Borders
- This topic has 33 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Controling the flow of immigration has become a major issue in many parts of the world with the adoption of open border policies. Many of the immigrants that are coming into western countries are unvetted refuges with a distain for the freedoms offered in the west. Because of this they are not assimilating into the western way of life but creating a seperate community with different laws for themselves. So if a person immigrates into britain for example but does not support free speech for woman, freedom of religion for christians, and does not view homosexuals as people, how can this person with such radical beliefs live in that country with a culture so directly opposed to his/hers?
Another question, if Communism were to be established and the people voted to control immigration and not allow open borders would this be opposed to their interests in the SPGB's view?
Socialism would be worldwide, with no nation states, no borders, and the common ownership of the whole Earth by the whole of humanity. Disputes about ideas and values would besettled solely by debate.
Capitalist Pig wrote:Many of the immigrants that are coming into western countries are unvetted refuges with a distain for the freedoms offered in the west.Funny but I just see fellow human beings. Members of the human family. Perhaps you are wearing some distorted spectacles, Distorted by the media. A media owned by the parasites that suck the bood from you, the 'unvetted refugeess' and myself.Turn you attention to the ruling class and the capitalist system. Millions are being murdered, their communities bombed to the ground in the unrelenting search for more and more profits to satisfy these parasites.As for having respect for the freedoms offered. That's a hoot. Most of their homes have been destroyed and families have been murdered by the 'free world'. Are you surprised that they have little respect for it
vin- are you suggesting that a muslim theocracy has more civil liberties than a constitutional republic or a representative democracy? All I am saying is how can you advocate the mass influx of 'refuges' when many of them don't even want to assimilate into the country and oppose what I explained above? The morale signaling is getting old by the way
YMS- that is your idea of how it should be but what if a majority of people think otherwise? that they should control the flow of immigration and not allow open borders.
Capitalist Pig wrote:YMS- that is your idea of how it should be but what if a majority of people think otherwise? that they should control the flow of immigration and not allow open borders.Such a scenario is possible in a socialist society, however seeing that it's a given such a scenario precludes the maturirty of humanity this would suggest that in all probability its highly unlikely that the democratic decision making process would decide to restrict the freedom of movement for the global population.
Capitalist Pig wrote:vin- are you suggesting that a muslim theocracy has more civil liberties than a constitutional republic or a representative democracy? All I am saying is how can you advocate the mass influx of 'refuges' when many of them don't even want to assimilate into the country and oppose what I explained above? The morale signaling is getting old by the wayCP – I think you are projecting into a possible future socialist society the kinds of institutions and habits of thinking that pertain to capitalism It’s not that socialists "advocate a mass influx of immigrants". The expression is almost meaningless to a socialist way of looking at things since no one would be an immigrant or emigrant in a socialist world without states and therefore without boundaries. It’s like saying a person born and raised in Hampshire or Surrey who then moves to Berkshire is an immigrant. Socialists dont prescribe where people, let alone “masses” of people, should live or move to in a socialist world. It’s entirely up to them as free individuals in a free society In any event, the whole premiss of your argument is deeply flawed. Firstly, you make grotesque generalisations. What do you mean by "many of them dont want to assimilate into the country"? Assimilate to what degree? Do you favour some kind of insipid capitalist monoculture in which we all think and behave the same? Cultural clones. I cannot imagine anything more dreary. I get a great deal of pleasure from experiencing cultural diversity, It adds to the richness of life. Of course socialists do not accept or support some of the ideas of some of the " immigrants" such as theocratically-inspired homophobia or the treating of women as second class citizens. Of course socialists will oppose and criticise these kinds of negative attitudes. But you can’t reduce and stereotype immigrants and the culture of immigrants to this small segment of beliefs held by some. Actually I would argue that a MAJOR factor behind these kinds of negative attitudes and for the perpetuation of this attitudes, is precisely the xenophobia exhibited by many in the host country. Ghettoization is the natural corollary of domestic racism. Of course people are going to seek out mutual support with those of the same cultural background, are going to cling all the more firmly to their traditional beliefs, including some that are overtly hostile to western democratic liberal values, if they live in a western so called “democratic liberal society” that treats them like shit and subconsciously regards them as aliens opposed to the so called “western way of life”. Wouldn’t you do the same if you were in their shoes and your family has sought refuge in the West having had your home and your city bombed into oblivion by the West and then to find you are treated with utter contempt upon arriving in the West? This doesn’t excuse the behaviour of some “immigrants” but it does at least allow us to see where they are coming from and why they behave as they do I would go so far as to say that the main reason why some immigrants dont "integrate" into Western societies is precisely because of the xenophobic and outright hostile attitudes of some in the West that ,quite simply, does not allow these immigrants to "integrate". This is so ironic because so called western societies are themselves the end products of successive waves of immigrants from many different ethnic backgrounds over a long period of time.
Capitalist Pig wrote:YMS- that is your idea of how it should be but what if a majority of people think otherwise? that they should control the flow of immigration and not allow open borders.If the majority of people in the world wanted to create borders, they could, and nothing would stop them. What couldn't happen would be for a group of people in a small area to declare themselves a local majority, and close off the border that way, that would, in effect, be steeling…
Capitalist Pig wrote:vin- are you suggesting that a muslim theocracy has more civil liberties than a constitutional republic or a representative democracy?Short answer is no.If an 'immigrant' or an 'American' believes in a 'muslim theocracy' then I oppose that. If on the other hand they support the limited political freedoms of the UK and USA then I agree. I too support them as they are preferable to a muslim theocracyHowever, I do not know what all immigrants or refugies believe, anymore than I can know what every Americans believes.Sorry for the confusion but It is not necessarily a moral issue, stereotyping people by race and nationality can lead to innaccurate and invalid conclusions.
