Why do peoples not understand that immigration is currently based on 'pull'?
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Jessiedog said:
I mentioned this months ago in reply to one of tbaldwins' predictable pooh-poohings that remittances could possibly do any good, and was pretty much told I was lying.
So I hope you haven't been spending time falsifying information on websites and in academic publications, Jessie!
ViolentPanda said:I mentioned this months ago in reply to one of tbaldwins' predictable pooh-poohings that remittances could possibly do any good, and was pretty much told I was lying.
So I hope you haven't been spending time falsifying information on websites and in academic publications, Jessie!
Lies.
C'mon, post up any examples you can find of anyone saying anything remotely similar to "remittances makes [sic] up for it all".
I'm telling you now, you won't be able to because you're lying.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
becky p said:Lies.
C'mon, post up any examples you can find of anyone saying anything remotely similar to "remittances makes [sic] up for it all".
I'm telling you now, you won't be able to because you're lying.
Of course you're confused, you're conflating a post in reply to durruti claiming that someone/anyone had claimed that "remittances make up for it all" with a post in reply to Jessiedog which not only doesn't refer to anything durruti has claimed in this thread (the clue is in the fact that I mention tbaldwin, oddly enough), it doesn't even refer to this thread (the clue for that being me mentioning "months ago" and this thread being less than a month old).
Oy vey!
Whatever you do, please don't ever try to become a detective. You'd miss any and every clue, on this showing.
Jessiedog said:
The issues of skills and poverty reduction are both quite complex.
The argument that skills are lost because of skilled workers leaving the country can be countered in several ways. Firstly the skilled workers often return with even greater skills. Secondly the export of skilled workers encourages investment in education (India is a good example here). Thirdly highly skilled specialists benefit from contact with other professionals in their field - the globalisation of labour makes a good deal of sense from the perspective of academics and medics and the like.
However does this in total negate the loss of skills from the simple fact that a large proportion are living abroad? I don't think so. More importantly the sending countries have little control over the process as its the labour market in the receiving countries that determines the flow in the main part.
As to poverty reduction from remittances - this is not an easy question at all. Obviously as far as individual families are concerned there is money coming back from abroad and without this money they would be worse off. But collectively and in the long run is there any benefit? How do remittances effect wages? Does the money go into sustainable development? Is there a viscious cycle where it becomes expected that families will send family members abroad to send money back home, the economy adjusts for this fact and the poverty simply returns?
There are all sorts of positives and negatives for the sending country. My contention is that the positives are mostly positives for the rich and the negatives are mostly for the poor. My central reasoning is that a transnational reorganisation of the workforce is a method of making more money without developing the productive forces. Note that this is not the same as saying that there is no development as a consequence of the reorganisation, just that greater profits can be made without the development.
Incidently I disagree with the quotes from the paper you quoted. They're not backed up by the paper for a start which is mainly only the pure demographics rather than the economics.
ETA: I'm in complete agreement with the Spark, here. Not that that's evidence for my argument, but if you're interested you should read the article I linked to.
MC5 said:
NO for the millioneth time .. BUT i AM saying, thru the eyes of a trade unionist and revolutionary, IF that immigration is being used to cut wages, to cut jobs and, to lower working conditions, and to undermine the trade unions .. which much of it is today .. then of course .. why not??
this is a basic w/c TU position ..
when we have full employment ( as opposed to the high levels we have now in w/c communities ) AND if then we are creating jobs that are neccessay and can not be filled locally then MAYBE then you would look at advertising outside of localities ..
we should welcome immigration where it has a positive function .. i think immigration here for education is a very good thing and job swops as LA's used to do back in the 8ts .. and we should continue to be an important harbour for refugees
we need to get away from this gap year mentality that migration/travel is per se a good/voluntary action .. it is not .. it is a creation of poverty inequality and profiteering .. when we can agree this we can move strongly to defnde all its victims whether locals and migrnats themselves
jessie dog qoutes a report about the philipines stating
"No other country produces many more nurses than are needed in their own health care systems at a level of education that meets the requirements of developed countries. "
and this is the point exactly .. the profiteers and spivs who run UKInc cut spending on training for health workers here AND refuse to pay living wages AND prefer to import health workers form abroad .. essentially privatising the training ..
from a TU/revolutionary perspective this is wrong and should be opposed
"No other country produces many more nurses than are needed in their own health care systems at a level of education that meets the requirements of developed countries. "
and this is the point exactly .. the profiteers and spivs who run UKInc cut spending on training for health workers here AND refuse to pay living wages AND prefer to import health workers form abroad .. essentially privatising the training ..
from a TU/revolutionary perspective this is wrong and should be opposed
ViolentPanda said:
look at anything Jessie dog has written s/he argues this constantly ..
