Discussion: No Borders and No Borders Camp in Calais 2009

[Pickman's model]

To put this into a historical context, your position would have trapped millions of Irish people in Ireland in the midst of the potato famines and left them to starve to death - ie genocide.

er... millions of irish people were trapped in ireland in the midst of the potato famines, in case you didn't notice.

 

[free spirit]

er... millions of irish people were trapped in ireland in the midst of the potato famines, in case you didn't notice.

er yeah, and a million or so escaped to america, and fuck knows how many made it to the UK and elsewhere.

These were economic refugees of the time who if trapped in Ireland would have firstly been extra mouths to feed from Irelands scarce resources, and secondly couldn't have been sending money back to ireland to keep their relatives left in Ireland from starvation / help get the country back on it's feet.

From 1850 to 1900 an estimated $260 million poured into Ireland from America, bringing over more family members and helping out those remaining behind.

[source]

 

[Pickman's model]

but the thing about the 1840s is that while there were borders they were fairly fucking porous. so you're comparing fucking apples and pears, and not for the first time.

 

[tbaldwin]

1 and do you have any research findings to back up that position, or is that just a hunch you're working on based purely on a logical extension of your personaly political ideological position?

if it's the latter, have you considered the possiiblity that your personal political position is in fact wrong?




2 sorry, but the genocide is already happening, and you position traps people in those economically failed countries and robs them of the route that has been used throughout history by people struggling for their very survival - migration.
To put this into a historical context, your position would have trapped millions of Irish people in Ireland in the midst of the potato famines and left them to starve to death - ie genocide.
Your position is currently trapping hundreds of millions of people around the world in abject poverty with no means of escaping it.

3 It's a position essentially of 'That's your lot, like it or lump it', a position that would be morally bankrupt in any case, but is especially so when you consider the fact that it is in most cases our corporations backed by our governments who've robbed their countries blind, robbed the people blind, and forced those countries to cut their social welfare and education programmes in order to pay back their debts (or to do so in exchange for us dropping the debt).

4 We caused these problems, or at the very least we as a people didn't stand up and fight for these people when our governments and corporations were inflicting the worst of this damage on them, so we should take some fucking responsibility for that situation.

As for poaching the best workers... that is what is happening now. We now only allow workers with certain key skills that we want into our country, which of course means that it creates a skills shortage in those other countries (particularly when we've forced them to cut spending on education so they have less of a pool of educated people to draw on than they should have done). In case you missed it, this is not the position of no borders, and it is not my position.



5 erm, not surprisingly you've missed the point because you're facing in the wrong direction with your fingers in your ears going lalalalala I can't hear you.

The entire point is that this is just another way of redistributing wealth more fairly around the world.

It is a method of doing so that has been used successfully throughout history by civilisation after civilisation, yet you seem to think that somehow you're able to just discredit it entirely based on your word alone - no proof needed, no evidence to back up your ideas, the intellect that is TBaldwin has spoken and all must be as you say.
It is also a method that avoids all the problems associated with pretty much any of the well meaning or otherwise attempts at state / international governmental / NGO assistance. All the money sent back goes directly to families on the ground level who get full freedom to decide for themselves what to do with the money, how best to spend it to improve the lives of themselves and that of their communities, which all the evidence demonstrates to be the most succesfull, most cost effective, and most sustainable method of encouraging development in those areas where it is most needed.

6 I'm not surprised you've come up with the position you've come up with as a socialist. The standard socialist line being that government knows best and must decide for the people what's best, and therefore all development money should be funded through government programmes etc. etc. Well, would it surprise you to know that this has been fully discredited in full field scale trials over decades affecting the lives of billions of people, and costing both us and them hundreds of billions of dollars? It's not a bad theory, it's just wrong.

sorry, but you can fuck right off with that sort of shit, particularly when you're arguing the same line as that pushed by the daily mail - think about it eh.


or maybe the onus is on you to provide any sort of evidence that backs up your assertions seeing as you're going against the weight of historical evidence, as well as the weight of current research.

1 There is loads of evidence and facts out there....Most of it pathetic biased bullshit....But worth looking at what the WHO and Nelson Mandela had to say about the UK and other richer countries taking skilled health workers and teachers from poorer countries...
And yes of course i have considered that my personal view maybe be wrong....Perhaps imperialism is the best we can hope for and to argue against imperialism in the form of economic migration is wrong. I dont think so though.

