Why do you have to be in favour of mass immigration...

Post Reply New Topic

and im just weird

now what with all this labelling?
wasnt there a thread about that somewhere

Just because it's the law doesn't mean that it is just.

Perhaps it's just that I'm an american and thus have the concept of civil disobedience in my social background.

The essential factor from a Canadian perspective is population growth. Without immigration, we would have negative population growth, and we would not have a sustainable economic base to maintain program spending for CPP and for health and education transfers to the provinces.

You don't have to be left, right or centrist to do that math.

Now, that being said, if we support the notion that immigration on a large scale (and we have the largest immigration program per capita on the planet) you are still left with the challenge of, "managing the mix."

There is no right answer on this one. The current government wants to tie immigration to labour market demands--but the last attempt to do this demonstrated that your permanent resident program can never do this, because by the time you are actually dealing with applications, the demand information is 3 or more years out of date. On the other hand, a true "skills assessment" basis, such as that introduced by the previous government leaves open the qualifications gap between foreign trained professionals and provincial licensing authorities.

The reality is that the "win" for immigrant receiving nations is the second generation. A foreign trained physician is going to have a very, very difficult time finding accreditation here--but that physician's children are a whole different story. It's important not to "write off" the experience of principal applicants, but equally, we should be looking at the larger picture to assess success.

Not really.

If you want to be truly 'internationalist' then poor workers should also have a standard level of global protection and costs.

That means global agreements on child labour, working hours, minimum wage, right to unionise, pensions etc etc

Instead what we have is a one sided deal, capitalists can exploit labour as much as they want in countries that have zero worker protection as a way of destroying wage arbitrage in the developed world.

A question for you.

The average for a web developer in Mumbai is $3,500 per year in a low tax country and accommodation (albeit in a slum) can be found from $2 per month.

$3,500 per year is sufficient for a single wage earner to give a family of four a 'middle class' lifestyle admittedly by Indian standards not by western standards. If you save, you can afford a cheap car and still provide well for you children.

In Britain, $3,500 before tax just about covers your council tax.

How exactly am I supposed to compete on equal terms when the same annual wage means I will be living on the street and die of starvation due to lack of income?

No the law is not necessarily just. Anyone can see that.

My argument was that they were aware they were entering/remaining in a country illegally, so they must have considered the possibility of being deported. A nation has laws regarding who is a legal and who is an illegal immigrant to protect its own self-interest. A nation does not have a moral obligation to let anyone in who wants to settle there.

This is very true, and something I think a lot of pro-immigration people tend to overlook, whether on purpose or not.

My main issue with immigration is how difficult it is to get here legally unless you've got lots of money. Now, one may argue that this helps boost our economy but the fact is it does the exact opposite. This 'be rich or get out' policy forces otherwise capable immigrants to come here illegally where they are stuck without the ability to obtain a legal job and thus are paid a lot less and end up not paying taxes (not all, but a disproportionate amount) and many end up on welfare.

Less pay = less money going back into the economy.

I don't think our borders should be open. That would hurt us just as much. However, making it easier to get in legally would do wonders for our economy.

I don't think that mass immigration is an idea of the left. The left tends to be more pro-immigration -- a sensible degree of immigration, that is -- than the right wing, but mass immigration and cultural displacement is usually a corporate agenda. I've read about the corporate pro-immigration lobby in France that seeks to increase the pool of unemployed immigrant workers who are willing to work for peanuts. That can't possibly be in the interest of the left wing.

bingo. and the notion that only a privileged class can truly choose where they wish to settle is one of the primary reasons that people of a left leaning mindstate tend to object to barriers on immigration.

A lot on the left want open borders in the name of being internationalist. I think that's not practicable or desirable. Any attempt at discussion of the concept of 'mass immigration' in the UK gets you labelled racist, because people are very sensitive here (for good reasons) of any perceived attack on immigrants themselves. However, you are correct that the idea originated as a corporate agenda.

i think the issue here can be traced back to the other thread where vmsmith picked you up on an apparent preference for european migrants vs. south east asian ones. outwith motions of racism etc., i think vmsmith was prudent on picking you up on this as it certainly [i]appeared[i/] prejudiced along some line, whether in terms of culture, ethnicity etc.

again i would point out that the propensity towards open immigration might be fueled more by notions of privilege moreso than internationalism.

Ah. I was only saying in that thread that the Eastern European immigrants had mostly returned to their country of origin, whereas the South Asian ones keep on coming through marriage visas. My problem is with their culture of wanting to marry abroad en masse in the first place, when there are sufficient numbers of UK born members of their own community. They do this, I argue, because they don't really want to integrate in many cases. Just because I'm white doesn't mean I can't be critical of this phenomenon and being critical of it doesn't make me racist.

