Is it possible to be left wing and support controlled immigration?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Gears265
You are wrong. The free market is about free movement of Labour among other things. Free movement of persons is entirely different. I suggest you look into the EEC and EU, both have free movement but the former is Labour and so an entirely different system altogether.
Actually in order to have a truly free market you would have to allow free movement of people globally.
Of course it is.
In the days of Old Labour the left was rather more supportive of things that are today bizarrely associated with the radical right.
Since the new left came along and became obsessed with political correctness and this attempt to seemingly own minorities and denounce anyone daring to argue for controlled immigration as xenophobic, its now seen by many as an idea completely foreign to the left wing.
In reality there is a reason that, despite pre-election smears of being a party "more Tory than the Tories", UKIP caused more damage to Labour than the Tories.
Many Labour voters who identified with the old left and themes such as patriotism, Euroscepticism and immigration controls have found that Labour has shifted so far from its roots that they had to desert the party.
On a side note, electing an even more left wing leader who wants to give the Falklands back to Argentina, cosy up to the IRA and indoctrinate children into hating their country through state "education" is definitely not going to win back many of these lost voters, in fact its going to drive more of them away.
In the days of Old Labour the left was rather more supportive of things that are today bizarrely associated with the radical right.
Since the new left came along and became obsessed with political correctness and this attempt to seemingly own minorities and denounce anyone daring to argue for controlled immigration as xenophobic, its now seen by many as an idea completely foreign to the left wing.
In reality there is a reason that, despite pre-election smears of being a party "more Tory than the Tories", UKIP caused more damage to Labour than the Tories.
Many Labour voters who identified with the old left and themes such as patriotism, Euroscepticism and immigration controls have found that Labour has shifted so far from its roots that they had to desert the party.
On a side note, electing an even more left wing leader who wants to give the Falklands back to Argentina, cosy up to the IRA and indoctrinate children into hating their country through state "education" is definitely not going to win back many of these lost voters, in fact its going to drive more of them away.
Original post by floppycatfish96
On a side note, electing an even more left wing leader who wants to give the Falklands back to Argentina, cosy up to the IRA and indoctrinate children into hating their country through state "education" is definitely not going to win back many of these lost voters, in fact its going to drive more of them away.
On a side note, electing an even more left wing leader who wants to give the Falklands back to Argentina, cosy up to the IRA and indoctrinate children into hating their country through state "education" is definitely not going to win back many of these lost voters, in fact its going to drive more of them away.
Crumbs. Where did that propaganda all come from?
Patriotism is ok in small doses but you only have to see the way in which Russia is isolating itself under a banner of patriotism to see that being alone in the world is not necessarily the best thing in the world.
Almost all of us are immigrants of one type or another. I find the current debate about immigration especially when it becomes nostalgia and patriotism, all a bit sad.
Original post by ByEeek
Crumbs. Where did that propaganda all come from?
Patriotism is ok in small doses but you only have to see the way in which Russia is isolating itself under a banner of patriotism to see that being alone in the world is not necessarily the best thing in the world.
Almost all of us are immigrants of one type or another. I find the current debate about immigration especially when it becomes nostalgia and patriotism, all a bit sad.
Patriotism is ok in small doses but you only have to see the way in which Russia is isolating itself under a banner of patriotism to see that being alone in the world is not necessarily the best thing in the world.
Almost all of us are immigrants of one type or another. I find the current debate about immigration especially when it becomes nostalgia and patriotism, all a bit sad.
It's not propaganda, it's my opinion. As I said (about the Corbyn thing), a side not, i.e not 100% relevant but maybe worth mentioning.
Patriotism has nothing to do with being alone in the world. You're thinking of isolationism, which has absolutely nothing to do with it.
For example in UKIP we are patriotic, we love our country and its people, culture and heritage and see that as being something precious that we ought to protect.
Once of the principle reasons that we want to leave the EU is because it limits our ability to make our own trade deals and be heard on the world stage. This is not isolationism. We are anti-isolationist.
However, there is a massive economic case for reasonable immigration controls. It is impossible to plan for anything when you don't know how many people will be living here in a couple of years' time. Also, a higher population obviously places a higher level of strain on infrastructure, public services, housing, and causes a scarcity of some goods and services, resulting in a higher cost of living.
Add that to the fact that our net migration figure is equal to a medium sized city (is it really sustainable to have to build the equivalent of a city each year and provide the required services) and it is really quite bizarre that we don't have controls.
You might find the argument sad, but the majority of people in this country see immigration as an extremely important issue which needs to be sorted out.
The argument that "our ancestors were from around the world" is quite a naive one, it simply doesn't take into account any of the socio-economic factors involved and was probably only invented as a quick way to short curcuit the debate without having to face any actual facts.
If you correctly view socialism as just an economic ideology then yes, labour market protectionism is something supported.
