Your stance of immigration?

cottonmouth

Well let's see if those types of people are capable of altering the law, and if they are, i'll rethink my position.

As I have said before - it extends beyond the legal framework - (though without doubt that is of relevance).

It extends to the cultural make up of the country, it extends to protests about certain things they do not like, it extends to threats of violence, it extends to ACTUAL violence, and it extends to people living their lives in self-imposed segragation that then engenders future trouble and animosity.

Reply 22

cottonmouth

Lawz-

As I have said before - it extends beyond the legal framework - (though without doubt that is of relevance).

It extends to the cultural make up of the country, it extends to protests about certain things they do not like, it extends to threats of violence, it extends to ACTUAL violence, and it extends to people living their lives in self-imposed segragation that then engenders future trouble and animosity.

Point taken.

Reply 23

salgueira

I'm for open borders & freedom of movement, mainly because I don't think we (or anyone else) have an intrinsic connection/right to own this country, is just a temperate bit of land full of mostly English-speaking people. We have ownership through use, in that we have homes here, we grow our food here, but I don't think that gives us the right to build an imaginary fence round our island and keep other people out.

However, I don't think open borders would work until ALL borders are open. Opening ours and no other - everyone comes here. It would have to be a multilateral kind of thing.

I think making sweeping statements about 'British culture' or 'our values' can be dangerous - there have been so many debates about what 'our values' are and no-one can come to any definitive conclusion, other than what they personally think are good values. If you can kick people out for not sharing them, then what of those British people who don't kiss up to the flag/monarchy/like cold beer? End of the day, we're all people with a few cultural & religious differences, our core 'values' are essentially the same.

Reply 24

silverbolt

19

i have no problem with immigration as whole however what i do have a problem with is lazy sods coming in and sitting on thier backsides claiming benefits and not doing a jot except to scream about racisim. On a similar note i have the same problem with native britains who sit on thier backsides and do nothing

If someone wants to come into this country no matter thier skin colour or religion then fair enough please come in, however do remember you are guests in someone elses country at least until you become british citezens. Bring your cultures with you by all means but do not expect ours to be undermined because of it.

Work for your keep dont expect the state to support you. Unfortunetly britain is gaining itself a reputation as a soft touch where anyone can come in and live of the sweat of others and where if you play the race card people will bend over backwards for you. Other countries do not have this view.

Reply 25

Thud

For socialists, the only possible policy is opposition to all laws restricting immigration and asylum. We should be as free to move from China to Britain as from Lowestoft to London. Plus all workers, irrespective of their origin, need maximum legal and union protection. Some people worry about numbers. However, first the numbers go up and down depending on the level of employment.

Second, and more important, a focus on numbers is a way to hide the human truths of migration and ill-treatment. As Tony Woodley of the TGWU commented on Morecambe Bay, "This is not a migration issue. It is above all an exploitation issue." Down with the borders, and the governments who defend them.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=678

No borders should be an *aspiration* but I don't think you go about acheiving it by championing it when it's good for, under this system, a small number of individuals and not the vast majority. Surely the alarm bells should be ringing when the governor of the Bank of England says it's good for business because it basically drives down wages?

Rich countries poach Doctors, Nurses, Engineers and so on, from poorer ones. Good for the people involved, good for the bosses but bad for workers here and bad for the people in the countries left behind. It makes the world a less equal place. How, as a Socialist, can you support that?. It used to be the case that was an extension of anti-racism but that doesn't wash anymore. Look at the Gate Gourmet dispute. 700-ish workers sacked because they were basically too expensive and militant. Nearly all of them immigrants but settled here from the 60's and 70's. They were replaced with more workers from Eastern Europe at £6 an hour, which is by no means a proper living wage. Now, why support the bosses right to do that, to these people?. With a tighter Labour market, they wouldn't probably have been sacked in the first place because the bosses wouldn't have dared.

For the Trade Unions and self proclaimed Socialists to support this sort of thing, is absolutely criminal.

Reply 26

salgueira

I'm for open borders & freedom of movement, mainly because I don't think we (or anyone else) have an intrinsic connection/right to own this country, is just a temperate bit of land full of mostly English-speaking people. We have ownership through use, in that we have homes here, we grow our food here, but I don't think that gives us the right to build an imaginary fence round our island and keep other people out.

However, I don't think open borders would work until ALL borders are open. Opening ours and no other - everyone comes here. It would have to be a multilateral kind of thing.

