Isn't immigration a petty-bourgeois sentiment?

Isn't immigration a petty-bourgeois sentiment?

We obviously need to defend immigrants from the right, but moving to a whole other country so you can make more money is not class-conscious. If we go by Sakai's argument in Settlers, immigration to the New World has historically been an oppressive phenomenon that strengthened the power of capital.

look at the cause, not the result
people are obviously moving here because porkies are fucking their countries up

Desiring a better/more comfortable life has hardly anything to do with class consciousness you pseud.
But yes, it is largely not beneficiary for the native workers to get immigrants as it increases the number of reserve army of labour. We could at best argue about the role of unionization, but unions are largely dead at this point.

Immigration to wealthy countries obviously damages poorer countries, as ambitious, intelligent people travel to lands of opportunity and inflict significant brain drain on their homelands. Porkies like it because it makes the retail economy cheaper and eases the worker shortage resulting from demographic collapse.

That is assuming that what is happening with immigration in the west today is the same as what happened during the colonial era, which is not the case. The colonisation of the new world was primarily a search for resources to exploit (and a way to relieve societal pressures back home by sending all the misfits to the colonies). What is happening now is that people in countries ravaged by war and poverty - caused among other things by capitalist imperialism, the exploitation of resources - are migrating to the richer western countries which are reaping the benefits of this exploitation. Basically, the opposite is happening

Even if first world countries are evil and deserve immigrants, immigration nonetheless delays proletariat revolution and concentrates the entrepreneurial bourgeois in first world countries, increasing third world economic dependence on the first world and solidifying a system where wealthy nations import economic wealth and export political instability.

That is 100% correct. Immigration doesnt fix the cause of the problem, so the same thing happens the next generation again, and it damages the the poor countries by brain drain, while damaging the rich country's poor working class who'se wages go down/don't rise/are unable to unionise effectively due to a reserve army of labourers.

So what do you when porkys bomb people to pits while the western people are complacent and do nthing about it? They only get active whenever whitey's status is infringed upon. Don't call me cointelpro, because you know this is true.

a) people have a right to decide where they want to go and where they want to live

b) immigration isn't causing these social problems but the policies of capitalism are

c) remove capitalism and you remove the impetus for 99% of immigration

Excuse my tragic spelling

No, not really. It's just in part a result of it. Tons of people just want to live in other countries for other reasons. People should be able to live where they want if they aren't causing major problems in society.

The brain drain argument, while somewhat valid, is still very simplistic. Most immigrants don't completely sever ties with their old country. They remain in interaction with their old communities.

Many social and political movements have gained power and momentum from emigre communities.

Commie support the working class right? So why would you support mass immigration, it drives down wages for the native working class and boosts rent prices. If anything you should be anti-immigration, cause it also has the potential to take "best and brightest" out of those countries. If you care about the shitskins, let them keep their doctors.

a) people have a right to decide where they want to go and where they want to live

No they dont you hippy faggot.

Immigration isn't a "sentiment" you dunce.

I'm not saying immigration is good because we somehow deserve to receive them, I'm just saying it's not the same as colonialism. You're right in that it helps perpetuate this cycle, but the poverty of the 3rd world isn't gonna end if we prevent immigration, and the pressure to immigrate certainly isn't going away.

The reason that we are unable to unionise effectively isn't because of immigration, it's because all the stable, easy-to-unionise production jobs have been exported to other countries. Most service jobs are too precarious to organise, without immigrants, and the immigrants usually end up with the shittier service jobs, 3rd world tier production jobs like the plantations in the US, or they actually start businesses of their own.

Okay, Stalin, guess the human rights that all those frenchmen fought for don't matter. So it's okay for Capital to move freely around the globe but not people?

There's no remotely palatable side in Syria. Get rid of Assad, and you'll quickly have an Islamist State that will genocide Alawites and cause policy problems for the next fifty years. The majority of refugees are not from Syria, either, or even from destitution, but are misled about their prospects in the first world by people paid to escort them.

There are far better solutions than the one we currently have, but eliminating all Western interference would not shorten the conflict, it would massively extend it. Yes, Western countries and Saudi Arabia are ultimately responsible for how shitty a lot of the Middle East is, but all of Europe shouldn't be punished for the CIA being a bunch of sociopaths who use radical Islam as a biological weapon and try to start democratic revolutions wherever they can.

What about second and third generation immigrants? Are they even immigrants if they're born here?

Who do you think the rebels get their funding from

Also, Europe wouldn't have such a big with African refugees if western world wouldn't fugg North Africa.

Such a big problem*

I say let nature take it's course. They're killing and starving each other. Let them. We don't need to bring third world problems here

Hi Holla Forums

The CIA, the Saudis. European citizens are no more responsible for that then Syrians are.

French colonization in North Africa was the only somewhat defensible colonization, as the Barbary States had been enslaving around a million Europeans for over a hundred years. Western meddling really didn't fuck up North Africa that much, either, particularly compared with the areas surrounding Afghanistan.


Thats exactly my point. The reason those jobs are 3rd world tier and not improving their working conditions is because third world workers are flown in to do them for a higher wage they would get at home. Then native workers can't do them because they have families living in the first world and need to pay for their rent, food, clothes, utilities etc, while most migrant workers are single men who work in the season and then go back to their families in the third world. This means they dont have as high costs, which makes them even cheaper labour than usual, and often sleep in barrack-like conditions, which makes upkeep for them very cheap for their employer since he can buy and provide in bulk, rather than having to pay them a wage to do it on their own.