If you buy into the post-soviet marketing exercise which conflates socialism as a socio-economic ideology and tries to encompass social democracy then no, free movement is a libertarian policy and people should not be prevented from filling our country even from the third world because we have unearned privilege.
BNP, Nazi's and Old Labour all hate immigration for left wing (protectionist) reasons.
If you buy into the post-soviet marketing exercise which conflates socialism as a socio-economic ideology and tries to encompass social democracy then no, free movement is a libertarian policy and people should not be prevented from filling our country even from the third world because we have unearned privilege.
BNP, Nazi's and Old Labour all hate immigration for left wing (protectionist) reasons.
Original post by floppycatfish96
Once of the principle reasons that we want to leave the EU is because it limits our ability to make our own trade deals and be heard on the world stage. This is not isolationism. We are anti-isolationist.
Once of the principle reasons that we want to leave the EU is because it limits our ability to make our own trade deals and be heard on the world stage. This is not isolationism. We are anti-isolationist.
Good response. But I don't really understand how we will be a bigger player on the world stage after we give up our influential seat at the table of the biggest market in the world. If you want to influence people, you need to be in the same room. If you are resigned to banging on the door, you just become a noisy inconvenience.
Original post by floppycatfish96
The argument that "our ancestors were from around the world" is quite a naive one, it simply doesn't take into account any of the socio-economic factors involved and was probably only invented as a quick way to short curcuit the debate without having to face any actual facts.
The argument that "our ancestors were from around the world" is quite a naive one, it simply doesn't take into account any of the socio-economic factors involved and was probably only invented as a quick way to short curcuit the debate without having to face any actual facts.
You are probably right, but I do find it morally wrong to shut the door behind us. It is like people who move into a house built on greenfield land and then get all upset when a new housing development is planned for the field next door. I think the word is hypocritical.
Original post by ByEeek
Good response. But I don't really understand how we will be a bigger player on the world stage after we give up our influential seat at the table of the biggest market in the world. If you want to influence people, you need to be in the same room. If you are resigned to banging on the door, you just become a noisy inconvenience.
Think about it. We're the worlds 6th biggest economy. We are a permanent member of the UN Security Council. We have effectively left our seat effectively vacant at the WTO because we've surrendered control of our trade policy to European bureaucrats, we're in NATO, and there are some massive emerging countries in the Commonwealth, all of whom have a lot in common with us.
But we've decided to shut all that off and instead sign up to a supranational union that decides for us who we can trade with, and seems to like to put up trade barriers.
The EU has been in decline relative to the rest of the world for some forty years, and this idea that we have an "influential seat" in the EU is simply not true. The UK holds something like an 8.4% share of the influence, and to add to that, unelected commissioners running the EU have the power to overrule the votes of the elected MEPs.
It isn't even that good for trade, Switzerland has more trade agreements with various countries from its position outside the EU than we do as members.
And the point that really makes it a no-brainer for me is this:
You might be worried that we would lose trade with the EU if we left. This is not going to happen. They sell us more than we sell them, the EU would lose out massively if it were to sever all ties with Britain when we leave, and it is even written into Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that the EU must seek a trading relationship with any member state that decides to leave.
This country is capable of so much better than being locked inside a tired old protectionist union that is increasingly being run for corporate interests. We really need to reach out again and engage properly with the Commonwealth, the WTO, both for our benefit and for the benefit of developing countries who need trade to help their people become richer.
Original post by ByEeek
I do find it morally wrong to shut the door behind us. It is like people who move into a house built on greenfield land and then get all upset when a new housing development is planned for the field next door. I think the word is hypocritical.
The number one duty of government is surely to protect and look after the people who live in the country and have paid taxes into it for years. Allowing unlimited immigration is detrimental to the vast majority of people, and since we can't even check for criminals, its not exactly safe either.
We aren't arguing for no immigration, we're arguing for a level of control that allows us to choose people who do not have a criminal conviction and will be an asset to this country. So doctors, for example. People with skills that we need. Not unskilled workers who are just going to saturate the labour market, forcing down wages and making life for the working classes in particular much more difficult than it needs to be.
Well considering there are left-wing parties all over the globe which oppose mass immigration and considering that up until the 80's Labour weren't just opposed to mass immigration but were anti-immigration...yes.
It's a very fair and reasonable argument to suggest that mass immigration creates a massive over supply of labour in the economy, largely to appeal to corporate interests. It's a very fair and reasonable argument to suggest this massive over-supply creates many negative consequences in 'society', notably deflation of working class wages, strain on public services and homelessness. It's very fair to argue that despite social upheaval in certain areas of the country, mass immigration, according to successive reports from the HoL, offers no tangible net economic benefit to UK citizens.
