Why capitalism needs illegal labour and migration controls
- Thread starter JoeBlack
- Start date
ska invita
back on the other side
There isn't a case for "Open Borders".
Certainly this book "Open Borders: The Case Against Immigration Controls - Teresa Hayter" absolutely fails to even attempt to make it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...6184/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/202-6705347-1022268
No Borders thinkers are excellent at using their position to critique the current situation (strained at best), but are unable to speculate and hypothesise on how a no borders policy would work in practice. I imagine it would put such pressure on nation-states as to make them collapse, and would create political, economic and social tensions that would more than likely be catastrophic.
I think that borders are a way down the "to do" list of global-structural problems, and once the bigger, more immediate problems are tackled and solved, borders and migration should no longer pose the problems they do now.
A border is above all else the defining edge of an economic unit - so not surprsingly the key problematic issues surrounding them are also economic. However removing the border doesn't solve the underlying economic problems and causes of immigration stresses...it would only exacerbate them IMO.
Certainly this book "Open Borders: The Case Against Immigration Controls - Teresa Hayter" absolutely fails to even attempt to make it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...6184/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/202-6705347-1022268
No Borders thinkers are excellent at using their position to critique the current situation (strained at best), but are unable to speculate and hypothesise on how a no borders policy would work in practice. I imagine it would put such pressure on nation-states as to make them collapse, and would create political, economic and social tensions that would more than likely be catastrophic.
I think that borders are a way down the "to do" list of global-structural problems, and once the bigger, more immediate problems are tackled and solved, borders and migration should no longer pose the problems they do now.
A border is above all else the defining edge of an economic unit - so not surprsingly the key problematic issues surrounding them are also economic. However removing the border doesn't solve the underlying economic problems and causes of immigration stresses...it would only exacerbate them IMO.
FruitandNut
New Member
There is a fine and very subjective line between immigration and 'invasion'. As much of the world is either a natural or man-made disaster zone we are faced with a potential of huge numbers of political AND economic migrants. I cannot blame the individuals caught up in such a desparate situation; the blame lies with the 'great and the good' both past and present.
Unless present trends are reversed, it is inevitable that 'native' cultures and peoples (including religion and language) in the UK and the rest of Europe will face marginalisation and even extinction in just a very few generations. -It will be either that or what may be politely termed as large scale civil unrest.
Intergration requires a modest and controlled ingestion of 'alien' people and culture AND time; both of these needs are not being met at present. There are quite large areas of some of our cities which seem more like the Middle East or the sub-continent.
Unless present trends are reversed, it is inevitable that 'native' cultures and peoples (including religion and language) in the UK and the rest of Europe will face marginalisation and even extinction in just a very few generations. -It will be either that or what may be politely termed as large scale civil unrest.
Intergration requires a modest and controlled ingestion of 'alien' people and culture AND time; both of these needs are not being met at present. There are quite large areas of some of our cities which seem more like the Middle East or the sub-continent.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Right so you complain about "No Borders thinkers" not making a case and then state without any reasoning, facts or argument whatsoever thatniksativa said:
niksativa said:
ska invita
back on the other side
Well I can speculate a small number of events (which incidentaly goes a lot further than Teresa Hayter does) :
-Concepts such as Brain Drain would be greatly increased
-Populaton shifts would make some countries overcrowded, and others loose their vital young workers, further aggrevating economic difference
-At this time, it would cause such an upset to the right wing (that includes much of the population) that a radicalised nationalist movement would be certain to arise. Race riots would be the smallest part of the problem, political facism would be an even greater one.
-no doubt there are others
I would love to see a world of no borders, but their is no subtlety in just removing them - its like throwing yourself off a cliff rather than walking down. There are many steps that would have to be taken before borders could be eliminated - and working to economic equality is the key one - trade agreements (as seen in the EU) are the only way to make borders dissapear, and that means fighting global capitalism and working towards real equality.
(Incidentally, I have heard it said here that free movement is also a trick of capitalism to create flexible labour forces, and undermine "native" working classes...)
