littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
'strong rooted' - by rooted, you mean behind national borders, do you not?
(An attempt at) A progressive policy on immigration ..
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
yeah VP .. showed up your even handedness there didn't you
.. a thread clearly NOT about nationalism is smeared with NOT only that but the 'final solution' word .. lol and do i see you saying 'now now fruitloop young man'.. nah chance .. hypocriteNO, N O, NO, NO NO NO, NO! do you get that??? NO!!
it is about building up from the base .. fuck nations .. nationalism is shite .. I can NOT understand why people on here think that building from the base has ANY relationship with nationalism ..have only just noticed this post .. laptop .. immigrants who live here ARE "..those who currently live here.. "
this is about the attempts to bring in workers from abroad to do work that people can do here .. and tbh exactly what the construction dispute was about
are you honestly telling me the working class movement here should support the bringing in of workers to replace ones here? as cheap labour?
why do you say that? it is so wide of the mark it makes me think you are not thinking about what i am saying
look did the bosses go to russia and deliberately recruit, as bosses have been doing in poland? were companies deleiberately excluding othere workers so they could employ jews? NO NO and NO ( for good luck) ..
it was an entirely differrent situation
and much more to the point these jews were overwhelmingly refugees from pograms ..
NO, N O, NO, NO NO NO, NO! do you get that??? NO!!
Cos people are divided up in nation states.And that is the reality.
And if we want to change that reality we first have to acknoledge it.
As for Nationalism being a bad thing.Easy to say easy to agree with.Given some really awful examples the nazi party etc etc.
But is Nationalism such a bad thing everwhere. In Cuba? in Scotland? in Kurdistan?
Patriotism is not neccesarily right or left wing. Caring about the people you know and understand best does not mean you have to hate everyone else.
National states can make sense even to people like us who would describe ourselves as Internationalists, small manageable chunks....Changing the world bit by bit......... from where we are to where we want to be......
I agree. Look at Schengen/EU you still have your nation states but people can travel across national borders without passports, and settle in those nations if they want. I've got no problem with this. One of the things I miss about Europe is the diversity you get traveling across it and you don't need a passport. I would hate to see that vanish.
If national governments are the mechanism that people use to vote on laws, that makes sense to me.
Where the EU falls down is the centralisation of government. If it wasn't so paperwork heavy and obsessed with regulations over stupid things (which the press then blow up) I think people would be far more supportive of it. However when you have crap like the Lisbon treaty or people exploiting Eastern Europeans then this just builds tension.
If anything what we need is less centralisation in Brussels and mroe local democracy.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
NO, N O, NO, NO NO NO, NO! do you get that??? NO!!
Why are the people you understand best the members of the same nation-state? You and I are from the same nation-state and we neither know nor understand each other.
First of all that is not what i said or meant. But of course there are some people you feel closer to on the basis of shared or similar experiences,language etc. But it isnt just restricted to nation,race,class,culture etc.
I do think durruti is wrong on immigration controls. I think they are needed and should be supported as one of the main ways of restricting mass migration. And moving towards a much more progressive migration policy that is designed to help those fleeing persecution not those in search of economic gain.
Or social class, or occupation, or religion. What I want to get at is why the ones that are (sometimes tangentially) associated with the nation-state are the primary ones.
Economic gain moves closer to the numb of the issue, but again, if I move from Malton to London in search of better-paid employment, am I a migrant? Should I be made to stay in Malton?
1 As i sort of tried to say to durruti because nation states are and have been the reality for years.
2 Economic gain is the driving force as i think you suggest for much internal as well as external migration. You look at the development of London and other major cities it has always been a combination of people moving from other places in the country and outside.
If you come from Malton...there are various reasons you might want to move social as well as economic..
Both are very personally valid...But we should be arguing surely that people should not be forced to uproot themselves for financial reasons.
People having to move south or across borders for jobs is not something that we should encourage or celebrate.
Spion
I hear ya
but the nation state and its restrictions is something we should just accept because it's been a 'reality for years'????
It's inconsistent, politically opportunist and ass backwards to choose to accept the 'reality' of the nation state and not the reality of migration
If your against the idea of the nation state you need to have a short and long term plan for how else society can be organised. I dont have one.
I am not quite sure what you mean re opportunist not to accept the reality of migration.
I think i am being as consistent as possible in arguing that economic migration should be opposed as it makes the world a far more unequal place.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
So any Geordie who applies for and secures a job in London, shouldn't move. Is this what you're saying? You do realise that people having been moving south for hundreds of years, don't you?
As a Socialist and Internationalist. I want to see a fairer world.
I want to see resources shared across the world not restricted to certain areas.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
PMSL!!!!
No thats not what im saying at all. Individually whether somebody is from Consett or Canton you can not blame them for doing what is right for them or their family.
But this is not just a question of individuals it is a question of what is best for the wider population and world.
That is why i am critical of people who are pro migration....
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
To which there is no correct answer other than what they end up voting for. The actual question, then, is whether social institutions legitimately reflect the public will (assuming, for the sake of argument, that concepts such the public will are generally applicable).tbaldwin said:
Of course i dont deny either statement.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't really understand this. The whole of human history is one of migration. If you're not of African descent, you are descended from a small group of people who left Africa around 85,000 years ago, whose descendants spread across the globe. If you are British, you are probably descended from one or more of the many different groups who have migrated to these islands over the centuries.
Some people stay where they are born. Others leave to seek work or adventure, escape from the shithole they were born in, whatever. Why would you be 'anti' such a dynamic?
We have to acknowldege reality if we want to change it fruitloop.
Of course your right and as ive said places like London have always been cities of internal and external migration.
BUT the main reason to be (anti such a dynamic as you put it) is because of the consequences of supporting economic migration.
Similar threads