It's also very fair to argue that the modern middle-class champagne socialists like to exploit immigrants, and other intangible minority groups who they stereotype and apportion certain values and beliefs to (like they are a monolithic group), for their own self-serving, nefarious purposes. This was never more evident than in Peter Mandelson claiming Labour 'sent out search parties for migrants', or Andrew Neather, senior policy advisor to Tony Blair, asserting mass immigration was 'all about rubbing the right's nose in diversity.'
More to the point, the desired objectives or outcomes advocated by these people are imagined and largely pointless. Diversity, in and of itself, isn't an objective, it's merely change for the sake of change (and to disrupt the status quo) and, irrespective of their attitudes towards immigrants, people are generally cautious and reluctant to change (and extend trust to outsiders with a great deal of caution - it's just the state of nature).
'Diversity' is only a policy in western democracies; it's even a legal obligation in Sweden. Yet, why? Is a diverse society any better than an ethnically or culturally homogeneous society? There isn't a correct answer to that question largely because, like most 'theories', it's entirely subjective (which is what they rely on - you can't categorise 'immigrants'; 'immigrants' aren't a collective and to argue effectively on this topic, you need to understand the nuance and the manner in which different cultures settle).
As a Libertarian, I'm vehemently opposed to mass immigration, largely because I refuse to extend support for individual liberty to an individual who opts-in to a culture which undermines individual liberty. My support would be self-defeating. Freedom isn't free.
It's a very fair and reasonable argument to suggest that mass immigration creates a massive over supply of labour in the economy, largely to appeal to corporate interests. It's a very fair and reasonable argument to suggest this massive over-supply creates many negative consequences in 'society', notably deflation of working class wages, strain on public services and homelessness. It's very fair to argue that despite social upheaval in certain areas of the country, mass immigration, according to successive reports from the HoL, offers no tangible net economic benefit to UK citizens.
It's also very fair to argue that the modern middle-class champagne socialists like to exploit immigrants, and other intangible minority groups who they stereotype and apportion certain values and beliefs to (like they are a monolithic group), for their own self-serving, nefarious purposes. This was never more evident than in Peter Mandelson claiming Labour 'sent out search parties for migrants', or Andrew Neather, senior policy advisor to Tony Blair, asserting mass immigration was 'all about rubbing the right's nose in diversity.'
More to the point, the desired objectives or outcomes advocated by these people are imagined and largely pointless. Diversity, in and of itself, isn't an objective, it's merely change for the sake of change (and to disrupt the status quo) and, irrespective of their attitudes towards immigrants, people are generally cautious and reluctant to change (and extend trust to outsiders with a great deal of caution - it's just the state of nature).
'Diversity' is only a policy in western democracies; it's even a legal obligation in Sweden. Yet, why? Is a diverse society any better than an ethnically or culturally homogeneous society? There isn't a correct answer to that question largely because, like most 'theories', it's entirely subjective (which is what they rely on - you can't categorise 'immigrants'; 'immigrants' aren't a collective and to argue effectively on this topic, you need to understand the nuance and the manner in which different cultures settle).
As a Libertarian, I'm vehemently opposed to mass immigration, largely because I refuse to extend support for individual liberty to an individual who opts-in to a culture which undermines individual liberty. My support would be self-defeating. Freedom isn't free.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Rakas21
If you correctly view socialism as just an economic ideology then yes, labour market protectionism is something supported.
If you buy into the post-soviet marketing exercise which conflates socialism as a socio-economic ideology and tries to encompass social democracy then no, free movement is a libertarian policy and people should not be prevented from filling our country even from the third world because we have unearned privilege.
BNP, Nazi's and Old Labour all hate immigration for left wing (protectionist) reasons.
If you buy into the post-soviet marketing exercise which conflates socialism as a socio-economic ideology and tries to encompass social democracy then no, free movement is a libertarian policy and people should not be prevented from filling our country even from the third world because we have unearned privilege.
BNP, Nazi's and Old Labour all hate immigration for left wing (protectionist) reasons.
Corbyn is Old Labour and is vehemently in favour of mass immigration; many in Old Labour support mass immigration - it was supported all throughout the 80's, well before New Labour came onto the scene.
Then again, I suspect Corbyn's support has more to do with unsettling British conservatism than it does with an adherence to any particular morality. There's always an ulterior motive.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by floppycatfish96
We aren't arguing for no immigration, we're arguing for a level of control that allows us to choose people who do not have a criminal conviction and will be an asset to this country. So doctors, for example. People with skills that we need. Not unskilled workers who are just going to saturate the labour market, forcing down wages and making life for the working classes in particular much more difficult than it needs to be.
We aren't arguing for no immigration, we're arguing for a level of control that allows us to choose people who do not have a criminal conviction and will be an asset to this country. So doctors, for example. People with skills that we need. Not unskilled workers who are just going to saturate the labour market, forcing down wages and making life for the working classes in particular much more difficult than it needs to be.
