The reality of immigration

Celtiberian wrote:Anyone concerned with assisting the working class should oppose immigration.

Actually immigration is quite good for the "working class." Immigration only becomes bad for the working class when you introduce government sponsored redistribution of wealth programs. Once you do that you have people competing for scare resources instead of unlimited abundant opportunities.

I'll give you a real example from history. America until the early 1900s had unrestricted open immigration. If you could make it to Ellis Island you were a citizen. And every immigrant who came to America immigrated to a job. They voted with their feet because they believed they had more economic opportunity & freedom in America than any alternative place they could go. Now most of the nation opposes immigration, we have a quota system and illegal immigration is quite the political topic. What changed? Only one thing: the New Deal. Immigration becomes a bad thing when you have people immigrating into a welfare system. Then with each new addition to the system everyone has less. When you have immigration, like America had in the past, every immigrant adds to the economy because they cannot immigrate unless they can work. See its only bad government interference in the free market which takes something that is economically favorable to everyone (which immigration is) and makes it a bad thing.

That's because most contemporary Leftists don't possess an adequate understanding of economics

I couldn't agree more, there are a great many people who don't understand economics. Beyond that there are a great additional amount of the remainder who think they understand economics but only understand the surface level result they see not the underlying force that set it in motion.

V for Valjean wrote:Actually immigration is quite good for the "working class." Immigration only becomes bad for the working class when you introduce government sponsored redistribution of wealth programs. Once you do that you have people competing for scare resources instead of unlimited abundant opportunities.

Hahahahahahaha. Okay, really? Have you ever met anyone that actually thinks that they have unlimited opportunities? Leave the hyperbole out since it just makes you sound silly.

I'll give you a real example from history. America until the early 1900s had unrestricted open immigration. If you could make it to Ellis Island you were a citizen. And every immigrant who came to America immigrated to a job. They voted with their feet because they believed they had more economic opportunity & freedom in America than any alternative place they could go. Now most of the nation opposes immigration, we have a quota system and illegal immigration is quite the political topic. What changed?

Women entered the labor force, computers and machines eliminated the need for many workers, and the midwest and west became settled and developed. All these led to the labor shortage that had been in effect for much of the history of the United States was gone.

Only one thing: the New Deal. Immigration becomes a bad thing when you have people immigrating into a welfare system. Then with each new addition to the system everyone has less.

Do you think that the amount of immigrants and the labor that they provided really didn't compensate for the wealth that they generated? A lot of immigrants worked themselves to exhaustion every day to try to give their families a better life. They are and were not leeches. They certainly put more into the system than they got out of it so your point is mute. What you say could have been true for an immigrant that arrived at the age of 45 and retired with full social security benefits but I doubt that happened often enough for your point to be true.

When you have immigration, like America had in the past, every immigrant adds to the economy because they cannot immigrate unless they can work.

Can you show me how that is much different now?

See its only bad government interference in the free market which takes something that is economically favorable to everyone (which immigration is) and makes it a bad thing.

You didn't even talk about how it would be favorable to everyone. You just said that they add to the economy, which in this case goes mostly to the wealthy. In short, you still haven't proven squat.

I couldn't agree more, there are a great many people who don't understand economics. Beyond that there are a great additional amount of the remainder who think they understand economics but only understand the surface level result they see not the underlying force that set it in motion.

Enlighten us in regards to these supremely causal forces you mention.

Red Aegis wrote:unlimited opportunities? Leave the hyperbole out since it just makes you sound silly.

Of course there are unlimited opportunities under capitalism. Its found in the corporate system. Anyone can come to America and found a corporation. 75% of the over 3,000,000 millionaires in this nation over the last 100 years did just that. They're the chinese man who runs the dry cleaning shop you use and the indian who owns the gas station on the corner.

But facts aside, since imagery seems to be more your think look at how people vote with their feet. Ask yourself, is it China who has to put up border guards to stop people from fleeing to Hong Kong or Hong Kong who has to try and keep its people from fleeing to China? Was it West Germany who had to put up a wall to keep its citizens in or East Germany?

Women entered the labor force, computers and machines eliminated the need for many workers, and the midwest and west became settled and developed. All these led to the labor shortage that had been in effect for much of the history of the United States was gone.

That's just not correct. I live in Kansas and I can tell you the midwest is largely unsettled still to this day. I lived in Indiana before that and across the Midwest I'd be surprised if 5% of the land available has a city on it. The tech industry developed in the late 1980s. These things have no beearing on immigration patters that changed in 1905.

Do you think that the amount of immigrants and the labor that they provided really didn't compensate for the wealth that they generated? A lot of immigrants worked themselves to exhaustion every day to try to give their families a better life.