2 I think your position is near fascistic...You want to leave behind people in those poorer nations who are unable to escape without any doctors, teachers and young people.....Kind of final solution....liberal style....

3 and 4 Again have to say your position seems to be totally imperialistic....We have control of your countries natural resources now we want all your skilled workers.....really quite fascistic.

5 Yes it is another way of redistributing wealth.....But FAIRLY!!!!!! you have to be joking.....I hope!!!!

6 Socialism is not about deciding what is best for the majority its letting the majority decide themselves. Your position seems to be you know best and you want to impose your frankly ridiculous views on other people never mind the catastrophic consequences.

 

[Pickman's model]

These were economic refugees of the time

let's rewind a little bit to where you were talking about genocide.

how can you say that someone fleeing a situation in which they're likely to die is an economic refugee? are the people who fled rwanda in the mid-90s to avoid getting chopped up economic refugees? were the jews who fled hitler economic refugees? were the bloody huguenots who fled france after the revocation of the edict of nantes economic refugees? you chop and change your terms with neither rime nor reason which undermines your argument and makes you look like you don't know what you're on about.

 

[Hadjibashi]

er yeah, and a million or so escaped to america, and fuck knows how many made it to the UK and elsewhere.

Err like yeah dude, the Ireland was an integral part of the UK in the 1840s, yeahe dude.

 

[Pickman's model]

Err like yeah dude, the Ireland was an integral part of the UK in the 1840s, yeahe dude.

good point well made.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

but the thing about the 1840s is that while there were borders they were fairly fucking porous. so you're comparing fucking apples and pears, and not for the first time.

Precisely - 'open borders' was exactly what led to a general state of 'big crushing the small', colonialism, et al, prior to the two world wars.

 

[free spirit]

but the thing about the 1840s is that while there were borders they were fairly fucking porous. so you're comparing fucking apples and pears, and not for the first time.

that my dear pickman is my entire fucking point

in the irish situation a million people were able to escape from the famine as economic migrants and go to america where they were able to find ways to firstly keep themselves alive, and secondly earn money a fair proportion of which got sent back to Ireland, where it was used to keep people alive, and later to get the country and it's people back on their feet.

THe situation today that most on this thread seem to be defending* is one in which the borders are increasingly not porous, and every effort is being made to prevent economic migrants (who are often in very similar situations to the Irish in the 1840's) from being able to get into the rich '1st world' countries of Europe, the US, Canada, Australia etc etc.



*whether people are actually defending the situation knowingly, or simply by default, they are still defending it IMO

 

[Pickman's model]

Precisely - 'open borders' was exactly what led to a general state of 'big crushing the small', colonialism, et al, prior to the two world wars.

i'm thinking particularly of europe. however, it's worth pointing out that many lefties of the 1870s were by no means put out by the creation of the german empire, seeing larger states as a good thing

 

[Hadjibashi]

to provide practical solidarity with migrants (whether asylum seekers, refugees or migrant workers) while putting forward the political argument that borders create problems for the working class, rather than solving them. They do not always do this in the best way (and I do think the camp is somewhat misguided), but they do a lot of good, practical work and I think they deserve some acknowledgement for this.

Do they help British ex-pats get around the red-tape of setting up small businesses in Spain or Greece?

 

[tbaldwin]

that my dear pickman is my entire fucking point

in the irish situation a million people were able to escape from the famine as economic migrants and go to america where they were able to find ways to firstly keep themselves alive, and secondly earn money a fair proportion of which got sent back to Ireland, where it was used to keep people alive, and later to get the country and it's people back on their feet.

THe situation today that most on this thread seem to be defending* is one in which the borders are increasingly not porous, and every effort is being made to prevent economic migrants (who are often in very similar situations to the Irish in the 1840's) from being able to get into the rich '1st world' countries of Europe, the US, Canada, Australia etc etc.



*whether people are actually defending the situation knowingly, or simply by default, they are still defending it IMO

What insane logic are you employing here? Do you really think the potato famine is a great arguement for saying we need open borders? You do know quite a few people died in the potato famine dont you? and that quite a few died on their way to the US etc ?

