as anti the globalisation of labour. Besides are the right really anti-immigration? Why do the right wing press talk about assylum seekers rather than immigration in general? The BNP are anti-immigration only because they are anti-immigrant - the policy of voluntary repatriation is not logically connected to any argument about immigration lowering wages.

Realistically do you see any such campaign not strengthening the right?

 

[phildwyer]

You're trying so hard, aren't you?

So are you, "Private." But *still* no-one believes you were in the army.

 

[becky p]

So are you, "Private." But *still* no-one believes you were in the army.

That may not be entirely true phil. It looks as though HE really does believe he was in the Army.

And perhaps he was. Perhaps being a private,gave him an overwhelming ambition to be the person giving the orders.
He seems to spend a lot of time guarding these boards from unwelcome opinions.
Has he ever said what regiment he claimed to be in and what years?

 

[Knotted]

A good point, but what is the motivation for that destruction if not a remoulding of the "nation" into a more amenable (to Capitalism, to security considerations etc) form?

Well there may be broader geo-political motivations. But are the new forms really nations? Are they perhaps more simply ethnic/religious blocks?

 

[Knotted]

I don`t mean Iraq now particularly, rather the creation of Iraq....

Fair enough.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So are you, "Private." But *still* no-one believes you were in the army.

Only if *you* constitute "no-one", sweaty.

 

[chilango]

Well there may be broader geo-political motivations. But are the new forms really nations? Are they perhaps more simply ethnic/religious blocks?

but..say serbia for example...nationalist movement, nation-state etc. is a "nation" as much, or as little, as any other, no?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well there may be broader geo-political motivations. But are the new forms really nations? Are they perhaps more simply ethnic/religious blocks?

At base, at least in a sociological sense, that's exactly what a "nation" is, an ethnic or religious bloc/other type of self-identifying group.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That may not be entirely true phil. It looks as though HE really does believe he was in the Army.

And perhaps he was. Perhaps being a private,gave him an overwhelming ambition to be the person giving the orders.

Ooh, amateur psychology.

]

 

[ViolentPanda]

but..say serbia for example...nationalist movement, nation-state etc. is a "nation" as much, or as little, as any other, no?

I think that if we take into account the way that the current Balkan states (notwithstanding their original history as independent principalities, kingdoms and occupied territories), for example, have been formed through social fracture, then the notion of "nation" is possibly more to the fore because a sense of nationhood (and indeed nationalism) was prominent in the conflict that created them in the 1980s and 1990s.

 

[becky p]

Ooh, amateur psychology.

]

True. I think you may need professional help though.