NationStates Jolt Archive

Therefore, we socialists support Immigration Control.

The greedy capitalists want immigration so that wages are kept low by increasing the supply of labour. They do this to maximise their profits. This means that the rich will get richer and the rest of us will stay poor. Immigration is just another method by the greedy capitalists who want to make sure that there is always lots of poverty and unemployment.

Therefore, we socialists support Immigration Control.

The greedy capitalists want immigration so that wages are kept low by increasing the supply of labour. They do this to maximise their profits. This means that the rich will get richer and the rest of us will stay poor. Immigration is just another method by the greedy capitalists who want to make sure that there is always lots of poverty and unemployment.

Fail

/thread

Are you sure you don't mean National Socialists?

Are you sure you don't mean National Socialists?

We are not Nazis we are National Communists. We do not go round invading other countries or killing jews. We believe in peace between neighboring countries.

Nazis weren't socialists anyway. Hitler gave lots of power to corporations and used "non-aryans" for slave labour.

Who are "we socialists"?

Not this one.

Let's rephrase:

Is immigration control a good thing? Can a welfare state like the Scandinavian ones handle unrestricted immigration? Is it important for an economy like the American one to have access to cheap labor?

On the other hand, with the standard of living being as high as it is in the industrialized countries, do we have a duty to allow immigrants into the country so they can take part and enjoy the same benefits as we have?

And unless we shut the borders completely, what is the best way to go about integrating the immigrants? Or should they just be left to their own devices?

If there is a regulated immigration system, should there be enforced sanctions for breaching the system? Should irregular immigrants be punished? Should they serve jail time? Should they be deported?

The immigrants who break the law in their new country of residence, should they be expelled? If yes, should any restrictions apply? Should they be expelled before or after serving time in their new country?

I'm sure I've just touched the surface here...

We are not Nazis we are National Communists. We do not go round invading other countries or killing jews. We believe in peace between neighboring countries.

Nazis weren't socialists anyway. Hitler gave lots of power to corporations and used "non-aryans" for slave labour.

I was born in RS Romania. Don't even fucking joke about that sort of thing mkay?

I'd like to say i'm a socialist but I disagree with you completely!

Immigration is beneficial to the host nation, its true, but would people REALLY be moving to a different country if they were being screwed over like that, if they want to be THAT screwed over they could stay in their own country!. I don't know of any immigrants that come to a country to be WORSE off than in their own country. Sure they might not be as well off as the native population (at least for a while) but surely if they want to leave the rest of their family, their job, their friends and their life behind them then I doubt they would do it lightly, meaning that while conditions may not be fantastic for migrants to capitalist or indeed communist or socialist countries, it must be better from what they have come from!

I was born in RS Romania. Don't even fucking joke about that sort of thing mkay?

What joke was I making?

I wasn't saying positive things about Hitler, I only said negative things about him.

What about emigration control? Hmm?

I'd like to say i'm a socialist but I disagree with you completely!

Immigration is beneficial to the host nation, its true, but would people REALLY be moving to a different country if they were being screwed over like that, if they want to be THAT screwed over they could stay in their own country!. I don't know of any immigrants that come to a country to be WORSE off than in their own country. Sure they might not be as well off as the native population (at least for a while) but surely if they want to leave the rest of their family, their job, their friends and their life behind them then I doubt they would do it lightly, meaning that while conditions may not be fantastic for migrants to capitalist or indeed communist or socialist countries, it must be better from what they have come from!

If the capitalist pigs screwed you in your own country, then start a socialist revolution in your own country and don't come and spoil our socialist paradise.

/thread

Therefore, we socialists support Immigration Control.

The greedy capitalists want immigration so that wages are kept low by increasing the supply of labour. They do this to maximise their profits. This means that the rich will get richer and the rest of us will stay poor. Immigration is just another method by the greedy capitalists who want to make sure that there is always lots of poverty and unemployment.

Ridiculous. Socialism is ostensibly about improving the conditions of the worker and the vast majority of immigrants are workers looking for a better life.

Now, you can dismiss this as them being "exploited by greedy capitalists" all you want; the fact of the matter is these workers do enjoy a better life in their new country than they did in the old one. (Otherwise they wouldn't be so keen on staying, would they?)

For a variety of reasons - usually, people leave a country for lack of employment (can't feed their family), political corruption, persecution, lack of education opportunities or general dissatisfaction.

But, if you claim to support improving the lives of workers, then you must support immigration. Otherwise, you're essentially telling these people - telling these workers - "No, you can't have a better life. Stay in your shit-hole of a country and watch your family murdered and/or starved to death."

Now, I'm not exactly a socialist, but I don't think a real socialist is apt to say that sort of thing.

I wasn't saying positive things about Hitler, I only said negative things about him.
Pure speculation here, but Romania also suffered quite badly under the communist dictatorship there. Oddly enough, the Stalinist structures there and in Albania were called "national communism" in an awe-inspiring rape of marxist language.

Ridiculous. Socialism is ostensibly about improving the conditions of the worker and the vast majority of immigrants are workers looking for a better life.

Now, you can dismiss this as them being "exploited by greedy capitalists" all you want; the fact of the matter is these workers do enjoy a better life in their new country than they did in the old one. (Otherwise they wouldn't be so keen on staying, would they?)