You think given similar situations now we should be doing more or less the same again now.....just as long as let the lucky ones in.....

 

[free spirit]

let's rewind a little bit to where you were talking about genocide.

how can you say that someone fleeing a situation in which they're likely to die is an economic refugee? are the people who fled rwanda in the mid-90s to avoid getting chopped up economic refugees? were the jews who fled hitler economic refugees? were the bloody huguenots who fled france after the revocation of the edict of nantes economic refugees? you chop and change your terms with neither rime nor reason which undermines your argument and makes you look like you don't know what you're on about.

firstly, I didn't bring up the word genocide, I was merely throwing it back at TBaldwin.

secondly, you'll note that I didn't use any of the examples that you've given precisely because they are not examples of economic refugees. They are (mostly) examples of refugees fleeing persecution.

I chose the Irish potato famines as an example because, although there is an arguement that the british government was complicit in allowing the famine to happen / not doing enough to sort it out, and there were factors of ethnic / religious persecution... they were / are largely seen as being economic migrants forced to migrate by environmental factors beyond their control that led to famine and starvation on a massive scale in their home country.

This is a pretty close approximation to the situation in much of africa and asia, where a variety of ecological, environmental, governmental, economic and political factors have broght us to the point where around a billion people are either at or on the point of starvation pretty much continuously. Many of them will die, just as surely as the jews did when they were forced into the gas chambers, if they are not allowed to use the historical survival mechanism of economic migration to improve their situation.

Why is this our problem? Well,

firstly there's the moral arguement about whether it's right to simply sit there and watch a billion people struggle on the edge of death and do fuck all about it other than sticking ever more resources into patrolling our borders.

secondly there's the other moral arguement that runs along the lines of, actually it's not really environmental factors that have caused this, it's actually the polices that we (or our governments on our behalf) have promoted that have directly caused this situation to happen, and it is us as consumers of the food grown on the best agricultural land that used to feed these people who perpetuate the problem, so we have a moral obligation to take some action.

thirdly, if we don't do this, and these countries are left to stagnate, then these countries will continue to be left as pawns of the multinationals with huge pools of labour willing to work stupid hours for stupid pay just so that they can eat and live to slave another day. In this situation, it doesn't actually really matter how many battles the unions in this country have with the multinationals to keep working class jobs in britain, they will continue to be on the losing side of history. Only by raising up the living standards of all of the worlds poorest so that there is no longer such a big gap between rich and poor will british jobs truely be safe in the long term. This IMO is the part of the picture that the unions have utterly missed, it's like they're stood so close to the picture they can only see the pixels, and haven't worked out that if they step back there's an entier big picture they could be looking at.

 

[Pickman's model]

that my dear pickman is my entire fucking point

in the irish situation a million people were able to escape from the famine as economic migrants and go to america where they were able to find ways to firstly keep themselves alive, and secondly earn money a fair proportion of which got sent back to Ireland, where it was used to keep people alive, and later to get the country and it's people back on their feet.

THe situation today that most on this thread seem to be defending* is one in which the borders are increasingly not porous, and every effort is being made to prevent economic migrants (who are often in very similar situations to the Irish in the 1840's) from being able to get into the rich '1st world' countries of Europe, the US, Canada, Australia etc etc.



*whether people are actually defending the situation knowingly, or simply by default, they are still defending it IMO

irish people in the 1840s didn't go down thos cook's and choose a destination - they simply got the fuck out to wherever they could to stay alive. hence the term irish diaspora. people living in an integral part of the united kingdom of great britain and ireland were wilfully forced out of the country, so that (many absentee) landlords could use their land for dairy farming - as has been said, god sent the potato blight, the english created the famine. just where in the world are you suggesting that there is an analagous position today? which country at peace today is effectually forcing the movement of about 1/8 of its population* so land can be turned over to other uses?

*population of uk 1841 24.1m

 

[LLETSA]

This is a pretty close approximation to the situation in much of africa and asia, where a variety of ecological, environmental, governmental, economic and political factors have broght us to the point where around a billion people are either at or on the point of starvation pretty much continuously. Many of them will die, just as surely as the jews did when they were forced into the gas chambers, if they are not allowed to use the historical survival mechanism of economic migration to improve their situation.

