Immigration

You do realize gentrification happens to historically "white" lower-class neighborhoods too, right?

Socialism still had some credibility among Muslims in the 1980s. What credibility does it have among them today?

Pimp Shariati or the Green Book all you want, but that's not going to change Muslim sentiments concerning what they see as the incompatibility of their religion and Marxism. The thing is they're not going to fight for communism en masse if they see it as something totally alien to the deen and their cultures.

Not forming an opinion on an important issue and not taking sides on related struggles is cowardice; read Gramsci.

Not a single word about the capitalist use of migrant labor
All those liberal magazines evangelizing over cheap cheap human labor hordes

I'm a such leftist

Do you believe socialism has any sort of credibility in France today besides college students?
I have no interest in so-called "Islamic socialism" obfuscation. Gaddafi in particular is plain garbage.
The Irish were overwhelmingly Catholic and that didn't stop them from organizing. I think you're overplaying the role of religion here.
You seem to assume Islam is going to stay the way it is right now forever when that's really not the case. Just because someone is a Muslim doesn't mean they or their children are somehow immune to labor organizing.

amorfati?

Did the OP ever state that migrant workers were somehow not exploited? This isn't about romanticizing immigration at all, this is about realizing anti-immigration policy actually hurts migrant workers.

I'm nto being idealist, I'm talking about historical fact and why attitudes among Muslims would change so drastically. Islam provides Muslims a "third way" between capitalism and communism which appeals to their desire for honor *because* it's organic to them and not something "outside".

I never implied Islam is static, I'm only suggesting Islam as a political/economic doctrine is far more appealing to Muslims for the reasons I've listed. Muslims aren't going to pick up Marx or DeLeon if they think the Qur'an and Hadith have better answers.

And somehow he was still naive enough to ask such a loaded question.

because at this point in time their purpose is to boost native porky profits, bolster the reserve army of labor, and finally provide the scapegoat to prevent worker organization when things spiral out of control

Immigration is bad; consider the reason for it. They are fleeing from war, poverty, death, etc.. It should be fought by removing those reasons.
Immigrants themselves are not to be opposed, though. They are mere victims and should be welcomed.

Naturally. Immigration in itself is neither god nor bad, I'm not fetishizing "diversity" or any other sort of liberal delusion. I understand migrants leave their native country because they're forced to by circumstances, not out of fancy. Working to solve the underlying causes of immigration is not just legitimate, it is necessary. That being said, I think it's fairly safe to assume people who describe themselves as "opposed to immigration" don't care about its causes and how to solve the problem — they just want the brown poormies to go die somewhere else.

Exactly how are we supposed to integrate them if our very existence let alone our words are blasphemy to them

Nothing of what you said invalidates the opening statement's criticism of anti-immigration stances. If anything, what you've just described calls for strict internationalist class unity and not opposition to immigration.

What's your point?

Do you consider the propaganda campaign carried out by the CIA in the 50s to late 80s?
nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB78/essay2.htm

lmao, good luck with that "class unity" when any Third Worlder is more than happy to earn less than minimum wage because even that's a solid middle-class income back in his homeland.

It reminds me of a bit in a book promoting diversity in the UK that mentioned the absolute apathy towards unions among Pakistani/Indian immigrants working in British factories, because whatever they earned was still triple what they would've earned back on the subcontinent

I wouldn't say that I'm against immigration itself per se, but rather the causes of immigration.
In the case of refugees fleeing from a war, would it not be preferable for nearly everyone involved if there was simply no war in the first place? Would it not be preferable for economic migrants if they did not have their livelihoods taken from them by things like colonialism or free trade agreements? Would you not agree that it would be better to do what we can to address climate change now rather than having millions' of people homes rendered uninhabitable in the future?

So what is your solution? Islam can't change until the socialist revolution comes, but in order to bring about that revolution we need Islam to change. Chicken and egg logic here.

That's my point: the left shouldn't be placing all their hope in Noble Savage Muslims.

Where can I read more of this m8?

Alright. That's pretty much what I thought you were getting at.

I'm not sure how to rectify the situation then.

I don't think there is a way to fix the situation as it stands. Muslims aren't going to fight for communism en masse if they see it as something alien to their deen, especially if they think Islam itself is a much better way of resisting imperialism than Marxism.

watch out we got a galaxy brain over there

You're spouting platitudes; of course the causes of immigration (poverty, violence, climate change, etc) should be dealt with — nothing in the OP contradicts that. I am obviously not pro-immigration for the sake of it, but I do oppose anti-immigration stances because they're misguided national-socdem opportunism who hurt migrant workers.