Yes its got nothing to do with multinationals buying up the food to export to the first world, while the west provides them with food aid, effectively killing any kind of production for local consumption, making them entirely dependant on the first world.

i don't get that pic.
the left half mocks libertarians, the right half mocks liberals.
but combined it makes no sense.

in other news: op is a gay self-hating teenager who doesn't understand free trade agreements, neoimperialism, blackmail and corruption.

NATO is majorly European. C'mon man. It's the porky's vs 3rd worlders. Westerners except for a few don't seem to care about anything outside their bubble.

Tbh, I just hope this bubble is going to pop soon. It's insufferable.

Pic related.

But they're only able to move here (easily) because of our present immigration policies.

The question of why immigrants leave is relatively easy, the question why governments let them in is more interesting. (Personally I'm inclined to believe it's to garuntee a labour surplus and a lack of social cohesion to fuck the working class in their countries, but then I would believe that, wouldn't I?)

Easy comrade you may irritate the hotpockets and redditers.

i can tell you that moving to the US legally is extremely hard and expensive. most illegals come from VWP/b2 overstays anyway, no?

First world countries don't pay fairly for the resources and labour that is extracted from the third world.
Here, I even found an infograph for you. Stop being so ignorant.

Oh, I don't mean to draw anti-immigration sentiment from it. It's just that the machinations of policymakers shouldn't be overlooked.

The US is an interesting case. Illegal immigration seems tacitly accepted to a much greater degree than seems to be the case here. My knowledge of the US is more limited in truth. (Though it seems like immigrants also take a lot of the flak for things really caused by outsourcing, in particular the general "taking our jobs" thing.)
I must admit my perception is coloured by being British, with relatively high legal immigration (including from outside the EU, which could have been cut if desired but despite tough talk continues), no major land borders, and so on.

For sure
Well, that's up to you, isn't it? If you're resentful towards immigrants that's hardly going to help.

Yeah, but this doesn't actually affect the native workers, since they don't work those jobs in the first place and haven't for decades. In fact, they benefit, since prices are lower. You could have native workers do those jobs, but they'd demand higher wages, which causes prices to go up, which pressures the capitalist to either move abroad or automate. In the end you come back to the same problem of capitalism there always is.

accidental sage

That is entirely false. The only reason native workers don't work those jobs, as I've said in my previous post, is because they wage it pays doesn't cover their basic living necessities. Western nations have been importing guestworkers since the 70's. Saying that "it doesnt matter because they don't do that work in the first place" completely ignores that the reason native workers dont do those jobs is because the pay simply is too low. Hell, some countries even exclude seasonal agrarian jobs from their minimum wage laws.

If those native workers would do those jobs and ask for higher wages, the price would accurately reflect the labour. And they can't move abroad for those jobs, because if they could have, they would already have done so. The only such jobs left are non-movable such as farming. As for automation, this would be a step in the good direction because it would alleviate unnecessary work, reduce the rate of profit, force foreign workers to organise in their own countries while accelerating native workers to organise due to increasing income inequality, decline of benefits and lack of jobs.

Forgot to add:

In addition to the things said in the last paragraph about automation, the lack of foreign workers doing those jobs would make it much harder for the bourgeoisie to pin the problems of capitalism on foreigners, and direct the anger of the working class to its rightful cause, the employers. You can't say "dey tuk er jerbs" when the industry just has robots instead of workers.

Protectionism without imperialism can work in the favour of socialism, and in my opinion is a good tactic both to achieve socialism and protect the working class.

Not to mention foreign aid paid by western governments to developing countries often goes in full to service debts to western banks. Yet another way wealth is being channeled from the citizens to the banks.

You forgot to address outsourcing.
And you're working from the premise that first world workers deserve to get paid more for the same work because ??? Like, what incentive would an investor have to pay a native twice as much.
Your nationalist protectionism is shit and can't compete against the exploitation of the third world.

Tarifs fix this because they still have to come back to the west to be sold, as for being paid more living costs are more it's adjusted to those costs. We simply make it so expensive to outsource and then sell in the biggest markets in the world so that they don't.

Also not the other person you were talking too.

You'd just be making everything more expensive. It's a recipe for stagnation.
Also, you haven't answered the question about incentives. What reason would an investor have to go along with protectionism?

You make a good point. What I'm trying to get at here is that preventing or reducing immigrants isn't gonna bring a lot of jobs, as you point out. I do agree with you that the importation of foreign workers is a bad thing, mainly because they work in shit conditions, but the solution isn't to push them out, because that's not gonna work it's to integrate them with the rest of the work force so that they don't work for shit wages. The only reason why the foreign workers at the plantations accept such shit pay is that they're illegal immigrants, and thus have no bargaining power. If they had the same rights as the rest of the population, and if they were organised, you'd get the same effect as you describe without pushing them out or pandering to right-wing xenophobes

Bourgeouis are the main importers of third world subbies. Also, third world subbies make us look bad when they practice Bolshevism. Only high Autism Level whites can effectively practice Bolshevism.

This is more resentment than socialism.

Do you communists completely deny any sort of healthy racial identity?

Why? Immigrants into the US and Europe are crashing their social programs. Only porkies want immigration since it lets them have hoards of cheap labor.

This is why you impose capital controls so that he doesn't have a choice.
The collapse of Breton Woods was the death of the western working class.


This tbh. Pro immigrat but anti immigration is a meme stance. If you are really anti immigration you would drive them out

no buts, I just mentioned the cause

I agree with the user who mentioned brain drain.

Also it slows revolution, as capitalist pillars, "flawed healthcare" and "materialist consumption" are tricks that new immigrants are more likely to believe and pursue as paths to happiness and safety.

How about… "immigration is predicated on bourgeois ideals of wanting to make more money than other people"