Whats the true, non-reactionary, non-idpol, non-neoliberal /lefty/ position on immigration and/or refugees

I'm not>>1545925
I agree with this and am not a ML at all.

This I don't really agree with though I live in Canada which doesn't have a national identity. Immigrants should conform to enlightenment era values and learn to speak the national language, but I don't give a shit if they wan't to keep their home country celebrations, garb, language, food etc.

To be fair, this is the moral and desired choice of action according to the capitalist system that the refugee-obsessed right cherishes so much.

Like the tenants I'm sure you follow religiously.

Almost like blind faith.

immigration is fine, retard muslims are not

I would classify all of you as worse than what you see in the world.

canada lost all of its cultural identity centuries ago. at this point, all it has is neoliberal consumer culture. so yeah, pretty much anything immigrants can bring to canada is good

We want no borders. That's part of communism.

On the other hand, encouraging mass immigration from impoverished countries through economic incentive or creating refugees with war is a strategy that the ruling class is using to push the labor market in their favor. "They took our jobs" is not just a meme. A flood of people who are used to a much lower standard of living will get Porky's dick harder than diamonds at the thought of lower wages, particularly if the immigrants are illegal/undocumented because then minimum wage doesn't apply. In this particular context, immigration is a problem because it's a symptom of bourgeois meddling (wars) and huge inequality. These would be gone under full communism so it's not an issue in the first place. People seeing foreigners as rapacious unwashed masses is a result of foreigners being poor and the bourgeois media characterizing them that way, which wouldn't be the case in a communist world. Issues like cultural differences wouldn't be a problem either because without economic or existential reasons to relocate, people are not going to uproot from their native culture and move somewhere else in huge numbers.

If you want my opinion on what large scale policy on borders/immigration should exist
1. This issue is moving deck chairs on the Titanic. Smash capitalism to remove the conditions at the root of any of these problems and deal with this later.
2. See 1.
3. See 2.

This but add metropolitan Europe and America

This board is so juvenile and blindly idealist that its almost cute.

This.

why
are
you
so
scared
of
change
?

Do you have legitimate criticisms of my views that don't boil down to "ur an idealist" while posting pictures from the movie Blade 2 with Wesley Snipes it makes you look like you're at the capacity of 15

It's not an argument

Cultural politics are literally the most idealist by definition.

jacobinmag.com/2017/02/die-linke-germany-sahra-wagenknecht-immigration-xenophobia-afd/

Fuck borders. Let as many rapists, criminals and terrorists in as we can fit. Hopefully they help destabilize the neoliberal regime.

We bring back our troops every war, who cares about some immigrants?

cultural change is fine, it just shouldn't be replaced with vapid consumerism and commodification

Immigration can only benefit the country under a socialist economic system. Under capitalism, it weakens the labor rights of the immigrant and the citizen.

I agree.

sup Holla Forums

Sounds pretty shortsighted m8.

Its no wonder people are going center or right rather than being affiliated with you commie retards or the alt-right.

holy fuck this was hilariouis to read

"Fuck off, we're full"

People have been center for fucking decades you post 1993 birth

Step 1:
Support the refugees and expel the economic immigrands. If Turkey whines.. FUCK 'EM!
Step 2:
End ISIS, give Kurds land and let Asad take his country back. There is no alternative at this point.
Step 3:
Get out of Iraq and Afganistan and stop sucking Sauid cock, you stupid burgers!

Oh, and, not all refugees are muslim.

Isn't this guy trying to warm his thumb?

I'm "against" it, personally. It's relatively transparent that it's a move by Porky to help hold down first world wages (and more importantly, build up debt.) while allowing a brain-drain from developing countries.

At the same time it must be recognized that immigrants as individuals are as working class as the rest of the working class, and that the policy decisions taken by our countries actively fuck over the developing world instead of actively helping it to develop to our level.

Refugees would be trivial to accommodate if other forms of migration were reduced. (And far fewer in number if we'd stop creating them…)

On the whole my policy preference would be for much more strongly controlled immigration to the first world, combined with much greater foreign aid, etc. This is as much a practical decision as one made on any strong ideological basis, however.

Porky starts wars for profit people naturally want to escape it, porky also depends on cheap labor of the third world. People want better standards of living so they are forced to move of they can. Solution is kill porky and people won't have the need to leave home.

The closest analogue of human society in the societies of the animal world is that of the Beaver: but the Beaver brings change in landscape and environment that allow new life to spring in areas once hostile, and promote adaptation for those beings that live there. The destruction of the human race will be the only way that this planet lives, because environmentalism has only made steps towards reform, it will never produce a revolution. It is inescapable. Atomic warfare, while devestating and destructive, will not destroy life on this planet. It might not even destroy human life, but the survivors will no doubt know that humankind was a failure, a suicidal species.

Come on dude that's just not realistic. Anyone in a shitty, poor (not just financial but also in resources), and polluted area will flood everywhere else and will drag everyone else down with them. It's not their fault, their just acting in their best self interest, but a bunch of uneducated, selfish, potentially religiously zealous, idpol filled populations suddenly attempting to usurp others who already occupy valuable plot of land will just be chaos. Nothing good will come of it. We need to spread positive infrastructure: education, healthcare, etc.