I think it is relevant to this discussion because it's taboo to talk about this stuff full stop, and even moreso on the left.

I have other problems with South Asian culture, due to growing up surrounded by it, but those are not relevant to the discussion.

Also, regarding privilege vs. internationalism, I would point out again that no-one has an intrinsic right to settle wherever they want, regardless of wealth. Just because the wealthy have the privilege in many nations of being able to settle where they want, doesn't mean that the privilege ought to be extended for moral or ideological reasons. That privilege exists in the first place because of capitalist ideology, this is true. I propose replacing that wealth privilege with one where immigrants are prioritised on 'usefulness' instead. What should matter is what skills they have and they should be able to use those skills upon entering their new country, without the same number of hoops to jump through in order to do so.

Its one of those issues, like abortion, that politicians use as a wedge issue but never actually do anything about it. In reality, the same interests behind both parties like illegal immigration, because it undermines the American workforce and drives wages down.

The answer isn't subsidizing contractors with tax money to build a substandard wall accross the border or to create a gestapo to round up illegals. Its simply a matter of ratifying international trade agreements, like NAFTA, that screw over the working class in both countries for the benefit of multi-national corporations. However, those pulling the strings of Washington aren't going to let that happen, and those who propagandize those same interests in the corporate run media aren't going to elucidate the true sollution to the problem to the public.

Neo-liberal economics makes national economies less autonomous. Because of North American, international trade legislation, Mexico's economy became devalued against the US to the point that it made it economically necessary for Mexican natives to go north to get better paying work. Since they et paid less than US citiizens, this has the affect of devaluing US labor as well. If we want Mexican citizens to leave, then, basically, US corporate influence needs to leave Mexico first.

Last edited by JNathanK on 11 Feb 2012, 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

yes there does seem to be a greater tendency among eastern europeans to economic migration rather then immigration. how do you see south east asian people moving here as a result of marriage as problematic, just so we are clear on the issues, and can keep the discussion focused?



i would agree that there is something of a taboo surrounding it, perhaps encouraged by politicians etc. and the like. i think that this taboo unfortunately has the side affect of fueling tension and intolerance among white british folks. it certainly gives the daily mail etc. fuel.



might be an interesting topic for a spin off thread, i too live within the asian community, and don't perceive any specific problems to much of a greater degree than among the general population.



this "usefulness" would likely amount to the status quo, though. as the wealthy are more likely to be of perceived use given the general lack of equality of opportunity in the world etc.

I believe it is the anti-immigration right wing dudes that are the most contradictory. Oh sure they love free market until the second free market applies to the job market and they find out they are not competitive.

If an immigrant can do your job for less cost, then you are deservedly screwed. Either learn to do your job better or charge less if you want a job.

But you are scapegoating, you are saying that it is harder to find work when all those immigrants are more competitive.


I don't think you know what that word means.

(Ie: It would be ironic if you were called a racist because you don't believe in race (Also requires that your disbelief came from an attempt of not getting called racist) .

What you mentioned is not ironic, it is just a wrong accusation.
)

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 11 Feb 2012, 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

perhaps we could clarify this point, actually, as i feel i detect something of an inconsistency in puddingmouse's approach.

puddingmouse, given that you have previously stated specifically that it is south east asian immigration that you deem problematic, how did this come to your attention on entering the world of work? i'm assuming you mean it was harder to find employment because immigrant labour can be cheaper and less rights might be legally or otherwise be extended to such employees, however it would seem apparent that it is in fact european economic migrants who are presenting competition for the white british in the job market. south east asian people tend - and i admit i do generalise somewhat here - to be fairly self-sustaining within their communities. additionally, south east asian's competing on the job market would be far more likely to be second/third/fourth generation immigrants who have been born here and are effectively british nationals.

some clarification on this point might aid the discussion.

[/quote]

on this point also, a claim to "not believe in race" doesn't preclude discrimination and prejudice on what could effectively be considered "racial" grounds (i.e. one could simply substitute "culture", "ethnicicty" or "nationality" for race). so a belief in race or not is no defence against claims made in this and the other thread. please do not take this as an accusation, as it is not intended as such, i am simply pointing out the flaw in this line of reasoning.

I am pretty sure that it works the same way in the USA.

By which i mean that we have the immigration policy and enforcement that we have because large corporate interests prefer to have a disadvantaged and oppressed labor caste.

It's interesting that both George W. Bush and Rick Perry have openly taken pro-migrant immigration reform stances and been shouted down by the conservative constituency on that subject. I suspect that it is impossible to be a governor of texas and not realize what is actually going on. Even if you are a moron like Perry.