Many use the emigration option already. You seem to be arguing as if borders are closed. In reality there are very few closed borders.

 

[Pickman's model]

firstly, I didn't bring up the word genocide, I was merely throwing it back at TBaldwin.

i never said you introduced the word. so that's a strawman.

secondly, you'll note that I didn't use any of the examples that you've given precisely because they are not examples of economic refugees. They are (mostly) examples of refugees fleeing persecution.

I chose the Irish potato famines as an example because, although there is an arguement that the british government was complicit in allowing the famine to happen / not doing enough to sort it out, and there were factors of ethnic / religious persecution... they were / are largely seen as being economic migrants forced to migrate by environmental factors beyond their control that led to famine and starvation on a massive scale in their home country.

This is a pretty close approximation to the situation in much of africa and asia, where a variety of ecological, environmental, governmental, economic and political factors have broght us to the point where around a billion people are either at or on the point of starvation pretty much continuously. Many of them will die, just as surely as the jews did when they were forced into the gas chambers, if they are not allowed to use the historical survival mechanism of economic migration to improve their situation.

Why is this our problem? Well,

firstly there's the moral arguement about whether it's right to simply sit there and watch a billion people struggle on the edge of death and do fuck all about it other than sticking ever more resources into patrolling our borders.

secondly there's the other moral arguement that runs along the lines of, actually it's not really environmental factors that have caused this, it's actually the polices that we (or our governments on our behalf) have promoted that have directly caused this situation to happen, and it is us as consumers of the food grown on the best agricultural land that used to feed these people who perpetuate the problem, so we have a moral obligation to take some action.

thirdly, if we don't do this, and these countries are left to stagnate, then these countries will continue to be left as pawns of the multinationals with huge pools of labour willing to work stupid hours for stupid pay just so that they can eat and live to slave another day. In this situation, it doesn't actually really matter how many battles the unions in this country have with the multinationals to keep working class jobs in britain, they will continue to be on the losing side of history. Only by raising up the living standards of all of the worlds poorest so that there is no longer such a big gap between rich and poor will british jobs truely be safe in the long term. This IMO is the part of the picture that the unions have utterly missed, it's like they're stood so close to the picture they can only see the pixels, and haven't worked out that if they step back there's an entier big picture they could be looking at.

what you seem to be missing here is that there is a demand for migrant labour here from bosses. the usual situation of supply and demand works in migration as much as it does in any other form of economic life under capitalism. so, many migrants who arrive here come to form an economic underclass, which doesn't much benefit them, or indeed the indigenous working class of all ethnicities. there are only a finite number of jobs in any country, and it seems to me that encouraging people to continue moving here - whether 'here' is the uk or the eu - is not really going to be to anyone's benefit.

at a time when unemployment's rising considerably within the uk, additional influxes are only going to heighten tensions as increasingly scarce resources are competed for more fiercely.

your argument about food's an interesting one. but there are few countries in the world which are able to realistically pursue autarky: maybe russia, maybe brazil. therefore, imports are always going to be required by most countries, whether it's energy in japan or food to the eu. would you say that china should accept large-scale immigration because it's importing huge quantities of food and other materials from africa? ain't going to happen.

the best way people in this country can help people in the third world isn't to go on about 'no borders' in the current climate, but to fight to overturn the current social order, to institute a fairer society. tinkering about with capitalism isn't going to solve the problem, destroying it is the only option.

 

[In Bloom]

Do they help British ex-pats get around the red-tape of setting up small businesses in Spain or Greece?

Sorry, who the fuck are you?

 

[In Bloom]

You can't honestly say that borders have no effect on mass migration though, can you?

I didn't say anything like that though, did I? I know it's difficult, but at least try to aim your points at what people actually said, rather than what you imagine they might say.

 

[LLETSA]

I didn't say anything like that though, did I? I know it's difficult, but at least try to aim your points at what people actually said, rather than what you imagine they might say.

No need to be so shirty. You apeared to be arguing that mass migration happens regardless of borders. It does, but there would obviously be a lot more of it if borders didn't exist.