You anarkiddies tend to interpret the whole "no borders" thing mechanically. The end of states will only ever be accomplished under worldwide communism.

We need a position on immigration that is not marred by two different types of denial.

Both are just as damaging but I will start with the denial on the right of the two main causes for immigration. The first is to do with economic migrants, as they are so disparigingly called, who leave their home country to look for a better life with better wages and everything that goes with it. Economic migrants are the very picture of the American Dream, seeking new lands in search of green pastures to cut themselves out a stake. Economic migrants are exactly the sorts of enterprising people capitalism is supposed to reward.

We live in what is supposed to be the end of history, the triumph of global capitalism, yet still people are willing to uproot themselves thousands of miles to find security. On a mass scale, from nearly every corner of the globe which is not Northern America or Northern Europe, into these regions. This is the denial. People do not go to these places because they want to, or because they think they can fleece us, they come here because it is infinitely attractive. Those same who would praise the glory of western civilisation and demand its protection, would also deny the possibility that anybody could want to live there for honest reasons. It is part of the larger denial, the base denial. The denial of global inequality and the denial of western culpability.

We have accumulated massive wealth at the expense of the rest of the world, all the while claiming we are open and free and democratic. Now when the world asks us to prove our pretended good will, it is instantly retracted. What better an indictment of the system? What better way to show that it works for the few and not for the many, than to concentrate 90% of the wealth over perhaps 1/8th of the globe and only let in perhaps 1/7th of the population.

Admitting this truth is to admit that capitalism did not come about through the voluntary exchange of goods, but based on centuries of violence. Based on this myth, it is said that we in the west deserve what we have. We worked for it, we earned it, fair and square. It was not stolen, it was just the beauty of our superior capitalist system that created such opulent and concentrated wealth. This leads us on to the second type of immigrant, the refugee. The one who leaves because of war. Really we may say that these are also economic migrants, as invariably matters of economy bring about the war, but this second classication are those forced from their homeland by direct physival violence.

It is here that the denial is most transparent. It is not our fault, say we, not our responsibility, say we, to provide this family a home, say we, even as in the same room on the same day we advocate the destruction by bomb of homes similar to the very refugee standing in front of us. The right, for all its family values and strict moral codes, is claiming that the west has no responsibilty to clean up its own mess, wanting to play the role of police officer only up to the point of beating the 'criminal' sensless, the family of the victim is not contacted, the judge is not informed, justice is not done, merely vengence inflicted. If these people are not worth saving, not worth housing, then why are we in their country in the first place, ostensibly to save them?

Similarly, if our great culture, our good, Christian culture is incapable of offering meanginful assistance to those it displaces, again, apparently, for their own benefit, then is it such a great culture after all and should it be attempting to police the world like it is any better than them? Again and finally, is the culture that causes the vast majority of conflict in the world, and there can be no denial of this, there is no more violent a network of authority on this earth than the US and its allies in Europe and Israel and Saudi Arabia, really the culture that should be defended?

However this maze is approached, in denial of this fact, inconsitencies appear in the interlocuters position. They generally take two forms, the ones who deny western imperialism outright, these tend to be simply the woefully misinformed, the other kind are much more pernicious, those who know the history of western imperialism and yet claim that it is a good thing, that it brought order and stabililty and prosperity, the immorality of the violence is secondary to the resulting society created.

Not only would this be a hilarious inversion of Marxist Leninism, it is in fact factually incorrect for the most part. Needless to say, even assuming that the facts support the claim and if we accept the benefits of imperialism on colonised nations, the fact of immigration still very definitely exists. If western civilisation and imperialism was so good for colonised peoples, why then do they wish to leave the colonies? Did they leave on mass to the west before the advent of imperialism? At the same time we are told that imperialism was a good thing, we are told that its most striking effect, the movement of billions of people from their homelands, around the globe, to different regions, is a terribly bad thing.

Here is where the Liberals and indeed many sections of the left will come in and say that it is not inherently a bad thing, globalisation has meant a melting pot of cultures and ideas and the progression of technology and unity between nations. I largely agree with this statement, however, although a melting pot is better than a monoculture, the molten brew of the pot will always contain traces of its container. When the container is capitalism, this leads to impurities.

Here is the denial from the left, that even under our current capitalist system, immigration IN ITS CURRENT FORM is a good thing. In fact, the only people really benefitting from immigration are employers, who have a greater selection of workers to higher. For the immigrants and refugees, while they will often be improving their conditions drastically, to say that immigration benefits immigrants I think is a sign of priviledge. When you uproot yourself, leave your homeland, family connections, etc, not because you want to, but because you have to, can you really be said to excersising 'free movement', or are you being pushed out of your home by economic circumstances? Similarly, their home country may be experiencing a 'brain drain' . More cheap labor for the first world property owners means a lack of ready and able hands in the third, notwithstanding that at times shrinking applicants to the job market is a good thing, in this situation, it is generally the educated and able who leave.