I think making sweeping statements about 'British culture' or 'our values' can be dangerous - there have been so many debates about what 'our values' are and no-one can come to any definitive conclusion, other than what they personally think are good values. If you can kick people out for not sharing them, then what of those British people who don't kiss up to the flag/monarchy/like cold beer?

But that is rose tinted nationalism. A love of structures. When at look what I'm proud of with regards to being British, it isn't anything to do with the monarchy or all that rubbish. It is Health and education, industrial advance, the growth of science etc. Are these not things to be proud of?. This is typical of the confusion on the left. There is an all out attack on the nation state but what do you propose as the alternative?.

Reply 27

salgueira

Seems more like a symptom of globalised capitalism than of a relaxed immigration policy - we are poaching doctors etc from developing countries now and our immigration policy is pretty tight. (that is, if the policy itself has any relation to the politicians' tough-talk)

I wonder if the way to go forward would be having kind of open border zones, including a few countries with similar economies at first, then expanding further. That way there wouldn't be a huge financial incentive to move because of large economic inequalities between countries. But you can't impose a post-industrial country's version of the minimum wage etc on a developing country. These things take time.

Stay_Beautiful

But that is rose tinted nationalism. A love of structures. When at look what I'm proud of with regards to being British, it isn't anything to do with the monarchy or all that rubbish. It is Health and education, industrial advance, the growth of science etc. Are these not things to be proud of?. This is typical of the confusion on the left. There is an all out attack on the nation state but what do you propose as the alternative?.

Sorry, what was rose-tinted nationalism? I don't mean that Britishness is about playing cricket & watching the Queen's speech, I meant that it's very hard to define, to the point of not really existing at all in any meaningfull way. Other countries do health, education and science just as well as we do, in many cases better. There's nothing intrinsically British about those things, that's more pride in being from a rich, developed country.

And where is this all-out attack on the nation-state? How do I join it?

Reply 28

cottonmouth

Well let's see if those types of people are capable of altering the law, and if they are, i'll rethink my position.

Just as a matter of interest on this point:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm

Reply 29

salgueira

Seems more like a symptom of globalised capitalism than of a relaxed immigration policy - we are poaching doctors etc from developing countries now and our immigration policy is pretty tight. (that is, if the policy itself has any relation to the politicians' tough-talk)

It isn't. It wouldn't be good for the country. The Bank of England who basically run UK PLC think immigration is absolutely wonderful. And why wouldn't it be? (for them!). More people competing for jobs, for housing, to provide services?. That is good news for bosses, good news for landlords, good news for the people who use those services. For everyone else though......?

I wonder if the way to go forward would be having kind of open border zones, including a few countries with similar economies at first, then expanding further. That way there wouldn't be a huge financial incentive to move because of large economic inequalities between countries. But you can't impose a post-industrial country's version of the minimum wage etc on a developing country. These things take time

I'd rather we looked more at helping these countries to build self-sufficiency, to free them from dependency and the need for their young men and women to leave. Of course, most of these people do not want to have to move halfway across the world, leaving friends and family behind, to a foriegn country and yet the argument is always about giving them choice. If they had a genuine choice, a lot would stay.

And where is this all-out attack on the nation-state? How do I join it?

Try the Socialist Workers Party :wink:

or assorted lefties who seem to think the road to Socialism involves letting everyone move where they want, when they want and stuff the consquences.

Reply 30

Stay_Beautiful

It isn't. It wouldn't be good for the country. The Bank of England who basically run UK PLC think immigration is absolutely wonderful. And why wouldn't it be? (for them!). More people competing for jobs, for housing, to provide services?. That is good news for bosses, good news for landlords, good news for the people who use those services. For everyone else though......?

Good news for everyone who uses public services funded off of taxation perhaps? Good news for anyone who needs a dentist on the NHS? Or Plumber?

Reply 31

Lawz-

Good news for everyone who uses public services funded off of taxation perhaps? Good news for anyone who needs a dentist on the NHS? Or Plumber?

In the main, not good for the majority. That includes where these people are coming from. We've left health services in developing countries decimated. The World Health Organisation has pulled us up on this, time and time again and nothing ever happens. Nelson Mandela even weighed in as well with regards to South African nurses. Yes it's good for a minority here and good for those moving, whose right to move is always championed, but what the rights of the people already here and the rights of the people left behind?.

