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

Post Reply New Topic

My problem with immigration is not that it makes the job market more competitive. My problem is the social issues attached to large population shifts and the workability of multiculturalism.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 11 Feb 2012, 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It came to my attention because I used to work for an Adult Learning centre, and I kept encountering women who had been brought over to the country not being able to speak a word of English and basically treated like incubators/domestic slaves. Some of them were on the run from their husbands. We let this happen in the name of not wanting to seem racist. Seriously, south Asian males made me feminist. I also taught a couple of gay men for a while, before they were sent off to marry. It left a bad taste in my mouth wrt South Asian culture. I became fond of these people, and watching them be oppressed and not being able to do anything about it grated on me. These are issues which shouldn't just be left within their own community, everyone should be concerned. As I stated in the post above, my issue isn't that immigration makes the job market more competitive (although this isn't great for all the poorly paid immigrant and non-immigrant workers).

My problem with them marrying abroad so often is that second and third generation Asians are often more British in mindset, but in the name of tradition they have to marry abroad and this continues the practices I mentioned above. It also creates more hostility with the local white British community who (incorrectly) see their own culture being displaced.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 11 Feb 2012, 2:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The definition of a scapegoat is as follows:

'A person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, esp. for reasons of expediency'

The labour market is subject to the same rules of supply and demand as any other market is.

When you have a nation of 60 million people (under 1% of the worlds population) deciding to open it's labour market up to competition from the other 99% of the worlds population are you seriously suggesting that the increase in supply of labour by a factor of 100 will have have no effect on the market?


It is possible to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of government policy without being a card carrying fascist.

Pointing out the downside of POLICY is not the same thing as advocating the mass extermination of people, please stop trying to pretend that it is.

Fair enough, I concede.

I would love to see a world government and socio-economic equality across the globe at some point, as well as global laws to combat the rampant overpopulation. One doesn't work without the other, imho.

Until we achieve that goal (if we ever do), I find it understandable that nations are protective of their territory, which allows them to maintain a manageable population level and ensures that they won't run out of resources within a few generations. To some degree, I also understand the wish to preserve cultural heritages.

You seem to feel differently about this. If I understand you correctly, you want everybody to be able to move anywhere within the current global political and economic landscape, correct? Question: Do you think that everyone should be allowed to move to a Native American reservation?

Last edited by CrazyCatLord on 11 Feb 2012, 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

'Usefulness' doesn't mean wealthy. It means carpenters, engineers, computer programmers, nurses, etc. Whatever jobs are in demand.

Here is a good movie on the subject: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112870/

I'm very much against a world government.

And no, I'm not in favor of anyone moving wherever they wish. Governments should have the right to restrict immigration... but within reason. Immigration laws should benefit the country, and the current ones here in the US don't.

I'm not talking about this subject now, because I'm on holiday. Needless to say, I share a commonality in views with some of the less extreme nascent European populist parties.

I am somewhat of a liberal, but I agree with the conservatives on certain issues. I'm not "all in" for any one side.

As for immigration, I have no problem with it as long as they go about it legally. We have ways set up in the US for people to legally come to our country. If someone doesn't want to do it that way, I have no sympathy at all when they are sent back home. Non-citizens of any country do not have a right to live in that country.

In my country, there used to be room on the left for patriotic and nationalist sentiment, which would presumably involve opposition to immigration (whereas many of the early British "right wing" capitalists would quite likely have utilised cheap Third World immigrant labour if it had been feasible.) Mosley, Britain's most famous Fascist, was originally a Labour Party member. (And incidentally, Socialists like HG Wells supported certain ideas (like eugenics) that modern left-liberals would view as shockingly "right-wing".)

Since leftists supposedly oppose capitalist's exploiting cheap labour and driving down wages, you might expect modern leftists to oppose immigration on those grounds. Since leftists supposedly support biodiversity and harmony with nature, you might expect modern leftists to oppose immigration as a way of helping to preserve the world's ethnic groups and races in the environments in which they evolved. And since leftists supposedly care about worldwide equality, you might expect modern leftists to oppose immigration on the grounds of preventing a brain drain from the Third World.

But unfortunately, quite early on the Left was infected with the Marxist poison, which told the disaffected working classes that things such as family, nation, religion and private property (things that give meaning and purpose to life for so many) were "tools of capitalist oppression" they should expend just as much (if not more) energy fighting against as they should fighting against the financial system and the merchant classes and internationalists who feed off it.