Again, looking at the EU, borders are still necessary nominally in order to process the social-contract of benefits and taxation (of course there is more to the state than that). However, I think the key thing we are talking about here is the right to cross borders, and the right to work.
The idea that migration control is a conspiracy to get cheap labour is bad logic - taking half truths and twisting them - the current set up is the product of a very clear historical process. the fact that at this point it does create cheap labour (a point I dont disagree with) doesn't mean that this is the reason why borders are kept in place.
Again, look at the EU: not only has it expanded to allow an unlimited amount of "cheap" labour in legally, it is looking to expand yet further into Turkey - which when coupled with a policy of minimum wage surely provides a fair deal (for those within the no-border EU zone).
The battle is to try and create equality between all states, and shift the balance of global power away from the MultiNationals and Western Governments beck to the Developing Countries.
In short, now is not the time to be romving ALL borders.
-Concepts such as Brain Drain would be greatly increased
-Populaton shifts would make some countries overcrowded, and others loose their vital young workers, further aggrevating economic difference
-At this time, it would cause such an upset to the right wing (that includes much of the population) that a radicalised nationalist movement would be certain to arise. Race riots would be the smallest part of the problem, political facism would be an even greater one.
-no doubt there are others
I would love to see a world of no borders, but their is no subtlety in just removing them - its like throwing yourself off a cliff rather than walking down. There are many steps that would have to be taken before borders could be eliminated - and working to economic equality is the key one - trade agreements (as seen in the EU) are the only way to make borders dissapear, and that means fighting global capitalism and working towards real equality.
(Incidentally, I have heard it said here that free movement is also a trick of capitalism to create flexible labour forces, and undermine "native" working classes...)
Again, looking at the EU, borders are still necessary nominally in order to process the social-contract of benefits and taxation (of course there is more to the state than that). However, I think the key thing we are talking about here is the right to cross borders, and the right to work.
The idea that migration control is a conspiracy to get cheap labour is bad logic - taking half truths and twisting them - the current set up is the product of a very clear historical process. the fact that at this point it does create cheap labour (a point I dont disagree with) doesn't mean that this is the reason why borders are kept in place.
Again, look at the EU: not only has it expanded to allow an unlimited amount of "cheap" labour in legally, it is looking to expand yet further into Turkey - which when coupled with a policy of minimum wage surely provides a fair deal (for those within the no-border EU zone).
The battle is to try and create equality between all states, and shift the balance of global power away from the MultiNationals and Western Governments beck to the Developing Countries.
In short, now is not the time to be romving ALL borders.
Pigeon said:Some people do have shallow and misguided views on migration, granted. I can think of at least one, for example, who's convinced that migration is a cause, rather than a consequence, of global inequality.
Who's that then?
Myself i think its a bit of both.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
You still haven't presented any reasoning or evidence for these statements something you have a go at "no porders thinkers" for doing.niksativa said:
Right so creating trade agreements is fighting capitalism.niksativa said:
This is crap, even if you accept the "social-contract of benefits and taxation" then there's no reason why you need the internal EU borders to maintain this "contract".niksativa said:
All this is accepting the arguments and assumptions of capitialism. The idea that the EU is some type of workers helper is utter nonsense.niksativa said:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No, Balders. It's a factor, not the be all and end all.tbaldwin said:
People who didn't know you were an avowed socialist might think you had a rightwing agenda, coming out with politically-partial statements like that.
JoeBlack said:
no this is not the case .. migration could be controlled to the benefit of the working class by working class exerting control of employment/workers rights/closed shop etc etc .. it is to an extent because the unions have taken their eye of the ball that there have lost a lot of strength
Isambard said:
is .. this is meaningless .. what does this mean in practice?? are you in favour of people being allowed to do ANYTHING they like .. does it not make more sense to support populat control of jobs employment housing ..
i suspect and shoot me down that you are middle class and the concept of freedom of movement means more to you than the loss of employment/wages/housing that the exploitation of the freedom of movement capitalism creates ..
Similar threads