Reply 32

salgueira

Stay_Beautiful

I'd rather we looked more at helping these countries to build self-sufficiency, to free them from dependency and the need for their young men and women to leave. Of course, most of these people do not want to have to move halfway across the world, leaving friends and family behind, to a foriegn country and yet the argument is always about giving them choice. If they had a genuine choice, a lot would stay.

No-one's doubting that, although a lot of immigrants come to Britain with the intention to work for a few years, put by a bit of money, then return home. Some do end up staying, but most don't come here looking to live here forever.

It's not up to us to muck around with other countries' economies. We don't know better than them how to run their own affairs. Of course we can offer help when it's asked for - otherwise it's a bit patronising.

Try the Socialist Workers Party :wink:

or assorted lefties who seem to think the road to Socialism involves letting everyone move where they want, when they want and stuff the consquences.

It doesn't do to let people do what they want, otherwise they might start to think for themselves... Don't think that would bring us down the road to socialism particularly, it's more about giving people freedom of movement for the simple reason who are we to prevent it? When our ageing, emigrating population begins to die off/decline, we'll perhaps become more welcoming to immigrants. Either that or go on a Nazi-style breeding drive.

Not a big fan of the SWP or other socialist parties, went to one meeting with the Socialist Students and got to hear a defence of Stalinism + why Nick Griffin should be locked up for existing. Also too much 'join the party! give us money!' for my taste. Although the choice for student political organisations at my uni is very limited, you're either a hardcore trot or a young tory, so I may go back.

Reply 33

Stay_Beautiful

In the main, not good for the majority.

Actually, the majority do pretty well out of it.

That includes where these people are coming from. We've left health services in developing countries decimated. The World Health Organisation has pulled us up on this, time and time again and nothing ever happens. Nelson Mandela even weighed in as well with regards to South African nurses. Yes it's good for a minority here and good for those moving, whose right to move is always championed, but what the rights of the people already here and the rights of the people left behind?.

It's a pity to be sure, but you can't refuse people the right to move around the world on the basis that they would benefit others by staying put. Morality doesn't translate into effective imprisonment within your national borders.

Reply 34

It's a pity to be sure, but you can't refuse people the right to move around the world on the basis that they would benefit others by staying put. Morality doesn't translate into effective imprisonment within your national borders.

I'm not arguing for some sort of recreation of the GDR post 1961!. I wouldn't bar people from moving but there needs to be a move towards making it more palatable to stay. At the moment, the exact opposite is true and the consquences are not positive.

Reply 35

Stay_Beautiful

I'm not arguing for some sort of recreation of the GDR post 1961!. I wouldn't bar people from moving but there needs to be a move towards making it more palatable to stay. At the moment, the exact opposite is true and the consquences are not positive.

More palatable to stay?

Reply 36

cottonmouth

Lawz-

Just as a matter of interest on this point:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm

hmm, those family hearings are interesting. But they don't affect our laws in any way. As long as they don't do anything that is illegal in uk law, i don't see any problems. I mean clearly, there would be problems if they tried to say, imprison someone for breaking a "law".

The Sharia stuff is more interesting. And utterly ridiculous. 40% would support its introduction into Muslim areas? Jesus on a plate. But again, so long as these things can't penetrate our laws, let them play make-believe.

Reply 37

cottonmouth

hmm, those family hearings are interesting. But they don't affect our laws in any way. As long as they don't do anything that is illegal in uk law, i don't see any problems. I mean clearly, there would be problems if they tried to say, imprison someone for breaking a "law".

The Sharia stuff is more interesting. And utterly ridiculous. 40% would support its introduction into Muslim areas? Jesus on a plate. But again, so long as these things can't penetrate our laws, let them play make-believe.

It doesnt amount to changing our laws specifically, but I thought it an interesting half-way house. Some of these cases involve "trying people" for criminal offences including (I gather) murder.

Reply 38

cottonmouth

Lawz-

It doesnt amount to changing our laws specifically, but I thought it an interesting half-way house. Some of these cases involve "trying people" for criminal offences including (I gather) murder.

I know, and it is bizzare, and it is make-believe. But let them do it anyway. I'm sure it makes for great family entertainment.

If they are so damn desperate to live life like that, i fail to see why they stay here instead of going to a country where Sharia law exists.

A big part of it is the men. These things are often about keeping women down. They don't want to be subject to Sharia law themselves really- hence why they come to democratic and modern societies. They do however want to subject their women to it.

I defend Muslims all the time. But the one thing i will never defend is their treatment of women. My muslim friends, some of the most modern guys you could ever meet- in every respect but how women are treated

Reply 39

Mercer