ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
durruti02 said:
Historical context is always relevant. You can't address issues without knowing their particular history.
if you believe otherwise then I feel sorry for you.
Why do peoples not understand that immigration is currently based on 'pull'?
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
Historical context is always relevant. You can't address issues without knowing their particular history.
if you believe otherwise then I feel sorry for you.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
To be honest, I've had to go back and read your original post twice, but it's so all over the place, I can't really tell what exactly you're trying to convey.durruti02 said:
ViolentPanda said:
but your point is you do not accept what i am arguing that immigration currently is absolutely about capitalism .. so all the ' as old as' and ' migration is older' etc etc etc is about that
you do not want to accept that capitalism is creating immigration as it confuses you as to how to react to that ..
but maybe we are getting somewhere .. lets put history behind us .. tell me what is the critical reason why so many people are coming to THIS country in the last 5 years .. ( p.s. were you one of those who argued that there were very few immigrants 2 / 3 years ago??
)Mrs Magpie said:
sorry??? .. i'm simply arguing that immigration currently is caused almost entirely by the fact that we have a neo liberal economic system that wants cheap labour .. from wherever ..
and that border controls are irrelvent to the arguemnet .. it is about dealing with the spivvy cowboy employers ..
ViolentPanda said:
yes of course context is important .. lets look then at the creation of an expansion of the EU .. lets look at how migration differs from the 50s/60s .. nothing in that history changes that the current issue is PULL for cheap labour .. please try to come up with something that contradicts this .. instead of vagueries about history ..
sorry just noticed your previous post
"Historically people have. Why should the present be any different?"
the scale and function is almost entirely differrent .. please tell me you do know this .. immigration in the 50s/60s was in a period of FULL employment ..
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
durruti02 said:
Immigration in the 1890s was during a period of high unemployment, and yet we were averaging 150,000 immigrants a year for about 15 years. If you adjust that to allow for the difference in population levels that'd make qbout 340,000 immigrants a year just from east, central and western Europe.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You're right, I categorically don't accept that "immigration currently is absolutely about capitalism", because a) there's always been an element of "follow the money" or "follow the work", it isn't a new phenomenon, and b) immigration currently is not only about capitalism, however often you claim it is.durruti02 said:
Don't tell me what I think, durruti, because frankly you haven't got a scooby about what I think.
Capitalism aids the dynamic that causes immigratory impulses, it has nothing to do with "creating" it per se. To claim it does is akin to claiming that capitalism creates hotdogs.
The expansion of the EU.
Guess what though, they're not "immigrants".
No.( p.s. were you one of those who argued that there were very few immigrants 2 / 3 years ago??
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
So what about the 15,000 young French people who come here every year? It's not to do with cheap labour, it's to do with the fact that 60% of young French people living in the banlieux are unemployed....I work with French people who can't get interviews in France even though they have good degrees...the majority aren't white. That's not pull, it's push.durruti02 said:
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
shit mrs m, that's a real question. you don't wanna ask one of them.
ViolentPanda said:
I don't want to say this is irrelevant but its difficult to compare modern immigration with late 19th century immigration to this country. The empire and the rapid development of the productive forces meant that the country was still progressively developing. This would tend to produce unemployment anyway as technology replaces labour and also the economy could absorb immigrants better.
There are lots of specifics to the modern historical context. Just some points off the top of my head:
There is excellent transport and communications. The immigrant is not disconnected with their home country.
There is an increasing tendency for migrants not to settle in the receiving country. Migrants are increasingly temporary. This is a natural consequence of the errosion of immigration controls.
There are a variety of conscious as well as purely economic 'push' and 'pull' factors. Both sending and receiving coutries promote migration.
In the overall context of globalisation developed countries are maintaining their economic monopolies over developing countries. Both the export of capital and the import of labour are partly to do with monopolising labour.
Also within the context of globalisation, in both developed and most developing countries there is little structural economic development. Easing up the flow of migrant labour makes sense for capitalists who can profit from it, but this also eases the pressure to make real economic advances. Its about making quick bucks.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
durruti02 said:
So blame the architects of the neo-liberal project. Why do you (and those who support your contentions) constantly lay the blame at the doorstep of immigrants? Please don't say that you don't; you and baldwin always use similar titles for your threads which gives most casual readers the impression that you either hate or blame immigrants for whatever economic malaise befalls the country.
