There's going to be a debate tomorrow between the college Democrats and Republicans at my university on immigration

This is very misguided and it's a cartoonish interpretation of what Internationalism is supposed to mean.

Mobility of labour, just like the mobility of capital itself, can't avoid the political implications that comes with national boundaries. Each country contains a labor market, and the bigger this market the bigger the reserve army of labour. The bigger this reserve army of labour, the more control the owning classes will have over workers and the hability to dictate wages, hours, etc.

So the important thing is to find a common ground between protection of minorities and immigrants, and a broader commitment to the process of globalization (which can't be fucking stopped anyway), with the worker's economic security. Otherwise immigration becomes a mechanism to be manipulated by capital against labour.

Globalism isn't the same as internationalism fam.

This.

The Dems will like it becasue monarchies are fash as fuck. And the Republican-cucks will like it becasue they hate Islam.

People often cite a collapsing economy for the Syrian refuge crisis but they don't say why. They got all their fucking water cut off because Israel cut off the Jordan River and Turkey cut off the Tigris-Euphrates. Common thread there is that Israel and Turkey have big ol Western-supplied armies to say "fuck off I can dam what I want." 85% of water use is for agriculture so it doesn't actually look like people dying of dehydration in the streets but when you import 100% of your agriculture instead of 15% obviously that can hurt your 2nd world developing economy.

I'll be sure to keep that in mind, although I mentioned those points because they relate to right wing arguments about Trump's "Muslim Ban" and his proposed border wall.

point out how immigration is utilized by the liberal machine to drive down wages of workers and simultaneously make sure that the immigrant is not to blame for this, but the material conditions which make it so

So should arbitrarily many third-world immigrants be allowed to come to first world countries to earn a better living, or not? Like I said in , going on about the reserve army, imperialism, or whatever, is just a way of dodging the question. It's a very simple question that is obviously very important to a large number of people, so it's important to have a short answer, rather than "Well, you see, we're antiracist, but we don't want too many because that would increase the reserve army of labor, but we don't want to deport anyone who comes, but we want as many to come as we want because the workers have no country, but we don't want to take arbitrarily many because their culture is not like ours, but we do because we have some amount of guilt over imperialism and many of them are refugees from our wars, but we don't because we don't want to have a huge border police, etc."

This isn't dodging the question, it's just giving the reason to why we have the answer we have so we won't be simply stereotyped as reactionary, racist, etc.

You can't allow them to shove you into one of the two main categories, otherwise what's the point of being a Socialist and looking for alternatives?

If you struggle with this, just say that ethno-nationalism is a stupid concept, that mobility of labor and multiculturalism are inevitable in this day and age, that immigration is welcome but that, just like everything else, it needs certain regulations so it doesn't become exploitative. And if a liberal comes at you with a slippery slope saying that regulation equals ban, just bring up the hundreds of thousands of things they want to regulate but not get rid of.

If you want to redpill people you can't just give them the answers they're used to ffs.

No the neoliberal position is free movement of capital and extreme punishment and illegalization of immigrants. This maintains their ability to drive down wages and pit workers against each other.

Why would advocating 100% open borders be stereotyped as reactionary or racist? This would be a problem for nazbol-lite types.

Yeah read it again m8

Turn on a fucking tv

The rarity of the extreme punishment, the selectivity and discretion with which it is exercised, and the steep imbalance of risk between illegal worker(s) and illegal employer are oft-overlooked factors in the design of supposed anti-immigrant policy.

Who cares what rich liberals have to say? Nothing that comes out of their mouths isn't self-promoting, Whig bullshit.

The only reason the place the migrants move to is more prosperous, is because the migrants are not there.

rile up your local antifas and start a campus riot

You at UCLA bro?

Other side of the country, Pennsylvania

Lehigh University to be specific

Interesting. Since borders are obviously arbitrary lines, why do they have to be where they are? Wouldn't it be equally good, for instance, if the world was divided up into equal ~100 km^2 chunks along lines of latitude and longitude and all travel across those borders was restricted? Surely you can't be arguing that there's anything inherently socialist about the current arrangement of nations and borders.

Brain Drain, Muscle Drain. Permanent underdevelopment through primary sector exports and dependence on foreign industry. Mention how the US heavily relied on tarrifs and protectionism to build its own economy but expects the third world to let its companies have free reign over their populace.

Point out how mass immigration is a direct result of the US's imperialism and global capitalist control over foreign countries that fuck their economies, which lowers quality of living for people in these countries which leads to them trying to migrate to more prosperous countries which gained their prosperity by exploiting poorer countries.

Just talk about NAFTA's role in driving Mexican immigration.

thisx100

talk about how the average male has clinically geriatric levels of T and how the drinking water is filled with birth control and benzos. Mention how suicide and depression are skyrocketing, how inceldom is going to lead to an increase in social upheaval and how white girls fuck dogs.

"If this thing is arbitrary, why can't we just draw other arbitrary laws for it?" is a very very stupid reasoning. How they come to be is irrelevant for the purpose of immigration analysis, only that they currently represent the boundaries of labour and economic arrangements and there are economic and political implications to them.

Well user surely I'm not, because that isn't implied anywhere in my post. Surely you must have better reading skills than that.

This isn't really a rebuttal.
You can't just call the other person's reasoning stupid and then refuse to address their complaint. Or actually, you can, but you shouldn't expect people to take you seriously if you do.

How do you think Socialism will protect itself from counter revolution? Are you really so naive to think borders will be 'arbitrary' until full Communism is achieved with no real opposition to destroy it?

Anyone who argues that immigrants are stealing their jobs is not thinking far enough ahead to even consider what a communist society would be like. They're using capitalist economics to analyze a situation which exists under capitalism, adding in a big heap of spooks, and concluding that it is the only way things could ever work.

You are trying to say that there will be no borders because no capitalism, in the fragile stages Socialism to Communism. Who the fuck said job stealing, they won't GET jobs because of the way workers councils will be run, there will be a framework internationally that has some type of protectionist instincts.

I'm talking about COUNTER REVOLUTION and immigration, you thick fuck, there will be borders because anyone with a fucking brain can move three steps ahead and in the fragile stages of Socialism to Communism, this will be the weakest points and guess what, it will not be fucking anarchism that wins the day,

Yes but you need full communism first. You can't do it with massive development inequality under socialism, let alone capitalism.