I couldn't agree more. So surely one has to ask why 200,000 non EU migrants arrived in the last year. These are people we could vet or check but we either can't or don't. This is why I find the whole immigrant argument farcical. The Tories have set a limit even they can't meet. What chance do we have even if we had full control of our borders? I also don't sign up to the adage that immigration is detrimental. I am yet to see any evidence that shows otherwise.
It is interesting to see that if someone is outspoken against immigration their opinion tends not to be based On personal experience but more on the sort of opinion in the popular press. For example I am yet to see the interview with all the disgruntled uk workers who can't get work for all the immigrants.
Original post by ByEeek
I couldn't agree more. So surely one has to ask why 200,000 non EU migrants arrived in the last year. These are people we could vet or check but we either can't or don't. This is why I find the whole immigrant argument farcical. The Tories have set a limit even they can't meet. What chance do we have even if we had full control of our borders? I also don't sign up to the adage that immigration is detrimental. I am yet to see any evidence that shows otherwise.
It is interesting to see that if someone is outspoken against immigration their opinion tends not to be based On personal experience but more on the sort of opinion in the popular press. For example I am yet to see the interview with all the disgruntled uk workers who can't get work for all the immigrants.
It is interesting to see that if someone is outspoken against immigration their opinion tends not to be based On personal experience but more on the sort of opinion in the popular press. For example I am yet to see the interview with all the disgruntled uk workers who can't get work for all the immigrants.
That's just a failure of government, really. We need something set up to look at how many migrants the UK can take per year, and what kinds of skills we need to be looking for.
Mass immigration is clearly detrimental, like I said the economic impacts of it are clear. Wages are compressed and there are more people competing for the same school places, homes, jobs, doctor's appointments, etc. There are more people using the same infrastructure. It causes scarcity which inevitably leads to higher prices and this has the greatest impact on the poor.
Public services and infrastructure cannot be upgraded quickly enough to cope, and the cost of doing so would simply be too much, particularly when we're still £1.4 trillion in debt with a budget deficit of around £90 billion p/a
I am sure you are right about failing government but they can't win. If they tighten customs you get 6 hour queues like last year and people start whinging about yhat instead. So you hire more officers and then we start complaining about the cost. There is no simple solution. However, there is a list of in-demand professions.
As for pure economics. My understanding was that it is on average beneficial to the economy. Unless we are talking about the black market, wages can't be squished because of the minimum wage.
I will conceed that public services in some areas are stretched but similarly the NHS has benefitted massively from immigration so it is definitely swings and roundabouts.
As for pure economics. My understanding was that it is on average beneficial to the economy. Unless we are talking about the black market, wages can't be squished because of the minimum wage.
I will conceed that public services in some areas are stretched but similarly the NHS has benefitted massively from immigration so it is definitely swings and roundabouts.
Original post by Gears265
As the question states
The idea I get from those on the left is they all support mass uncontrolled immigration no matter the cost.
The idea I get from those on the left is they all support mass uncontrolled immigration no matter the cost.
You can but most left wing types are people who think borders don't exist
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
That makes no sense. Immigration doesn't conform to a traditional left right economic thinking. If it did the left would be protectionist and looking out for a treat to their workers. The capitalist right would want more movement and allow the market to force down wages and costs whilst increasing profit. The reality is the reverse. Labour seem less reactionary and open minded where as the Tories don't seem to have any policy at all other than to set a target they continue to miss.
Define:socialism
"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
One could argue the distribution of labour could be regulated/decided by the state hence limiting immigration/migration.
"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
One could argue the distribution of labour could be regulated/decided by the state hence limiting immigration/migration.
Of course it is, labour market protectionism is inherently left-wing.
Unemployed help set wages - they keep them low. Free market types love unemployment, especially as the public naturally hates the "feckless layabouts" so they don't even have to institute a universal basic income like Friedman said.
Original post by Gears265
You are wrong. The free market is about free movement of Labour among other things. Free movement of persons is entirely different. I suggest you look into the EEC and EU, both have free movement but the former is Labour and so an entirely different system altogether.
Unemployed help set wages - they keep them low. Free market types love unemployment, especially as the public naturally hates the "feckless layabouts" so they don't even have to institute a universal basic income like Friedman said.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Germany: Marches against the far right draw over 200,000
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- essay question sociology
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- who is donald trump
- Finally, a study to show what we all knew anyway.
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
- Realism 30 marker Help - sociology ALEVEL
- Is there a reason why the government has failed to control its borders?
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- Got flashed on the M1 but wasn’t speeding?
- What would civilisation look like if the average IQ was 150?
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- How the radical left turned America's cities into slums.
- Green Party supporting Left Wing Terrorist Jailed
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- Border force oct 2022 mobile and core teams
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