For a variety of reasons - usually, people leave a country for lack of employment (can't feed their family), political corruption, persecution, lack of education opportunities or general dissatisfaction.

But, if you claim to support improving the lives of workers, then you must support immigration. Otherwise, you're essentially telling these people - telling these workers - "No, you can't have a better life. Stay in your shit-hole of a country and watch your family murdered and/or starved to death."

Now, I'm not exactly a socialist, but I don't think a real socialist is apt to say that sort of thing.

We only want to improve the lives of OUR OWN workers. Immigrants would take jobs from our workers.

Let's rephrase:

^ If you look above, you'll find an intelligent human being!

Is immigration control a good thing? Can a welfare state like the Scandinavian ones handle unrestricted immigration? Is it important for an economy like the American one to have access to cheap labor?

Immigration control is a good thing. It stops unrestricted demographic influxes from dirupting a nation's society, culture, and economy. Could a Scandinavian welfare state handle unrestricted immigration? If it had immigration levels proportionate to America, probably not. Is it important for the American economy to have cheap labour? I suppose, but I'm not an economist.


On the other hand, with the standard of living being as high as it is in the industrialized countries, do we have a duty to allow immigrants into the country so they can take part and enjoy the same benefits as we have?

No. And, for the record, I abhore this type of thinking. Just because we, as in the Industrialised World, have a progressive economic policy that has served us well, does not give us some sort of moral obligation to let everyone else in to frolick in it. I'm not preaching Social Darwinism here, and saying that Westerners are some sort of master race. Nor am I neccessarily decrying immigration at all in this section. I'm just saying that we don't have a duty to take in Third-Worlders for a higher purpose.



And unless we shut the borders completely, what is the best way to go about integrating the immigrants? Or should they just be left to their own devices?

In my opinion, it all depends on what country they go into. America, for example, has a strong multicultural aspect. In the United States, they should be taught US civics and the English language, but be allowed to retain their customs and such. In, say, France, however, a nation with a very mononationalist social philosophy, more assimilation should occur.


If there is a regulated immigration system, should there be enforced sanctions for breaching the system? Should irregular immigrants be punished? Should they serve jail time? Should they be deported?

Certainly. Immigration law should be enforced, offenders should be punished by deportation.


The immigrants who break the law in their new country of residence, should they be expelled? If yes, should any restrictions apply? Should they be expelled before or after serving time in their new country?

I don't see why they should serve time before being deported if they indeed are deported. It just spends taxpayer dollars on feeding someone before you throw them over the fence. Should they be deported at all, though? I think it depends on the crime. Larcenry? Assault? Ship him off. But violating a zoning law or something should be handled as if the immigrant were a national.

I'm sure I've just touched the surface here...

Sadly, yes. But you've provided material for a constructive debate.

We only want to improve the lives of OUR OWN workers.

Oh, well, there you have it folks. Workers of the world unite, unless you happen to be born on the other side of an imaginary line, in which case you can go fuck yourself!

Immigrants would take jobs from our workers.

No one "takes your job." You get hired, you get fired, it's the employer's decision and not yours. Sort of like if you're going out with a girl, and she dumps you and starts going out with some other guy. The other guy didn't "steal your girlfriend," she's not property. Neither is a job.

So get over it, fella.

We only want to improve the lives of OUR OWN workers. Immigrants would take jobs from our workers.
That's very un-socialist. At least within the marxist framework, it isn't the geography of where you were born that makes you who you are (for example a "worker"), but the material conditions within which you find yourself in relation to labour and capital. So the socialist would say that a worker from France and a worker from Germany have more in common than that first worker and a French rich dude (avoiding the b-word here since it's been overused the past few weeks...).

Hence the socialists generally being against wars, which they see as people who belong to the same group being sent to slaughter each other by the people who are their real enemies/exploiters.

The most prominent break with that tradition of looking at it came after WWI, when a certain Italian socialist by the name of Mussolini realised that the workers cared more about the nation than their economic class, bringing down his world view and coming up with a new system...

Therefore, we socialists support Immigration Control.

The greedy capitalists want immigration so that wages are kept low by increasing the supply of labour. They do this to maximise their profits. This means that the rich will get richer and the rest of us will stay poor. Immigration is just another method by the greedy capitalists who want to make sure that there is always lots of poverty and unemployment.


Epic Fail!:mad:

"All those guilty os soft living in the days of old and who did not care for the peasant must confess and they will be pardoned".

This will be year zero, nothing has gone before.

"All those guilty os soft living in the days of old and who did not care for the peasant must confess and they will be pardoned".

This will be year zero, nothing has gone before.

...stoner troll is stoned?

The reason why I bring up emigration control is because I've noticed a tendency for socialist countries- particularly stalinist countries -to have to control not only who enters, but also who leaves.

Sounds a bit lie "The Road to Serfdom" to me. *nod*

Are you sure your not getting communism mixed up with fascism!?

You only want to improve the lives of your own workers (meaning the workers and people that are originally from your country), meaning your actually racist and are just trying to cover it up as some sort of twisted caring statement to help people?

Honestly go read the communist manifesto before you start ranting about communism and socialism in here!

Let's rephrase:

Is immigration control a good thing? Can a welfare state like the Scandinavian ones handle unrestricted immigration? Is it important for an economy like the American one to have access to cheap labor?