If there is a minimum wage law, then by definition workers can't work for less than what the law dictates. Anyway, as outlined in the OP, opposing immigration would just result in even worse class unity (as a result of segregation, illegal status, etc) than acceptance.

Yes. But are there articles that talk about this? Like, I belive you but if I have to explain it to a liberal I can talk in the same way you just did

It is. And the benefit that immigration brings to the native citizen in economic terms is minuscule–meanwhile immigration has numerous and substantial benefits for the capitalists who utilize immigrant labor or threaten to use it. I'm not against immigrants or immigration per se but I think leftists should be honest about its effects instead of denying basic principles of supply and demand that are present in even Marxist analysis
youtube.com/watch?v=zOEtPZmReQw

...

Because - like the neoliberals you so vociferously loath - you take the assumption that "nothing" can be done about immigration, as if it's some natural force wholly outside the political environment; Trump could nuke the entire US-Mexican border, devote 50% of the Army/Navy to patrolling the non-nuclear parts, and BUILD THAT WALL, and yet there'd still be no substantive change in immigration.

Which is what neoliberals want; "immigration can't be controlled or reduced, therefore the best course of action is some half-hearted virtue-signalling about the solidarity of the global proletariat while capitalists rake in sky-high profits".

All anti-immigration stances boil down to id-pol

Again, please remind me how you can build "working-class unity" when a significant portion of that working-class is happy accepting low wages, because it's still more than they could ever hope to earn back in the homeland.

I'll try to find the quote from the book I was talking about, and how most of the Indian/Pakistani workers could barely speak English, and basically had to communicate through an Indian/Pakistani go-between with management

...

This is why I'm a Leninist in the old-style. We need nationalist revolutions in the Third World to accelerate the downfall of imperialism and raise the standard of living in poor countries. Socialist revolutions would be good too but I'm just saying

socialist interNATIONALISM>>>>>>>liberal globalist open border mind-melt ideology

Attached: Assadmustgo.jpg (306x165, 10.03K)

Maybe log off for one second and you'll find immigrants, both legal & illegal, are involved in organizing workplaces throughout the country.

Even if you 'nuke' the border, most immigrants are coming in by plane anyways. Even if we shut down all immigration by plane, porky is just going to send those jobs overseas.

Yes it's gonna be hard to build solidarity across all workers of all races and legal statuses, but the work is being done IRl. You can either help with that process or just give into liberal idpol of nationalism.

And? Again, you're arguing like a neoliberal (or lolbertarian, that's probably more accurate), that immigration is some natural force that no amount of barriers or lack of incentives can ever reverse.

What jobs are left to be sent overseas? You can't export restaurants and farms to developing countries. "I can't hire Guatemalans to pick my tomatos? Welp, better buy some land in Guatemala and start a tomato farm there" - said literally no farmer, ever

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Also if you're gonna cite industries that can't be shipped overseas, don't cite one of the fastest dying industries

...

lmao, and how high on idpol are those immigrants, user? I don't think it's only the devoted socialists that make it into your country

This is what nationalist idpol does to your brain, fighting over scraps instead of organizing against porky

lol wow

You're a shit for brains.

people are automating restaurant service and farming

All the more reason for Pablo to go back.

what's the point when automation just as well can be used as a spook to scare workers to work for less and longer?

lmao Michael Lind is a self-described "liberal nationalist" you absolute mong
Zig Forums sure drops the pretense when it comes to anti-immigration
what a bunch of fucking tools

Internationalism doesn't just mean "several nations existing and acknowledging each other" you complete retard

What's your policy to curb immigration? Because nothing short of outright persecution would be effective in the long term.

Mass immigration can cause cultural clashes and tension that lead to the situation we have with the right blaming immigrants for everything.
Basically, I'd be fine with it if people let go of their fucking spooks.

So-called "cultural clashes" would probably not even exist if they were not propped up by tabloid reactionaries and enabled by de facto segregation.

How do we bulldoze over the Islamic cultures?

Stellar praxis.

Attached: 14980796_431296300327794_6568453929840839574_n.jpg (474x640, 39.08K)

texastribune.org/2016/12/14/lawmakers-go-easy-employers-undocumented-workers/

It's good to see that immigration is one of the few areas where Zig Forums and capitalists are in agreement.