And which system is it again you believe rewards hard work? You think the Soviet Commisar rewards hard work? No, the hardest working most productive laborer earned the same as the least productive. That in turn eliminated the benefit of being productive. That is why every communist & socialist country in human history has fallen behind its capitalist counterpart in a very short period of time. Whereas in America the Pakistani immigrant who opened a hotel is now a millionaire, the Vietnamese immigrant who opened a restaurant is now a millionaire. 80% of the millionaires in America are first generation affluent, 75% describe themselves as entreprenuers, and on average 21% of their wealth is held in their own private business. But again, just ask yourself how people vote with their feet. Is it Cuba having to rescue Americans in dingy rafts risking shark infested waters to reach the promised land shores of Cuba... or is it America rescuing Cubans risking being eaten by a shark to live in a largely capitalist free market?

That, my friend, is the reality of immigration and the title of this thread.

V for Valjean wrote:Of course ....

That, my friend, is the reality of immigration and the title of this thread.

Yet, under central planned economy, housing was at 100%, literacy and employment were close to that, and the infant mortality rate dropped like a rock, witch are the international indicators of "development", and this is something the USA, with their 50 million poor people, countless homeless and unemployed could never do.

And about the immigrants, for everyone that became rich, there are millions who ended up poor, in the streets, in "guettos", who worked all their lives to die of lack of healthcare, is that the "american dream"? Like George Carlin said, you have to be sleep to believe it.

Are you advocating that we should let people be poor so that a few among millions can be millionaires? You advocate exploitation? You don't belong on this forum.

Under which planned economy? To which nation are you referring? And let me tell you something about advocating exploitation my friend: it is impossible forfor there to be exploitation under capitalism. No transaction takes place unless both parties benefit and both parties freely decide to enter into that arrangement.

Any centrally planned economy has already committed itself to the use of force to get what it wants. It is, in fact you, advocating exploitation of the people under such a system. See, there is no use of force in capitalist economies, only millions of people individually free to pursue their own self interests. In a centrally planned economy you must be committed to using force against freedom at the very core in order to first take one parties money and give it to another party. No one in a free economy of forced to work anywhere, buy anything, save or not save, live in a house or apartment, etc. everyone is free to pursue their individual interests.

Now show me one example of a centrally planned economy that had the things you're claiming because, as we all know, there isn't one.

V for Valjean wrote:Under which planned economy? To which nation are you referring? And let me tell you something about advocating exploitation my friend: it is impossible forfor there to be exploitation under capitalism. No transaction takes place unless both parties benefit and both parties freely decide to enter into that arrangement.

Any centrally planned economy has already committed itself to the use of force to get what it wants. It is, in fact you, advocating exploitation of the people under such a system. See, there is no use of force in capitalist economies, only millions of people individually free to pursue their own self interests. In a centrally planned economy you must be committed to using force against freedom at the very core in order to first take one parties money and give it to another party. No one in a free economy of forced to work anywhere, buy anything, save or not save, live in a house or apartment, etc. everyone is free to pursue their individual interests.

Now show me one example of a centrally planned economy that had the things you're claiming because, as we all know, there isn't one.

n accordance with the Sovnarkom decree of December 26, 1919, signed by its head Vladimir Lenin, the new policy of likbez ("liquidation of illiteracy"), was introduced. The new system of universal compulsory education was established for children. Millions of illiterate adult people all over the country, including residents of small towns and villages, were enrolled in special literacy schools. Komsomol members and Young Pioneer detachments played an important role in the education of illiterate people in villages. The most active phase of likbez lasted until 1939. In 1926, the literacy rate was 56.6 percent of the population. By 1937, according to census data, the literacy rate was 86% for men and 65% for women, making a total literacy rate of 75%.(...) In the 1970s and 1980s, approximately 99,7% of Soviet people were literate[3]

Cuba is in 41, between New Zealand and Canada in terms of child mortality, despite the embargo. The USA ranks 50 behind Cuba.

So are these enough statistics for you?


And regarding exploitation, i never said central planned economies were perfect, but exploitation is endemic of the capitalist system, since a capitalist owns the surplus value a worker produces, and pays him whatever makes him fancy. Besides you ARE forced to work if you want to eat, have a house, or make ends meet, and what's worse, you have zero control of whatever you produce.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:
Cuba is in 41, between New Zealand and Canada in terms of child mortality, despite the embargo. The USA ranks 50 behind Cuba.

And regarding exploitation, i never said central planned economies were perfect, but exploitation is endemic of the capitalist system, since a capitalist owns the surplus value a worker produces, and pays him whatever makes him fancy. Besides you ARE forced to work if you want to eat, have a house, or make ends meet, and what's worse, you have zero control of whatever you produce.

I don't know that I'd stand on the quality of medical care in Cuba as my proof if I were you... I mean even Castro goes to Europe and checks himself into the hospital instead of getting medical care in Cuba. So again look how people vote with their feet.