Immigration Control essentially means everything that is not a completely open and absolutely unregulated flow of people across borders. This is clearly unsustainable so some degree of immigration control is essential. The cheap labour, it should be remembered, however, comes (in Europe, at least) primarily from illegal immigrants, since legal ones tend to protected to some degree by labour laws, including in the UK, the minimum wage (in most occupations). Ergo, I don't see immigration controls as an attempt by existing governments to ship cheap labour into the country, rather to keep potentially expensive refugees out.

On the other hand, with the standard of living being as high as it is in the industrialized countries, do we have a duty to allow immigrants into the country so they can take part and enjoy the same benefits as we have?

I'd say no. We don't have an obligation to share the wealth of the United Kingdom with non citizens. They are not the problems of my nation, so I see no reason why my nation should be obliged serve their interests, for they re not it's citizens, and ergo, not it's responsibility. However, to aid our own interests abroad, to encrich our cultural life, and to create goodwill and friendship abroad, having immigrants work and study here, learn about our culture, government and our perspective, and return home with these things, can only benefit the United Kingdom in the long run.

And unless we shut the borders completely, what is the best way to go about integrating the immigrants? Or should they just be left to their own devices?

I feel that having people constantly come and go rather than "settle" here is in the interests of the United Kingdom. In my own view, the aim is for them to return their home country with bonds and links to the UK that will foster a beneficial relationship, and with money from their work, and ideas for a better life that will give the former immigrant and his family a positive view of our culture that he will share. The money meanwhile will benefit the other nation, and economically link us together.

For those who do settle here, language proficiency, academic and cultural education is the key. Ghettoisation will lead to problems in the long term, as has been shown before. Picking the best and most culturally integrated from their communities and encouraging them to hold responsible positions within our government will help bind the various communities together. Also, encouraging access to and interaction with institutions and customs of our culture to understand our value system and customs.

If there is a regulated immigration system, should there be enforced sanctions for breaching the system? Should irregular immigrants be punished? Should they serve jail time? Should they be deported?

Yes, because the law is the law, and violations should be punished. However the immigration system law should be seen to be fair in the first place. You cannot blame people for breaking the rules of an unfair system. I dislike how the UK immigration systems punishes "illegals" from Iraq or Indonesia but ignores those from the Emirates and Australia.

The immigrants who break the law in their new country of residence, should they be expelled? If yes, should any restrictions apply? Should they be expelled before or after serving time in their new country?

I think there should be a cut off line. Once someone is a Permanent Resident then they are just that, and should be treated to the law as any UK Citizen would. Before that, law breakers and their dependents should be expelled, and not permitted to return. Also any gains made from their crime should be seized.

The problem with this issue is that people tend not to actually distinguish between asylum seekers (refugees), migrants (people who actually just move there for the climate or family ect.) and economic migrants (people who move to another country for a better financial situation and to do jobs for a higher wage even if they are actually over qualified for the job they are doing)

In Europe (at least the old part of the EU) economic migrants tend to be legal, as its technically legal to move from one EU country to the other without a visa, and I think you can work in another EU country fairly freely too. In other countries like the US this is different, for example Mexican migrants wouldn't USUALLY fall into an asylum seeker category as Mexico is relatively stable and fairly safe when compared with certain African countries, and Mexicans migrants in the US would usually fall into economic migrants or just migrants, legal or not.

Migrants or ex-pats in Europe tend to be people like British people moving to Spain or the South of France and not contributing to the economy in any real form other than spending money (they are glorified permanent tourists), they are also legal in Europe as long as they come from another EU country, or in the case of the Britain come from a Commonwealth country. Pretty much all of these would actually be legal as it is for leisure and a better lifestyle rather than moving to a better country for more serious reasons.

Lastly are Asylum seekers, people who have either been forced out of their own country or have had to leave because of political instability, famine, natural disaster, war, ect. these tend to be (in Europe at least) the ones that would fall into illegal immigrant status, as usually there isn't time for them to either get a visa or the money to legally get into the country. Also there could be political issues about getting OUT of the country they are from. This category of immigrant would tend to be the ones that get screwed over by the native population, they are much more desperate than even the economic migrants and are therefore much more willing to work for lower than the minimum wage, or get into crime or prostitution ect. HOWEVER as they are the most vulnerable level of immigrant then I personally don't think (as long as their claim to asylum is legitimate) they should be rejected and we should help them!

My point is that usually you can't generalize when it comes to immigrants, every immigrant is different, in the country for a different reason and with varying degrees of legality and needs.

On the whole I think western country are fairly good at immigration laws (obviously with the odd exception), I don't governments use migrants as cheap labour, maybe individuals do to the most needy but that is illegal in many different ways (at least in the UK), so I don't think you can actually say that its a western civilisation problem!

^ If you look above, you'll find an intelligent human being!
:tongue:

And yay! You took the time and effort to answer my jumble of immigration-related questions! :fluffle:

So some comments of mine:

Immigration control is a good thing. It stops unrestricted demographic influxes from dirupting a nation's society, culture, and economy. Could a Scandinavian welfare state handle unrestricted immigration? If it had immigration levels proportionate to America, probably not.
But the Scandinavian system is much more expansive than the system in the US, and surely more vulnerable to ordinary use by recent immigrants (i.e. people who "haven't contributed before", thus placing an extra strain on the system) - and abuse. (Some people will undoubtedly see it as an easy way to make money, just like some "natives" do.)