And why does "de facto segregation" exist? Because people generally like to live around other people that share the same language and culture. Whether it's new immigrants moving to neighborhoods dominated by immigrants from the same country or black/hispanic neighborhoods opposing gentrification by white yuppies, people generally like to live around others that share a similar culture.

I know it's a tough concept for the deracinated cosmopolitans on this board that despise their own families and communities almost as much as they despise "porky", but that's how human behavior generally works.

No. Fall in line or fall dead.

Attached: 10235872.png (1024x557, 303.46K)

The answer is never. We are opposed to the discrimination and exploitation of foreign workers. They are members of the working class that relocate from one domain to another.

Hysterical, from the same crowd that thinks there's a covert genocide of black people whenever a black man is shot by police in questionable circumstances

kill yourself

Attached: 23131927_991091157697061_412775159342721159_n.jpg (720x541, 47.66K)

kys

Butthurt shitskins

Do you think that Toronto terrorist would have been taken alive if he were black?

If the Toronto terrorist was black he would have had a primitive chimp mind causing him to make several sudden movements while surrendering. So of course he wouldn't have been taken alive. Black people don't get shot because they're black they get shot because they have primitive chimp minds

Is this a shill thread or something? It's not like what you said has anything to do with what I wrote.

The terrorist literally pointed some metal cylinder at the cop, then verbally warned him that he had a gun. Have you seen the video? A black would have been executed by the police then and there.

i am not opposed to immigration at all. Most ☭TANKIE☭s and anarchists agree there is no need for border control. Only succdems suhc as bernicrat and nazbol support it.

> texastribune.org/2016/12/14/lawmakers-go-easy-employers-undocumented-workers/
This article doesn't address the big picture of immigration, it merely covers specific policy regarding illegal immigration. Shaking up exploiters is always a good thing but you're not actually telling me how to curb immigration in the long run.
"Ah, I see Zig Forums and capitalists are in agreement that racial segregation, earthquakes and AIDS are bad… Read between the lines… Two faces of the same coin… Think about it…"
Stop whining, Zig Forums is overwhelmingly anti-immigration. You're not being original, all the points you're making are tired regurgitation.
Or maybe because they all have low incomes, which means they settle wherever they can afford and therefore end up being concentrated in the same low-rent neighborhoods. That's the main cause behind segregation, not human-nature obfuscation.
It was obvious to me that you were a Zig Forums renegade but thank you for making it abundantly clear to everyone.

Attached: 31059614_1388498684629264_770800755362758656_n.jpg (527x339, 15.9K)

You haven't been here long enough

tell a ☭TANKIE☭ that you'd like to take a trip to Nork and theyll call you an imperialist

at least his bait has improved I suppose

You're going to need some better sources for that one than NYtimes. It's pretty tough to get around the basic maxim that "Less labor power in the market = higher price for labor power" for native workers. And this is coming from someone that's generally pro immigration.

monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/marx-on-immigration/

From what I recall from this article, even the study that claims that immigration helps native workers clarify that wages on the whole go down, it's just that a few (not all) native workers will be promoted to higher paying management and communications jobs to raise the native average, meanwhile spanish-speaking migrant workers take their place in manual labor positions even lower paid than before.

The cultural clashes will exist anyway, the problem is when people make them out to be bigger than they are.
Who gives a fuck what god you pray to, just don't force it on others. Who cares if you fuck your cousin, as long as it aint hurtin noone then I don't see a problem.
When people start sayin "le ebil muslims are stealin our jobs" or "le hwitey is oppressing me" then that starts causing major hassles where ultimately they start blaming the wrong people.
TL;DR, we proles are being screwed over by the capitalists moreso than eachother

As a Maoist Third-Worldist, I oppose immigration for the sake of the Third World.

Why? Because open borders in the West causes the Third World's best and brightest to migrate, meaning the West gobbles up all would-be socialist revolutionaries and turns them into fat and lazy slobs like all other Westerners. How many Palestinian engineers does Toronto need when Gaza's infrastructure is some of the worst in the world? How many Indian doctors does Boston need when 90% of Indians in India lack access to adequate medical care? Fuck.