Beyond that again there is a very fundamental flaw in your viewpoint. It's the point in your sentence on employment where you say the employer pays whatever he fancies. That's not true at all. The employer pays what the market will bear. If he pays a sub standard wage his turn-over will always be high as experienced employees he's trained leave him for a better paying job elsewhere. That is an incredibly high business expense, and one every employer seeks to avoid. The loss of your most productive employees potentially to the competitor with your trade secrets. You think there's no force in free markets to ensure employees are well taken care of you're being foolish.

V for Valjean wrote:I don't know that I'd stand on the quality of medical care in Cuba as my proof if I were you... I mean even Castro goes to Europe and checks himself into the hospital instead of getting medical care in Cuba.  So again look how people vote with their feet.

Beyond that again there is a very fundamental flaw in your viewpoint.  It's the point in your sentence on employment where you say the employer pays whatever he fancies.  That's not true at all.  The employer pays what the market will bear.  If he pays a sub standard wage his turn-over will always be high as experienced employees he's trained leave him for a better paying job elsewhere.  That is an incredibly high business expense, and one every employer seeks to avoid.  The loss of your most productive employees potentially to the competitor with your trade secrets.  You think there's no force in free markets to ensure employees are well taken care of you're being foolish.

I will ignore the Castro bullshit, because i happen to know of a lot of people that actually went to Cuba for medical treatment, and even Hugo Chavez is going there now, so spare me your fantasies.

As for your naive notion of social contract, you obviously forget (or ignore) that the "market" can and will be manipulated, specially importing immigrants that will accept any wage, or move the whole business somewhere else where the social protections or salaries are worse. That is happening right now in the US and europe, and you dare to stand up for that utopic notion of the "market" keeping the wages up? The capitalist class can and does instigates such social problems, in order to weaken the negotiation power of the proletariat.

Besides, this was a thread about immigration, not about anything else, and you derailed it far enough.

Actually go back a page because I addressed immigration in specific detail as it related to this thread as well as the ongoing specific points. If you take exception to the specific truths I've pointed out out the implications I've inferred from them I'm eager to hear your thoughts.

To the other point you raise above about importing cheap labor or exporting jobs you use this example very mistakenly. I support all of those activities. Free enterprise and free trade function most efficiently without protectionist national policies interfering with them. If that work can be done at a lower cost elsewhere it should be. And the nation losing those jobs can use that as an opportunity to modernize its workforce into areas where it produces goods or services more efficiently then anyone else can.

Again you're only looking at half the equation. If China wants to subsidize importing clean air into the United States in the form of manufacturing steel in China then let it.

V for Valjean wrote:Actually go back a page because I addressed immigration in specific detail as it related to this thread as well as the ongoing specific points. If you take exception to the specific truths I've pointed out out the implications I've inferred from them I'm eager to hear your thoughts.

To the other point you raise above about importing cheap labor or exporting jobs you use this example very mistakenly. I support all of those activities. Free enterprise and free trade function most efficiently without protectionist national policies interfering with them. If that work can be done at a lower cost elsewhere it should be. And the nation losing those jobs can use that as an opportunity to modernize its workforce into areas where it produces goods or services more efficiently then anyone else can.

Again you're only looking at half the equation. If China wants to subsidize importing clean air into the United States in the form of manufacturing steel in China then let it.

You didn't address nothing, and you didn't reply back anything decent. Now, about your new "arguments", once again, you just babble some conclusions that exist only in your mind. Free enterprise is an illusion, the powerful bend the rules, because they have to take an advantage, and even even if they didn't, people's lives aren't comodities, that can be "modernized", in a way you can't even tell. You are obviously out of your depth discussing any of this with us, and this thread was derailed enough. So either you discuss emigration here, or i erase your subsequent posts.

SalfordAnarchist wrote:Why do you think white workers can still enjoy things as oppressed workers the third world workers can only dream about?

Labour aristocracy, we here all benefit in some direct way from the wealth stolen and plundered from the third world.

Them huge super prfits generated mean the capitalists in the imperialist nations can give workers here reforms and higher wages and even benefits if they are not even producing, how would this be possible if not for the billions made off slavery and plundering abroad, it would not be.

If not for imperialism workers would have to receive less than the value of their labour and lose all benefits to keep the capitalist in profits, whenever anyone moans about immigrants it is the biggest hypocrisy going and shows someone's true colours.

SalfordAnarchist

The Western capitalists/imperialists who plundered the third world are the same people who support mass immigration. No (State) Socialist regime has ever supported mass immigration and why should they?

slavicsocialist wrote:The Western capitalists/imperialists who plundered the third world are the same people who support mass immigration. No (State) Socialist regime has ever supported mass immigration and why should they?

It could also be argued that the West is the falling imperialism, while BRICSA and the Gulf area(KSA, UAE, Qatar, etc.) is the rising imperialism.