"An there we have it. ..
Economic migration generates billions of US dollars, reduces poverty and contributes significant skills and expertise to the home countries." ( from yesterday)
p.s. i never said you said this so less of the shouting please
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
There is nothing at all "revolutionary" about tighter immigration controls. On the contrary, it is a reactionary position.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
durruti02 said:look at anything Jessie dog has written s/he argues this constantly ..
"An there we have it. ..
Economic migration generates billions of US dollars, reduces poverty and contributes significant skills and expertise to the home countries." ( from yesterday)
p.s. i never said you said this so less of the shouting please
You're selectivising again, durutti. That isn't what Jessie said at all. This is all too common a thing with you and baldwin.
Jessiedog said:It is immoral to stop the free flow of people in the 21st century.
Workers need to unite globally in an increasingly globalised world.
Migration strengthens the bonds of workers globally.
It is not unrealistic in today's integrated world to argue for global socialism.
And, as a left-leaning internationalist, if this viewpoint seems, temporarily, to align or associate me with the "liberal, capitalistic-loving scum" so derided here, then so be it.
The alternative perspective would align me more closely with the BNP.
And in an imperfect world, I choose the lesser of two evils.
Woof
is it not immoral also to put people out of work and employ cheap imported trained abroad labour??? i don't think you ae looking at this in the round
i agree there should be a free flow of PEOPLE .. these threads have NEVER EVER EVER been about that but about the capitalists promoting the free flow of LABOUR .. do you not see the differrence?
the idea that migration helps create a global working class IS interesting .. i think actually now with the global w/c seeming to be at its weakest this does not hold up ... think local act global tells us that to create a strong global w/c we need to create strong local units more than encourage migration ... was the 100% white chartist movement who fought slavery not progressive? all white and all english trade unions have played a major role in supporting progressive causes ..
and when will we have had enoough migration that we have a global w/c ??
it is sad that you accept (in some stalinist sense of the development of material forces!) that you must therefore support capitalism in this process .. it is NOT neccessay ... you CAN be localist AND progressive/revolutionary and certainly does not put you in the camp of the BNP
thiunk global act local
Jessiedog said:
Again is that actually true? On the face of it, it ought to be true. But one of the things that worries me is the creation of a migrant strata whose common interests with the rest of the class are obscured.
Firstly, the loosening of migration restrictions increases the inflow and the outflow of migrant labour. It means that there is a permanent strata of migrants who are living on only a temporary basis. They have no particular need to integrate either economically or socially with the rest of the class.
Secondly, there is a tendency for certain sectors of the economy to become dependent on migrant labour. This is true for both skilled workers and unskilled workers (but in different ways). There is an implicit economic segragation going on, though I'm not entirely clear why this is.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
LOL!!!!! I like the way you mention Stalin and the BNP in the same paragraph. One could say that's a little "Freudian".
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
durruti02 said:it shows i am opposed to both you dope!
Er, no it doesn't, braindeath.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
durruti02 said:look at anything Jessie dog has written s/he argues this constantly ..
"An there we have it. ..
Economic migration generates billions of US dollars, reduces poverty and contributes significant skills and expertise to the home countries." ( from yesterday)
p.s. i never said you said this so less of the shouting please
You're doing it again, lying.
It doesn't matter how many smilies you insert, a lie is still a lie.
You stated categorically that a person or people on this thread or this board who disagree with you had claimed that "remittances makes up for it all"
No-one has claimed that, therefore YOU are a LIAR. Quoting part of Jessiedog's post (a quote that doesn't, you'll notice, mention that "remittances makes up for it all") doesn't change that fact.
So you can either admit to making false claims, or you can look more and more pathetic as you try to wriggle out of the hole you've dug yourself.
As for the shouting, you're always ready to do it yourself, so what's your problem?
I've always argued that there are costs associated with immigration and migration.
I guess it's simply a matter of priorities, looking after ones own could perhaps be an example. A better one may be looking after those worse off.