These days, the Left is a home for many racial minorities, who use it as a proxy for undermining the racial interests of the majority populations they live among. The modern Left is also a haven for a large number of society's freaks, misfits and degenerates who use it to indulge in revenge attacks against the society and culture from which they sprang - all in the name of freedom and equality, of course.

In addition, I will point out that if the immigrating peoples are of a different racial/ethnic group to the host group, then immigration is a racial issue. Despite what most posters on this thread think, it is perfectly legitimate for a host population to resist immigration on racial grounds, although immigrants (be they new, 2nd or 3rd generation) will of course claim that it is not. Immigrants will do this because their own racial interests are served by undermining the racial interests of the hosts. This is part of the reason why any opposition to immigration - even if it is genuinely motivated solely by concerns about economics or overcrowding - will always be called "racist".

Nah, racism is always stupid and illegitimate. Specially because race is so 1900. You may as well still crap in the street.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 16 Feb 2012, 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Racist opposition to immigration will be called... racist

Considering that my relatives live close to a diverse suburb, in which all their errands and food shopping are done, and that what I saw in that place does not look like progress, my opinion is that immigration from Africa and the Middle East has been, to say the least, a mistake for multiple reasons. Fourty years ago, what is now this suburb was villages with pastry shops and wheat fields behind anglo-norman houses. Soon that town will become some unsafe and hideous urban wasteland.

I am not entirely sure if I lean more to the left or right because only recently have I made an effort to figure out what is happening and piece everything together, I had too many of my own problems to think about politics. So I suppose I am only left wing because of bigots and opportunists like the people who make up the French Front National. In other European countries there are center-right leaders with proposals to deal with issues caused by immigration that would not involve indiscriminate deportation and irrational antisemitism. I have browsed anti-immigration blogs before, yet have not posted on them, because they fixate too much on ethnicity and/or are too religious and like anything political, are run by calculating people who would rather see no solutions than anything remotely diverging from their ideologies.

Here are a couple of left wing or centrist reasons why western Europeans should restrict the flow of people who share with them no cultural compatibility and rigorously assimilate non criminals who are already here.

1) islamization of the economically disadvantaged - despite perfunctory handouts from the government, these people are socially secluded and cut off from other Europeans and their heritage to which they should be equally entitled. So their children, along with those from the small Jewish minority, are bullied into conformity. Non muslim women are sometimes harassed or raped if their dress does not look sufficiently islamic (maybe that is another reason why face coverings were banned?). As a result, people from northern and southern Africa and Europeans all begin to speak and act like each other and buy into the same unhealthy and intellectually impoverished media and lifestyles, which neoliberal societies market to the lower economic classes in a shameful effort to diminish their potential lest some of them benefit from social mobility. After a while, native citizens become further secluded and begin to intermarry with their neighbors into dysfunctional families and relationships. Leftists who care about the future of children growing up in these places which no longer even resemble Europe should note that religious extremism is not addressed there because assimilationism is incompatible with the shameless plutocracy which reigns today.

2) civil society dissolving in favor of multinational corporations - immigration is only one method to acheive this erosion of an effective bulwark against economic collapse and oppression from larger entities. In any free, just, and prosperous place, civil society and individuals shape larger entities not the other way around. Since civil society can only work when there exists a modicum of compatibility, neoliberalism can only be sustained by excessive internationalism (and exploited workers) or even islamic intrusion. The agenda of which indiscriminate immigration is only one strategy, is to indirectly mold all industrialized countries into one managable industrial and cultural bloc. Politicians who lament "leftism" and "redistribution" without even mentioning this trend (or the needless outsourcing of labor), are dishonest, because its effects may slowly begin to resemble the worst aspects of marxism and socialism without even any temporary economic equality. This ruins both left wing ideals (resistance to all forms and degrees of imperialism, the ability to keep the integrity of at least the local environment, the rule of just laws instead of lobbies, etc.) and conservative values such as entrepreneurship, resistance to a sealed one world order, etc.

In short, contrary to what most on the political right would argue, the problem with internationalism is not with all of the immigrants themselves. What should be focused on is islamic barbarism and the fact that non islamic immigration is just a negligible symptom of a corporatist project which could still be overcome before it merges with international and state bureaucracies.