This whole argument presupposes that migratory patterns are some kind of natural phenomena and that those seeking to migrate will continue to wish to do so in a Socialist society. Remove the cause of the poverty that drives migration and most people would not wish to migrate. Most migrants I've spoken to would love to have stayed where they were, if it wasn't for war, poverty, oppressive regimes, etc.
robbo203 wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:vin- are you suggesting that a muslim theocracy has more civil liberties than a constitutional republic or a representative democracy? All I am saying is how can you advocate the mass influx of 'refuges' when many of them don't even want to assimilate into the country and oppose what I explained above? The morale signaling is getting old by the wayCP – I think you are projecting into a possible future socialist society the kinds of institutions and habits of thinking that pertain to capitalism It’s not that socialists "advocate a mass influx of immigrants". The expression is almost meaningless to a socialist way of looking at things since no one would be an immigrant or emigrant in a socialist world without states and therefore without boundaries. It’s like saying a person born and raised in Hampshire or Surrey who then moves to Berkshire is an immigrant. Socialists dont prescribe where people, let alone “masses” of people, should live or move to in a socialist world. It’s entirely up to them as free individuals in a free society In any event, the whole premiss of your argument is deeply flawed. Firstly, you make grotesque generalisations. What do you mean by "many of them dont want to assimilate into the country"? Assimilate to what degree? Do you favour some kind of insipid capitalist monoculture in which we all think and behave the same? Cultural clones. I cannot imagine anything more dreary. I get a great deal of pleasure from experiencing cultural diversity, It adds to the richness of life. Of course socialists do not accept or support some of the ideas of some of the " immigrants" such as theocratically-inspired homophobia or the treating of women as second class citizens. Of course socialists will oppose and criticise these kinds of negative attitudes. But you can’t reduce and stereotype immigrants and the culture of immigrants to this small segment of beliefs held by some. Actually I would argue that a MAJOR factor behind these kinds of negative attitudes and for the perpetuation of this attitudes, is precisely the xenophobia exhibited by many in the host country. Ghettoization is the natural corollary of domestic racism. Of course people are going to seek out mutual support with those of the same cultural background, are going to cling all the more firmly to their traditional beliefs, including some that are overtly hostile to western democratic liberal values, if they live in a western so called “democratic liberal society” that treats them like shit and subconsciously regards them as aliens opposed to the so called “western way of life”. Wouldn’t you do the same if you were in their shoes and your family has sought refuge in the West having had your home and your city bombed into oblivion by the West and then to find you are treated with utter contempt upon arriving in the West? This doesn’t excuse the behaviour of some “immigrants” but it does at least allow us to see where they are coming from and why they behave as they do I would go so far as to say that the main reason why some immigrants dont "integrate" into Western societies is precisely because of the xenophobic and outright hostile attitudes of some in the West that ,quite simply, does not allow these immigrants to "integrate". This is so ironic because so called western societies are themselves the end products of successive waves of immigrants from many different ethnic backgrounds over a long period of time.
I don't think that all muslims should be catoragized as radicals but alot of them that come into the country simply do not like the culture and instead of assimilating or wanting to embrace the western way of life, they distance themselves and seperate themselves from the rest of the population, not to mention ISIS most certainly has come in as refuges. I am just making the point that open borders might sound great but in reality it is destroying the country. We should have a screening program so we know who we are letting in, if we are letting in radical muslims or actual refugues. Open borders is not a good idea in my opinion
Who is this “we” you are talking about? The British government? The capitalist class? The workers? As for “destroying the country”… whose country exactly? Theresa May’s? Richard Brandon’s? The guy who owns Sports Direct? The workers have no country.
irwellian wrote:Who is this "we" you are talking about? The British government? The capitalist class? The workers? As for "destroying the country"… whose country exactly? Theresa May's? Richard Brandon's? The guy who owns Sports Direct? The workers have no country.Capitalist Pig wrote:I don't think that all muslims should be catoragized as radicals but alot of them that come into the country simply do not like the culture and instead of assimilating or wanting to embrace the western way of life, they distance themselves and separate themselves from the rest of the population, not to mention ISIS most certainly has come in as refuges. I am just making the point that open borders might sound great but in reality it is destroying the country. We should have a screening program so we know who we are letting in, if we are letting in radical Muslims or actual refugees. Open borders is not a good idea in my opinionCP, here's the thing – us socialists don't like the culture we are living in either. Thats why we are socialists, It doesn't matter where we live – in the West East, South or North. Its global capitalism. I don't want to be assimilated into this insidious commodity culture which to coin a phrase knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Never mind the ideological froth and blather. ISIS is just another money making machine, a glorified street gang, for extracting tribute, a proxy tool for regional powers to to play their cynical and disgusting game of real politick with. They are absolutely no threat to capitalism at all. Indeed, their very existence is a boon to reactionary nationalism which is on the rise everywhere – from Trump to Le Pen to UKIP. You are giving voice to this self same reactionary nationalism with your absurd comment that open borders are "destroying the country" What in earth does that phrase even mean? I would love to see countries destroyed everywhere so we can truly establish a free world. But unfortunately the reality is the exact opposite of what you claim
Nationalism is worst than. the rat poison
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.