You're a naive babby

There is no live and let live there is only eat or be eaten

Immigration is porky's legalized human trafficking. He causes wars to shift people where he needs them.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (552x561, 784.61K)

This

The issue I have with Immigration, especially the people in the United States complaining about immigration from Latin America is the absurd framing that occurs.
Everyone who supports immigration frames it as people coming from places where there is strife and hardship and we must help them. They never ever mention the fact that this is almost exclusively a direct result of US imperialism, but pretend that for some reason countries with brown people just can't sustain themselves.

youtu.be/ZItasCRTUVM

immigration is beneficial for the indiviual and harmful to the collective
seriously fuck immigration, we need to aggressively develop the low income world so they want to stay in their own countries and develop socialism in their own countries tailored to their culture's needs

Mass immigration started in 60's in America. Also, saying that immigrants are scabs doesn't exclude any of the other causes you mentioned. In fact, it only proves the connection between mass immigration, free trade, right-to-work, union-busting, neoliberalism, and globalism in general.

Trump was the one who came up with the wall idea. Something which, while I support, clearly won't deal with the problem. (And won't deal with the 'based' legal immigrants that cuckservatives like to worship as model citizens.) A full-on no-immigration policy combined with a militarized border, a crackdown on sanctuary cities, expropriation of the lands and property of all capitalists who hire illegals, and jailing everyone who hires immigrants would be good first steps. Unions should act as enforcers of immigration laws and report any illegals working in companies as well as the bosses who hire them. Of course, the end goal is seizing the means of production, but I think this would be a good minimal program.

Of course, it looks like plenty of anons agree with my assessment already and have roasted the faggot in other ways.

Look, even I'm not going to say that your pro-immigration position is equal to supporting a natural disaster. Still, the fact that those anti-immigration is painted with such a taboo by the capitalist media must mean that there is a motive for capitalists to support it, right?

I would say that if I were in 2016, but most of the new/old big namefags, r/socialism tier users, and volunteers/BO are practically cosmopolitan faggots by this point.

I do agree that he does seem to be a Zig Forums renegade. However, I see no issue with that. Ironically enough, you just showed a form of nativism by wanting to block immigrants from Zig Forums from coming to Zig Forums. You want to preserve your board culture against foreigners who don't share it.

You just made yourself a hypocrite.

Attached: 1512815654842.jpg (971x565, 141.16K)

I support open boarders, it is the only thing I side with /liberty/ over Zig Forums on. Pic unrelated.

Attached: crucify.jpg (500x256, 40.99K)

complete genocide until nobody is left but me. and then I can live in peace.

"hi I'm basically outing myself as a neoliberal"

Immigration has been by and large very bad - for the third world. I read a while ago about the case of Kenya, and it turns out they were very much short of capable doctors and nurses because everyone, as soon as they graduated, packed up to go live and work in the UK, or another English speaking country. So exactly the kind of immigration that is being promoted by the neoliberals - skills based - is the most destructive to the rest of the world. People are trained on the educational budget of the country of birth, and then it's the host country that reaps the benefits.

On the other end of the skills curve, there is the problem of for example Syrian refugees in Germany. Their filter was not skills, but being from families who had enough money to send them to Europe (while as we all know the poorer refugees wallow in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan). In this case it turns out that people who did not migrate on a skill basis have a very hard time finding employment in a high skill economy. In this specific case there is also a problem of women employment; going from a society where women are expected by and large to be housewives to one where they are expected to work. Pic related are figures from an OECD: it is estimated that it takes more than 15 years of residence for employment rates to equalize. That's a big demand on the host society.

This all to state the obvious: migration is disruptive. Just smugly declaring that wir schaffen das is no substitute for actual policy in dealing with immigration. If you just think that shouting abolish all borders, just let people do what they want is the way to go, you will end up brain-draining the societies in the third world, crippling the welfare state in the first world, and causing attendant resentment among the natives there. If migration isn't planned, organized and democratically legitimized, you're driving into a brick wall.

Attached: refugees employment equalization.jpg (757x461, 87.29K)

"Yet you will not find any politician campaigning on a Luddite platform, railing against the job losses caused by technological progress — even as it threatens the very stability of the capitalist mode of production itself. And that's because the bourgeoisie would actually care if you hurt their profit maximization."

THE KEYWORD HERE IS "YET"

How long does it take you to put on your helmet every morning?

you must be new here

Attached: 29594577_2008849689377739_1792785538211118295_n.jpg (300x300, 21.28K)

Immigration is good and i support it in small numbers but too much like we have now benefits only the far right.

...

...

Borders are spooks, nations are spooks, countries are spooks.

Workers have no country and need no country. "Immigration" is an illusion and a waste of time to talk about and a social concern for the mentally disabled.

Attached: I don't want to be killed by an abstraction.jpg (768x848, 32.43K)

Attached: really nigga.jpg (594x460, 31.27K)

Yeah, it's fucking embarrasing.