MC5 said:Becky, I see you're back.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions on t'other thread?
These are:
If you are active in your community (are you?), then what arguments do you use on the issue of immigration?
Not sure what you mean by "active in your community" ?
But when i talk to friends and acquaintances about immigration, i often just listen to what they say.
Nobody really seems to come out with arguements for open borders!
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
becky p said:
I must have missed the posts where durruti and tbaldwin blamed immigrants. I thought they had made it clear they were against largescale migration not individual immigrants.
Ah and you would say that. There lurks, beneath the surface of your pal's rhetoric, the ugly face of xenophobia and no matter how you try to evade the issue or couch your language in such terms as "large scale migration" (a big fucking myth if ever there was one), you would still claim that you feel no animosity towards immigrants. You lie to yourself and you lie to others.
nino_savatte said:
That is only an opinion and cannot be stated as a fact.
It is not my opinion, of course.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
ViolentPanda said:
Good, innit?
Neither of you have ever proved capable of ignoring me.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
becky p said:Not sure what you mean by "active in your community" ?
But when i talk to friends and acquaintances about immigration, i often just listen to what they say.
Nobody really seems to come out with arguements for open borders!
Not active, oh well.
I asked you about your arguments relating to immigration and as you admit to talking, as well as listening, to 'friends and acquaintances' about immigration I just wondered what you said to them?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
becky p said:
What you believe to be true.
Anything else would be dishonest.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
becky p said:It depends what they say to me,tbh.
Most people i talk too manage to discuss issues in a polite way. Its a little bit different on here.
What do you think i should say to them?
Considering some of your responses on here you're no shrinking violet.
Say what you feel and let me know sometime.
krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
Originally, 20 years back, I came for sex, drugs & rock and roll.
8 years ago, I came back for the economics.
Now, I sorta want to leave. Because I can't find any genuine people any more. Like you lot here. But you exist only in cyberspace.
Maybe if I'd got the Brixton pad, I may have changed my mind. Bit closer to the u75 vibe and all...
May still.
8 years ago, I came back for the economics.
Now, I sorta want to leave. Because I can't find any genuine people any more. Like you lot here. But you exist only in cyberspace.
Maybe if I'd got the Brixton pad, I may have changed my mind. Bit closer to the u75 vibe and all...
May still.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
becky p said:
Heresy. All of nino's opinions are facts.
This sums up the central thrust of your argument...in other words, you have no counter-argument.
The same could be said for yours and baldwin's opinions...or maybe you think that you're better informed?
So let me get this straight: your opinions are factual? The fucking arrogance.
Mrs Magpie said:
fair play .. there are exceptions .. refugees are push and there are many voluntary immigrants .. spanish dreads/ safa ITers / aussie gardeners / whoever..
BUT BUT BUT this is NOT the majority of immigration today is it? .. this is not the key thing that is going on at the moment which involves hundre3ds of thousends of workers coming here to do jobs at low rates
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Pot, kettle, astonishingly sooty arse.nino_savatte said:
ViolentPanda said:
A .. ok fair play .. absolute is a poor choice of word .. can you 1) accept the current wave of immigration especially from the expansion EU is caused by capital in this country seeking to lower wages? and 2) except that while not everything is mediated through capital ( though the influnece is deep ( e.g. 'love' mediated thru hollywood) major economic things like this are?
B .. i read your words
C .. no sorry that is nonsense .. a 'dynamic that causes' = 'creating it'
D .. and this was done deliberately to faciltate this process, AND for cheap labour in situ, and no of course not solely .. also as bulwark against the (post) reds/russians and possibly the US
E .. of course they are 'immigrants' ?? ( we are talking EU expansion workers here right?)
F .. hey .. the friends you keep!
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Mrs Magpie said:
Ah, come to stick your prejudiced oar in, Mrs M? You do surprise me.
As for "sooty arse", you may want to think about that one. Perhaps you'd rather call me "nigger" instead -eh?
I get the feeling that you're letting your animosity get in the way here. Have you actually read the 'factually correct' posts of the anti-immigrationists?
Similar threads