In my opinion, it all depends on what country they go into. America, for example, has a strong multicultural aspect. In the United States, they should be taught US civics and the English language, but be allowed to retain their customs and such. In, say, France, however, a nation with a very mononationalist social philosophy, more assimilation should occur.
I also think we should look at what country the immigrants hail from. For some reason, Somalians seem to generally fare better in the US than in Europe where integration is concerned. I've heard said that one of the reasons is that the welfare systems in Europe gives them what they need so they don't need to learn the language/culture etc, while they need to work in the US - where they don't get as many handouts. There could be something to that.


Certainly. Immigration law should be enforced, offenders should be punished by deportation.
Do you agree that there should be limits? If you've lived in the country under a false identity for, say, 15 years and you've got a family and a job, and you've never broken other laws - a deportation might be too harsh in such a case?


I don't see why they should serve time before being deported if they indeed are deported. It just spends taxpayer dollars on feeding someone before you throw them over the fence.
I think they would need to serve time somewhere though, or else the general public might loose faith in the justice system. However, in some cases it could be wise to have them serve time in their home countries. It could even be an effective deterrent: If you break the law here you'll do hard time in a Turkish jail!


Should they be deported at all, though? I think it depends on the crime. Larcenry? Assault? Ship him off. But violating a zoning law or something should be handled as if the immigrant were a national.
Hehe, I would agree that it should depend on the severity of the crime. :)


Sadly, yes. But you've provided material for a constructive debate.
One can hope. The OP didn't really offer much, so I went for a constructive threadjack! :tongue:

Ergo, I don't see immigration controls as an attempt by existing governments to ship cheap labour into the country, rather to keep potentially expensive refugees out.
I think you need to exclude refugees from this debate for the time being, because they come with a set of rights and responsibilities of their own compared to other migrants. (And I'm using the term refugee to mean asylum seeker here.)

A country who is party to the Refugee Convention) has a duty to accept (real) refugees, no matter how expensive they may be.


I feel that having people constantly come and go rather than "settle" here is in the interests of the United Kingdom. In my own view, the aim is for them to return their home country with bonds and links to the UK that will foster a beneficial relationship, and with money from their work, and ideas for a better life that will give the former immigrant and his family a positive view of our culture that he will share. The money meanwhile will benefit the other nation, and economically link us together.
That's like how the German policy of "guest workers" were meant to work, wasn't it?


For those who do settle here, language proficiency, academic and cultural education is the key. Ghettoisation will lead to problems in the long term, as has been shown before. Picking the best and most culturally integrated from their communities and encouraging them to hold responsible positions within our government will help bind the various communities together. Also, encouraging access to and interaction with institutions and customs of our culture to understand our value system and customs.
This sounds like good ideas. But how can we make it work? We can't force people to get educated and take part in government. Can we?


Yes, because the law is the law, and violations should be punished. However the immigration system law should be seen to be fair in the first place. You cannot blame people for breaking the rules of an unfair system. I dislike how the UK immigration systems punishes "illegals" from Iraq or Indonesia but ignores those from the Emirates and Australia.
I didn't know they did that.

But I agree that the immigration system should be as fair as possible, and people trying to get into the country should get a speedy and equal treatment.



I think there should be a cut off line. Once someone is a Permanent Resident then they are just that, and should be treated to the law as any UK Citizen would. Before that, law breakers and their dependents should be expelled, and not permitted to return.
I agree with you in part, though I would say that the cut-off line should be when you obtain citizenship. (It should be progressively more difficult to be expelled the more rights you get though, so it would be harder when you've become a permanent resident than it was before.)

However, I'm not sure if it would be fair to expell their dependents also - given that they haven't broken the law. That would be, in my mind, unjust.

It would be better to rather have a time-limited expulsion (as many countries operate with) than not have an expulsion option at all in those cases though... Hmm...

The problem with this issue is that people tend not to actually distinguish between asylum seekers (refugees), migrants (people who actually just move there for the climate or family ect.) and economic migrants (people who move to another country for a better financial situation and to do jobs for a higher wage even if they are actually over qualified for the job they are doing)

In Europe (at least the old part of the EU) economic migrants tend to be legal, as its technically legal to move from one EU country to the other without a visa, and I think you can work in another EU country fairly freely too. In other countries like the US this is different, for example Mexican migrants wouldn't USUALLY fall into an asylum seeker category as Mexico is relatively stable and fairly safe when compared with certain African countries, and Mexicans migrants in the US would usually fall into economic migrants or just migrants, legal or not.

Migrants or ex-pats in Europe tend to be people like British people moving to Spain or the South of France and not contributing to the economy in any real form other than spending money (they are glorified permanent tourists), they are also legal in Europe as long as they come from another EU country, or in the case of the Britain come from a Commonwealth country. Pretty much all of these would actually be legal as it is for leisure and a better lifestyle rather than moving to a better country for more serious reasons.