 

[LLETSA]

the best way people in this country can help people in the third world isn't to go on about 'no borders' in the current climate, but to fight to overturn the current social order, to institute a fairer society. tinkering about with capitalism isn't going to solve the problem, destroying it is the only option.

A noble aim-but the reality is that we're going to be arguing the toss over immigration in a society that's about to become a whole lot unfairer. And this at a time when the pressure to migrate from the poor parts of the world will never have been greater.

Doesn't look too good.

 

[Hadjibashi]

Sorry, who the fuck are you?

Do you talk to all newly-arrived immigrants like that too?

 

[Hadjibashi]

"Free Spirit" - are you advocating a return to the golden age of laissez-faire liberalism, where thousands of slaves and later coolies were shifted around the globe, following the money?

 

[free spirit]

1 There is loads of evidence and facts out there....Most of it pathetic biased bullshit....But worth looking at what the WHO and Nelson Mandela had to say about the UK and other richer countries taking skilled health workers and teachers from poorer countries...

again, this is not my position, and it is not no borders position, this is the UK governments current position, and I think even you must agree that no borders position is not the same as the UK governments position.

The current situation is that only people with certain key skills are allowed into the country from those countries deemed as being mot worthy of having open borders. This is wrong, this is what leads to brain drains and the 'migration causing increasing inequality' arguement you're pushing.

And yes of course i have considered that my personal view maybe be wrong....Perhaps imperialism is the best we can hope for and to argue against imperialism in the form of economic migration is wrong. I dont think so though.

wtf are you banging on about now?

Imperialism is our governments and corporations going into a country and giving them huge loans and grants notionally to encourage development in the country, but only doing so in exchange for the country opening up their markets to our corporations, cutting their welfare and education spending to enable them to meet neoliberalist inspired government spending caps, privatising their public utilities, and ensuring that most of the money given / lent is actually spent on buying equipment and services at extortionate prices from companies based in the conor country.

Yes, ok it is possible that aid could be given to these countries in a better way that avoided all these mistakes (fraud?). But seriously, if you want to talk about imperialism then that is much more imperialistic than simply allowing the people of those countries to have the option to become economic migrants to go off and earn hard cash themselves and send it back to their families and villages, and decide for themselves whether or not they want to return to help the rebirth of their home villages and towns, or stay working elsewhere to continue and maybe establish trading links that benefit their home area, or set up tourism businesses, or even just say fuck the entire thing, I'm going to do like the rich westerners do and be consumerist and waste all my money.

2 I think your position is near fascistic...You want to leave behind people in those poorer nations who are unable to escape without any doctors, teachers and young people.....Kind of final solution....liberal style.....

again, what you are saying bears zero relation to my position or that of no borders, in fact yet again what you are saying is actually the current uk government position.

teachers and doctors can migrate to the uk no problem, but fuck anybody else.

how the fuck you manage to morph that into being no borders / my position is beyond me. If it was our position then we'd surely be enjoying tea and scones at number 10 rather than staging protest camps in calais and being locked up for the privalege.

3 and 4 Again have to say your position seems to be totally imperialistic....We have control of your countries natural resources now we want all your skilled workers.....really quite fascistic.

see above ffs

5 Yes it is another way of redistributing wealth.....But FAIRLY!!!!!! you have to be joking.....I hope!!!!.

come on then, let's hear your method of redistributing wealth fairly.

btw, I take it you've not read any of the research that's come out over the last 30-40 years that pretty conclusively indicates both the abject failure of top down development methods, as well as the fact that economic migration has been the main driver in terms of actually delivering improvements to peoples lives at the bottom end of the scale. If you had, then you'd find arguing the position you're arguing to be pretty untenable.

6 Socialism is not about deciding what is best for the majority its letting the majority decide themselves. Your position seems to be you know best and you want to impose your frankly ridiculous views on other people never mind the catastrophic consequences.

so, in your socialist utopia, how exactly do the poorest in these societies who in most cases can't read or write, have little access to communications from the outside world, and are basically at the mercy of what the educated and powerful tell them to think actually get to have any real say over what happens in their lives?

answer - they don't.

and, the evidence is in, there is no debate about it, the best people to decide on what they need to do to improve their own lives, and how any money to be spent on development in their area should be spent it without question, the people who're actually affected.