On top of this, when immigrants arrive, it is generally not to privet fenced middle class neighbourhoods, it is into areas which become or are already ghettoes, areas which were already deprived, already had problems to deal with. Immigrants, generally, when they arrive, have problems of their own. This is not to say that 1) They are inclinced to violence or 2) are inclinded to theft, merely that people that people leaving wartorn areas generally carry emotional baggage, to put it lightly. This is also not to say that this is a reason to reject them outright, rather it is a reason not to send poor immigrants into poor working class neighbourhoods which already have elevated levels of violence and expect 1) Tolerance 2) Assimilation and 3) General prosperity.

This is clearly madness on the part of the mainstream left, who would spend half of their time talking about how best to turn these neighbourhoods around and the other half talking about expanding them to an extra quarter of the population while funding is cut. Immigrants are currently dumped, not dealt with. Further, suggestions that they should be 'dealt with' are met with accusations that there is a problem to deal with, and inevitable shouts of racism. Because of the reaction this denial causes, immigrants are simply not dealt with at all, they are dumped, in detention centers or deprived areas. For example, I think it would be reasonable to systematize assimilation.

Could the left open up to the social implications of immigration on working class neighbourhoods, then perhaps the right could open up the cause of the problem, and perhaps we could move forward on both.

Nationalism is a spook. Borders do not exist. "Muh cultural assimilation" is idpol.

niggers are stupid

No one is owed anything ever, neither white europeans/jews nor the inhabitants of the Global South are entitled to hoard any of the wealth or resources available on Earth. The mere notion of accountability to other peoples is reactionary and pernicious. The West absolutely owes the rest of the world nothing, the rest of the world should chase the West out of its borders if it desires to separate from its influence (which it does, and should wish to do so given the events of the last 400 years).

Thousands of clannish, aggressive, irrational people who are not interested in individual existence, in beauty, in love, in real humanity are not the solution to imperialism. Imperialism is a crime that will be punished by the mechanisms of social collapse in the West. Left to its own devices, contrary to the Isolationist and Fascist utopian view, the West would rot and collapse. Without the crusades, age of exploration, contact with Asia there is no high civilization in the West. Therefore the West's imperialism which is a symptom of it being submitted to by other peoples (willingly), will not be an issue if the people submitting to it expel it from their borders and then do not proceed to exact revenge after-the-fact through invasion. The Eurabian dystopia that is emerging is the result of weakness, weakness from the very people who are fleeing the chaos wrought by the West, chaos which is not justifiable but is not reason to exact violence upon the perpetrator. The people of the MENA region are cowardly, they do not wish to look within and criticize their own modes of existence. Arab tribalism, Islamic imperialism, radical extreme theocratic thinking is the character of these cultures and it is absolutely no coincidence that they instigate extreme barbaric violence against the people whose arms they flee into. Whatever evils the West has done, the destructive presence of possibly tens of millions of incompatible, unstable social groups is not sustainable. You will see mass chaos, hysteria among the host culture if this continues.

Not seeing the correlation between fascism and forced multiculturalism is a kind of willful ignrorance we can't afford anymore. Advocating integration of deadening, sociopathic cultures into an already dying, uncreative milieu of debauched consumerist anti-culture is not hygienic, its not conducive to any kind of growth or freedom for the host culture or the immigrants.

There are solutions other than Nativist Isolationism and Multicultural Globalism. But, first you need to confront the truly malignant nature of what you're advocating. The border hopping hordes of totally autocratic, nepotists are not some kind of holy lamb we have to protect. They are humans who have chosen to flee from destiny and from taking responsiblity for their culture.

Our culture is sick, on the verge of death and we have done the same thing. Retreating into sensationalist 24 hour news media pandemonium. This whole board, Holla Forums, twitter are dedicated to this all encompassing memespace of constant bombardment of biased, one-sided, compressed bytes of information. I really wish people would stop trying to play the unending dialectical blame game that you and the tankies and the fascists and the liberals do. Its such an unproductive use of time.

Please stop shitposting for (you)'s

Even obvious bait derails the whole thread

From an economic perspective, immigration hurts the working class. When the labor supply increases, the cost of labor goes down. Basic supply and demand.

From a social perspective, non-homogeneity erodes all altruism and social cohesion, creating a low-trust society. This is pushed by governments to isolate individuals so they are totally dependent on the state in all aspects of their lives.

Immigration is bad because it drives down wages, divides the workers against one another, and doesn't even really help the immigrants since it plunges them into ghettoization, marginalization, and all the social ills that come with this like crime. Furthermore the amount of people who actually manage to escape the third world is minuscule and makes no dent in global poverty.

Therefore it is in the interests of the workers to limit immigration until socialism takes hold in the first world and spreads beyond, thus allowing the first world to work on the development of the their world and an end to global poverty. At this point national boundaries can be gradually dissolved and a global socialist republic can be established.

And we will all live happily ever after.

Yup, in space no less.