Lastly are Asylum seekers, people who have either been forced out of their own country or have had to leave because of political instability, famine, natural disaster, war, ect. these tend to be (in Europe at least) the ones that would fall into illegal immigrant status, as usually there isn't time for them to either get a visa or the money to legally get into the country. Also there could be political issues about getting OUT of the country they are from. This category of immigrant would tend to be the ones that get screwed over by the native population, they are much more desperate than even the economic migrants and are therefore much more willing to work for lower than the minimum wage, or get into crime or prostitution ect. HOWEVER as they are the most vulnerable level of immigrant then I personally don't think (as long as their claim to asylum is legitimate) they should be rejected and we should help them!

My point is that usually you can't generalize when it comes to immigrants, every immigrant is different, in the country for a different reason and with varying degrees of legality and needs.

On the whole I think western country are fairly good at immigration laws (obviously with the odd exception), I don't governments use migrants as cheap labour, maybe individuals do to the most needy but that is illegal in many different ways (at least in the UK), so I don't think you can actually say that its a western civilisation problem!

Nuance. I like :)

Damn Immigants...Even when it as the bears I knew it was the immigants.

cookie for the reference.

Damn Immigants...Even when it as the bears I knew it was the immigants.

cookie for the reference.

Cynics without borders?

You seem to be narrowing immigrant down to mean refugee, if I'm following the above statements correctly. Somalia, in particular, is a war-torn country, and those emigrating from said nation can be said to be motivated by a sense of self-preservation, not necessarily a search for a better life. As such, we can explain the difference between the Euro-somali and the American Somali by observing that the former is content with survival, while the latter seems willing to work to better his lot in life. Depending on circumstances, it can be argued that the European immigrant is a refugee, while the American immigrant to a larger degree is a foreign worker.

This distinction is important. Refugees are ever-present in a society of warring nations, and a drain on any receiving nation's resources. As such, immigration control becomes important to limit the drain. Foreign workers are a fluxuating occurrence. Developing nations are a great source of foreign workers, having such a low standard of living that people are encouraged to make their fortune elsewhere. However, as former natives settle elsewhere they ease the burden of the remaining population, and often provide financial aid to remaining relatives, thus aiding in raising the standards back home. Eventually, the standards become high enough that people can afford to remain home, and the emigration numbers drop to almost nothing.

Thus, for a meaningful debate on immigration, remember to distinctly seperate between those who are seeking a better lot in life, who can be considered a benefit for society, and those fleeing for their lives, presenting potential security risks and social expenses.

Did Andaras get banned? If not, this could turn into The Incredible Hulk with Commies.

:D

Nuance. I like :)

Glad you approve lol

Costa Plenty I did kinda say that... but YAY someone else is being sane too!

(lol jokes don't mean to offend anyone else!... DON'T INVADE ME!!)

I think you need to exclude refugees from this debate for the time being, because they come with a set of rights and responsibilities of their own compared to other migrants. (And I'm using the term refugee to mean asylum seeker here.)
A country who is party to the Refugee Convention) has a duty to accept (real) refugees, no matter how expensive they may be.

Apologies for the inexact term. I actually meant Asylum Seekers.

That's like how the German policy of "guest workers" were meant to work, wasn't it?

I'm not sure. I always assumed the German system was intended more to fulfill their labour needs than other concerns, but I'm not sure.

This sounds like good ideas. But how can we make it work? We can't force people to get educated and take part in government. Can we?

We could force them, but I'd prefer an approach that provides benefits for doing so, with more carrot and less stick. One possibility would be that the waiting time would be citizens have to serve to apply for citizenship been reduced in stages for those who contribute most significantly to the cultural life of the country. If your family has given us a gifted violinist or soprano, who has done us proud at an international event, then we welcome the family as new citizens.

I didn't know they did that.

It's not official, but it is rampant.

But I agree that the immigration system should be as fair as possible, and people trying to get into the country should get a speedy and equal treatment.

As with any aspect of the law, I feel. It always angers me when people seem to regard immigration law a somehow different, and that the usual standards of justice are turned on their head. Immigrants are always presumed guilty until proven innocent :(

I agree with you in part, though I would say that the cut-off line should be when you obtain citizenship. (It should be progressively more difficult to be expelled the more rights you get though, so it would be harder when you've become a permanent resident than it was before.)

Interesting point. The reason I include PR's is that in some cases there are complication s to why people can't obtain citizenship, for example long term refugees who may be surrendering some eventual rights to return if they surrender their existing citizenship. What I would do is make PR status harder to get, essentially as a last ditch solution when someone would become a citizen if it wasn't for some genuine complication. To get this, they would still have to give their loyalty and allegiance to the United Kingdom.

However, I'm not sure if it would be fair to expel their dependents also - given that they haven't broken the law. That would be, in my mind, unjust.

It's simply a part of my own ideology. A person is less likely to do wrong if his family collectively stand to loose. Peer pressure can work both ways.

It would be better to rather have a time-limited expulsion (as many countries operate with) than not have an expulsion option at all in those cases though... Hmm...[/QUOTE]

There is a rationale for that, though personally I just prefer to have a simple, easily understood system that is inherently fair, but firm, whcih is fairly typical of my ideals for a legal system. Also I see no reason why a prooven criminal should be allowed back to the UK when he has already abused the nation's hospitality. As I wrote earlier, I don't feel the UK has an obligation to do this, merely that it's mutually beneficial. I don't think it'd be beneficial for the UK to readmit criminals it has previously expelled, though.