And anyway, on balance, it's a positive thing.
The world is already globalised, the floodgates are opening. More and more people will begin to travel, and settle, in other places.
Mix it up, baby.
Woof
I guess it's simply a matter of priorities, looking after ones own could perhaps be an example. A better one may be looking after those worse off.
And anyway, on balance, it's a positive thing.
The world is already globalised, the floodgates are opening. More and more people will begin to travel, and settle, in other places.
Mix it up, baby.
Woof
ViolentPanda said:
yes VP you are technically right .. my use of the words 'it all' is incorrect ... but it is NOT that important in the debate .. jessie argues that remittances are very importants .. i argue not .. why do you NOT get involved in the debate .. you are just being pedantic .. jessie has consistently argued that the remittances are fundamental .. i disagree
i really do wish you would actually take part in the debate more instead of acting as some self elected game keeper when really you keep missing the woood for the trees ..
p.s. i notice you do not pull up nino for his constant smears and lies against me that you know to be untrue .. why not?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
durruti02 said:
"Smears"? "Lies"? You're an queer one, durutti. You've lied and you've smeared, though this is the way of you and your chum, baldwin, so there is no surprise there. You claim that you are not obsessed with immigration but there are at least 16 threads on the subject that bear your name.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Rubbish.durruti02 said:
It's fundamentally important to the debate that you set out your terms correctly and stop all your fucking about saying "well I didn't mean that I meant this" or "well, I might have said that but it ain't important" and other such bollocks, it's fucking dishonest.
When you actually start debating I'll be happy to participate, as it is, it's just people shouting mutually exclusive bollocks at each other.
Why should I, are you big enough to defend yourself or aren't you? Make up your mind.
ViolentPanda said:
VP you are right to argue that we should get and do things 100% correctly on urban .. i do not always do so .. though tbh i think i do more than most .. what i did was NOT 'fucking dishonest' .. jessie main argument in this issue is about the importance of remitances .. however i was incorrect to say it is ALL s/he argues
in this instance you were correct to pull me up BUT the fundamental issue still stands .. jessie has argued today (or yesterday) AGAIN the fundamental importance of remittances to poor countries .. again i will accept i was wrong in the terms i used BUT i still argue that this PROCESS is simply trickle down and not what socialists need to support
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
durruti02 said:
You have lied, so stop trying to play the innocent victim. You and baldwin are just as dishonest as each other and you have the cheek to claim the moral high ground and demand that others be straight with you.
You're not only a liar and a fool, you live in denial.
durruti02 said:
Whilst I can see the logic of saying that when it comes to new jobs in say the Olympic construction and hospitality industry that there should be a quota to ensure that local people (Newham, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Hackney)
get jobs (and training) Im not sure how you can expand that idea further. How would the idea work in the City of London? Not enough people living there of course to fill the jobs so you would have to fill jobs from the adjoining boroughs eg Hackney, Tower Hamlets. But would you really say you shouldent recruit people from Southend or Chatham? Or how about Heathrow Airport the biggest unionised site in London and probably the country. Its staffed by people from all over London and much further afield. Would you try to restrict this even in the first instance to people working within say a few miles of the airport.
Im not saying that your suggestion dosent have any merit but I would be interested to see how you flesh out your idea.
BarryB
BarryB said:
cheers BB .. yes of course in london, which has lost much of its local industry in the last few decades, this would be a difficult process .. and as you WELL know much of the possible employment sites have now been built on .. disasterous tbh ( and councils continue to sell of employment space don't they!
.. and tbh london is an enigma anyway for a socialist .. the obscenity that is the City and the bullshit that is the media and the environmental disaster that is heathrow employ directly and indirectly millions .. how we deal with this is another matter and yes not easy i am NOT suggesting any of this will be easy .. what we all know is that what we have is not working at present .. and that the principle is correct
.. and can be applied directly for many jobs and work in london e.g many many public sector employees doing the same jobs, but not locally, could be swopped to local workplaces .. ( it would also make people a lot happier not travelling miles every day!) and transport in london could be sorted overnight!!
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
durruti02 said:where and how dear???
That's typical of you and like your pal, baldwin, you think your shite doesn't stink.
You have lied on this thread...or perhaps you think VP and I were making it all up? This is the only way you can win your 'arguments': by lying.
Similar threads