Large scale centrally planned interventions are almost always a disaster (not to say governments can't act to create largescale industrial centres etc as the chinese did /are, or provide hospitals and schools, but telling people how to farm etc. just doesn't work).

Now, I'm not saying that all forms of socialism are entirely wrong for this situation, far from it. I'd be in favour of a modified form of socialism that creates governments powerful enough to take on the corporations, world bank etc (if they still exist) on behalf of the people, while at the same time empowering the people to take control of their own lives and giving them access to the funds / ability to go off and earn the money to do the things they believe. Ie something closer to that modelled in chiapas than in 19th century europe.

So, to sum up, I'm about as fierce a critic of the current model of global capitalism as you're likely to find, and the same goes for pretty much all the no borders activists I know. I'm also a pragmatist who believes that while we wait for (agitise for) the collapse of the current neoliberal model of global capitalism, we owe it to those at the very bottom of the pile to give them a fighting chance of dragging themselves and their families and communtiies out of abject poverty.

 

[free spirit]

Many use the emigration option already. You seem to be arguing as if borders are closed. In reality there are very few closed borders.

in reality the borders of euope, US, and Australia in particular are very tightly closed to legal immigration for those economic migrants who need it the most.

yes I'm aware that the borders are still fairly pourous, but that's no arguement unless you're arguing in favour of encouraging illegal immigration, and the blackmarket in illegal workers who actually do undercut wages and conditions for UK workers, or more to the point, force legit UK businesses out of business because they can't compete with those employing the illegal workers. I take it that this isn't your arguement?

 

[tbaldwin]

"Free Spirit" - are you advocating a return to the golden age of laissez-faire liberalism, where thousands of slaves and later coolies were shifted around the globe, following the money?

I think that is exactly what he is arguing for.
But he clearly thinks he is arguing for something different, which is just sad really.

His stupidity in thinking that removing migration controls would lead to less inequality is laughable. But he really thinks that it would. He has read the propaganda and is not quite clever enough to see it for what it is.

 

[free spirit]

"Free Spirit" - are you advocating a return to the golden age of laissez-faire liberalism, where thousands of slaves and later coolies were shifted around the globe, following the money?

no

 

[tbaldwin]

in reality the borders of euope, US, and Australia in particular are very tightly closed to legal immigration for those economic migrants who need it the most.

The people most likely to move are those with the most skills. And yes richer countries may make it easier legally for them.
But do you not understand that supporting the idea of open borders would not change the fact that people with skills and money are the most likely to be able to move?

 

[Wolveryeti]

The current situation is that only people with certain key skills are allowed into the country from those countries deemed as being mot worthy of having open borders. This is wrong, this is what leads to brain drains and the 'migration causing increasing inequality' arguement you're pushing.

So the fair reaction to the 'discrimination' against would-be immigrants who don't have the right skills is to widen the net and create a new apartheid - of those who can afford air fares, and those who cannot? Would this not lead to an even more massive 'brain drain'?

 

[tbaldwin]

So the fair reaction to the 'discrimination' against would-be immigrants who don't have the right skills is to widen the net and create a new apartheid - of those who can afford air fares, and those who cannot? Would this not lead to an even more massive 'brain drain'?

EXACTLY.

The Free Market is the problem NOT the solution.

 

[free spirit]

I think that is exactly what he is arguing for.
But he clearly thinks he is arguing for something different, which is just sad really.

His stupidity in thinking that removing migration controls would lead to less inequality is laughable. But he really thinks that it would. He has read the propaganda and is not quite clever enough to see it for what it is.

I have read propaganda?

I've read multiple accademic reports from multiple authors from multiple instituations, attended multiple lectures by multiple well respected accedemics with decades of field experience who're both fierce critics of neoliberalism and fierce critics of previous failed western led development initiatives, I've researched the views of various indigenous led movements from various countries, discussed this with aid workers, discussed it with refugees, listened to migrant workers when they've spoken, and looked critically at all side of the arguement over a 15 year period.

exactly where is it that you're getting your information that you feel so able to dismiss my sources as being mere propaganda? A few trad left articles written by clueless UK leftists on an issue they know fuck all about by any chance?