We only want to improve the lives of OUR OWN workers. Immigrants would take jobs from our workers.

workers within a 3km radius of my house, unite!

But the Scandinavian system is much more expansive than the system in the US, and surely more vulnerable to ordinary use by recent immigrants (i.e. people who "haven't contributed before", thus placing an extra strain on the system) - and abuse. (Some people will undoubtedly see it as an easy way to make money, just like some "natives" do.)

Well, according to this (http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____26041.asp) 17.3% of Swedish population is of foreign background*.

Does that mean Sweden is a failure as a scandinavian system? ;)

* Foreign background include foreign-born and swedish-born with two foreign-born parents.

We only want to improve the lives of OUR OWN workers.
What the fuck happened to solidarity?
Immigrants would take jobs from our workers.
So you wish to deny the proletariat from overseas honest labour to favour your own who, seeing as you come from an English-speaking country (I would assume) have the world at their fingertips anyway?

Letting people overseas starve is not socialism, it is nothing but an abuse of human rights.

The reason why I bring up emigration control is because I've noticed a tendency for socialist countries- particularly stalinist countries -to have to control not only who enters, but also who leaves.

True, true -- the only way you can leave North Korea is via mangonel. ;)

Cynics without borders?

no, fail.
http://www.angrianan.com/list/2008/images/moe.jpg

workers within a 3km radius of my house, unite!

:tongue:

The distinction is irrelevant. A good idea is a good idea regardless of it's origins - consider that the marvelous Interstate Highway system of the United States is based on the German Autobahns, created by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. One of the greatest strengths of liberal democracies are their ability to absorb others' good ideas and run with them.

...the German Autobahns, created by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party...
That's a myth (http://german.about.com/library/blgermyth08.htm), by the way.

Therefore, we socialists support Immigration Control.

The greedy capitalists want immigration so that wages are kept low by increasing the supply of labour. They do this to maximise their profits. This means that the rich will get richer and the rest of us will stay poor. Immigration is just another method by the greedy capitalists who want to make sure that there is always lots of poverty and unemployment.
Indeed.

Planned economy tries to abolish unemployment. Let us suppose it is possible, while preserving the capitalist system, to reduce unemployment to a certain minimum. But surely, no capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labor market, to ensure a supply of cheap labor.

I support strong immigration controls in a socialist state to make sure only those who want to participate in socialist society get in. You have to keep out the black martereers, hoarders, bourgeois, speculators, pimps, drug dealers and other social scum.

But I have to say, you sound like a bit of a tankie and a nationalist, I suggest you correct yourself on these points by reading 'Foundations of Leninism' by Stalin and 'Imperialism and the Revolution' by Enver Hoxha. Also 'State and Revolution' by Lenin would hurt either.

I support strong immigration controls in a socialist state to make sure only those who want to participate in socialist society get in. You have to keep out the black martereers, hoarders, bourgeois, speculators, pimps, drug dealers and other social scum.

Isn't it also true, however, that free immigration and emigration early on in the development process can be a good way to bring in talent, alleviate structural unemployment, and supply funds necessary for industrialization?

This is speaking from the perspective of a CPE, of course.

Therefore, we socialists support Immigration Control.

The greedy capitalists want immigration so that wages are kept low by increasing the supply of labour. They do this to maximise their profits. This means that the rich will get richer and the rest of us will stay poor. Immigration is just another method by the greedy capitalists who want to make sure that there is always lots of poverty and unemployment.

This argument implies that there's somehow a fixed number of jobs to go around, which is nonsense. Immigrants represent an influx of physical and human capital and tend to create rather than "steal" jobs or produce unemployment.

Restrictions on immigration which generate a class of undocumented workers willing/forced to work without wage or safety protections (a black market for labour) does depress wages, although it has little effect on unemployment. It's an inherently unsocialist idea from where I'm standing.

That's a myth (http://german.about.com/library/blgermyth08.htm), by the way.

Thank you for that, NL. I was unaware that the system predated Hitler's ascension to power.

So in other words it's best to save one's own proleteriat by barring other proleteriat from coming to work, seeing as the very nature of the bourgeois oppression forces them to migrate to where they are better able to find labor that makes their life just that much more liveable?

That's Socialist. Really, it is.

I said this the last time there was that immigrant uprising a few years ago...

I think it's important to feel responsibility to those outside your own borders. To think as a global citizen. It's unsustainable for each country to focus only on their own population and ignore the world around them. Our world is far to interconnected for that to work we are constantly being influenced by the actions of others outside our borders and our actions are affecting them. So to be interested in the plight of your own proletariats but to ignore your neighbors' who might benefit from a chance to immigrate seems short-sighted. Of course there are difficulties involved with immigration and challenges to be faced but I believe that it is an important part of our world dynamic. And I know for example that my country Canada needs immigration to survive. We have an aging and decreasing population we require immigrants to help keep our country and our economy healthy.

Isn't it also true, however, that free immigration and emigration early on in the development process can be a good way to bring in talent, alleviate structural unemployment, and supply funds necessary for industrialization?

This is speaking from the perspective of a CPE, of course.
Maybe if the country is like semi-feudal and with few skilled labor, but for a revolution in a more advanced capitalist country it would simply require closing the borders so opportunists can't try and destroy the nation by triggering mass exodus for little reason.

Maybe if the country is like semi-feudal and with few skilled labor, but for a revolution in a more advanced capitalist country it would simply require closing the borders so opportunists can't try and destroy the nation by triggering mass exodus for little reason.

Which was why the Berlin Wall and the inner-German border were necessary for economic development in East Germany and Czechoslovakia. Mass emigration and the inappropriate use of piatletka-style Soviet economic development techniques led to a pretty serious economic malaise that didn't resolve itself until after the walls were elected.

Of course, the moral implications of these actions are a whole other discussion that doesn't really relate to the economic reality of the situation.

I do not want to bypass Vetalia's good post.

Andara do you live as a regular average citizen in one of these socialist paradise nations like Cuba you support so much?

Are you posting from one of those nations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andaras
Maybe if the country is like semi-feudal and with few skilled labor, but for a revolution in a more advanced capitalist country it would simply require closing the borders so opportunists can't try and destroy the nation by triggering mass exodus for little reason.


Which was why the Berlin Wall and the inner-German border were necessary for economic development in East Germany and Czechoslovakia. Mass emigration and the inappropriate use of piatletka-style Soviet economic development techniques led to a pretty serious economic malaise that didn't resolve itself until after the walls were elected.

Of course, the moral implications of these actions are a whole other discussion that doesn't really relate to the economic reality of the situation.

Which was why the Berlin Wall and the inner-German border were necessary for economic development in East Germany and Czechoslovakia. Mass emigration and the inappropriate use of piatletka-style Soviet economic development techniques led to a pretty serious economic malaise that didn't resolve itself until after the walls were elected.

Of course, the moral implications of these actions are a whole other discussion that doesn't really relate to the economic reality of the situation.
West Berlin was a capitalist colony in the middle of socialist Germany.

I do not want to bypass Vetalia's good post.

Andara do you live as a regular average citizen in one of these socialist paradise nations like Cuba you support so much?

Are you posting from one of those nations?

Oh great, another child of an angry Cuban emigre.

Go away please.

Oh great, another child of an angry Cuban emigre.

Go away please.

Sorry, since you love those type of socialist paradise nations, would it not make sense to live in one? I will supply the raft across 90 miles of shark infested waters, lol.

Immigration control is not capitalist or socialist, it is immigration control.

Sorry, since you love those type of socialist paradise nations, would it not make sense to live in one? I will supply the raft across 90 miles of shark infested waters, lol.

Immigration control is not capitalist or socialist, it is immigration control.

Eaten by sharks, now THAT is an adequate punishment for reactionaries.

Eaten by sharks, now THAT is an adequate punishment for reactionaries.

Andaras: Showing that Communists really ARE evil!

Andaras: Showing that Communists really ARE evil!
'Good'? 'Evil'? Please do not bother me with your petite-bourgeois moralism.

'Good'? 'Evil'? Please do not bother me with your petite-bourgeois moralism.

I have never been able to figure out wether or not Andaras is serious, or a very very good satirist.

Andaras: Showing that Communists really ARE evil!

Sometimes I think Andaras is not for real, just having fun with those views.

Andara once answerd a fellow poster on something like Andaras with a lol and comment, like Andaras knew better that the comment Andaras made.

Originally Posted by Miami Shores
Sorry, since you love those type of socialist paradise nations, would it not make sense to live in one? I will supply the raft across 90 miles of shark infested waters, lol.
Immigration control is not capitalist or socialist, it is immigration control.

Originally Posted by Andaras
Eaten by sharks, now THAT is an adequate punishment for reactionaries.

In that sense and context, lol I love that post.

Good one Andaras.

Hey you all, we got to have a little humor on this forum to get along.

I have never been able to figure out wether or not Andaras is serious, or a very very good satirist.
Look, if you are not able to be objective and scientific, and to use dialectics, then I have little time for you and your emotionalist bourgeois 'morality'.

Morality is defined by the ruling class based on their economic interests.

Morality is defined by the ruling class based on their economic interests.

I think, my friend, it is a little more complicated than that, and though it's an interesting discussion in and of itself, I don't want to threadjack.

Look, if you are not able to be objective and scientific, and to use dialectics, then I have little time for you and your emotionalist bourgeois 'morality'.
There is nothing objective or dialectic about people getting eaten by sharks. That's taking sides and then making moral judgements based on that. It's the departure from marxism as an attempt at science, towards marxism as a piece of political ideology.

Look, if you are not able to be objective and scientific, and to use dialectics, then I have little time for you and your emotionalist bourgeois 'morality'.

Morality is defined by the ruling class based on their economic interests.

Blargles???????????

We seem to be straying off topic here:eek2:

If the capitalist pigs screwed you in your own country, then start a socialist revolution in your own country and don't come and spoil our socialist paradise.

Our socialist paradise? Now what is it about these three words that seem totalty un-social to me?

Ohh ohh could it be the inherent them and us mentality? Could it?

Morality is not defined by the ruling class and there economic interests, that’s just a load of bollocks. Andras, just because we live in a capitalist society doesn’t mean we are devoid of all decency.

Allot of morality can be seen in religion, something you commies don’t like. But even atheists just know, somehow, what is good and what is bad. Murder is bad; giving the old lady the bus on your seat is good.

So are you saying communists don’t have morality? Is that why Stalin and the party were able to get away with killing millions, because they have no decency or morality?

Actually, there is no point trying to reason with you Andras, you will just come out with a load of idealistic rubbish which doesn’t actually work. That and you are quite the hypocrite, seeing as you live in Australia, I think.

Therefore, we socialists support Immigration Control.

The greedy capitalists want immigration so that wages are kept low by increasing the supply of labour.

...to put it more clearly, non-regulated immigration (illegal immigration) is a form of salary dumping (and workers' rights dumping), and as such highly favourable to the exploiters. Illegal immigrants don't have rights, or at least they don't have the means to get their human rights respected (take the right to healthcare - as humans they have the right to healthcare, but they don't go to an hospital lest they get discovered and expelled).

Also, the non-regulated immigration raises the level of ethnical tensions and conflict between the local lower classes and the immigrants: "they're here to steal our jobs". This, of course, leads to the working class voting mostly for right-wing parties (who promise to apply harsher measures against the immigrants, while reducing workers' rights).

Regulated immigration, on the other hand, is a totally different thing.

As Dürrenmatt said, referring to the italian immigration in Switzerland: "we wanted workforce; instead, human beings arrived". Regulated, legal immigration can do much for internationalisation of the awareness of the working class, and of the workers' rights - and for the lessening of interethnical tensions.

Going old-style, an illegal immigrant is a lumpenproletarian, a regular immigrant is (at the very least) a proletarian.

Morality is not defined by the ruling class and there economic interests, that’s just a load of bollocks. Andras, just because we live in a capitalist society doesn’t mean we are devoid of all decency.


You seem to be mixing up two different things: the moral of the entity called "State" by Hegel (the State can be seen as having a 'persona' of sorts), and the ethics of single human beings.

Personal ethics are... well... personal, while the moral standards of the State are determined by whomever (or whatever class) detains the political (or the cultural) power. See "Die Grundrissen der deutschen Ideologie": it doesn't describe the ideology of the single German, it describes the ideology of the german society/states.

Apologies for the inexact term. I actually meant Asylum Seekers.
No apologies necessary :p I was just being demanding and felt the need to point it out :tongue:


I'm not sure. I always assumed the German system was intended more to fulfill their labour needs than other concerns, but I'm not sure.
Yes, but as far as I know, the idea was that the labour was supposed to return to their home countries after having fulfilled the needs of German employers.


We could force them, but I'd prefer an approach that provides benefits for doing so, with more carrot and less stick. One possibility would be that the waiting time would be citizens have to serve to apply for citizenship been reduced in stages for those who contribute most significantly to the cultural life of the country. If your family has given us a gifted violinist or soprano, who has done us proud at an international event, then we welcome the family as new citizens.
Hmm... I'm vary of such special handling, especially if we reward people for something they haven't done but someone else in their family have.

But I don't know what the best way is.


Interesting point. The reason I include PR's is that in some cases there are complication s to why people can't obtain citizenship, for example long term refugees who may be surrendering some eventual rights to return if they surrender their existing citizenship. What I would do is make PR status harder to get, essentially as a last ditch solution when someone would become a citizen if it wasn't for some genuine complication. To get this, they would still have to give their loyalty and allegiance to the United Kingdom.
Well, the way I see it is that if they've been granted asylum they're protected against expulsion, so they're safe. And those who haven't gotten asylum but have got a residence permit for humanitarian reasons, they would need to make a choice. When they've stayed in the country long enough to be granted citizenship, they have to decide whether they'll want to be a citizen of the host country or if they don't. And if they choose not to, they won't get the protection against expulsion a citizen has.

And those who choose to apply for citizenship but wants to go back some day... I don't know if the countries where they usually hail from tend to have stringent rules about citizenship. For example, I've been told that Iraq doesn't...


It's simply a part of my own ideology. A person is less likely to do wrong if his family collectively stand to loose. Peer pressure can work both ways.
But what about those who've gotten families in the host country? An immigrant married with a British citizen, for example? With a child who's also gotten British citizenship?

I think it could become very complicated very quickly.


There is a rationale for that, though personally I just prefer to have a simple, easily understood system that is inherently fair, but firm, whcih is fairly typical of my ideals for a legal system. Also I see no reason why a prooven criminal should be allowed back to the UK when he has already abused the nation's hospitality. As I wrote earlier, I don't feel the UK has an obligation to do this, merely that it's mutually beneficial. I don't think it'd be beneficial for the UK to readmit criminals it has previously expelled, though.
Fair point.

Would that also be the case where he's got family (children especially) in the country?

And would you differentiate between the different types of crimes here, or would that be done before deciding whether or not to expell him?

Well, according to this (http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____26041.asp) 17.3% of Swedish population is of foreign background*.

Does that mean Sweden is a failure as a scandinavian system? ;)

* Foreign background include foreign-born and swedish-born with two foreign-born parents.
I should have added a question mark. :$

Sweden works well, and could serve as evidence that the fears are unfounded. On the other hand, they do have areas where lack of integration is a serious problem. If the influx of immigrants keep at the current level, could that lead to bigger problems, or will it even out in the end?