THE MARXIST BOGUS "GREENS"
The Leftist and Marxist "Greens" will point out that it is capitalism which drives immigration pressures.
Like all Marxists they will trace whatever it is they claim to be concerned about, to the economic system. They will try to claim that ecological crises are a product of social causes which themselves are products of the capitalist system and its injustices.
Of course, the economic system is often a factor, and one can recognize that without having to be a Marxist!
However, these people are Bogus Greens because the bottom line for them is not ecological sustainability, but like all other Leftists, the bottom line is their fundamentalist religion of "equality" which drives them on destructive routes.
Even if we work sincerely to correct the economic problems of which they complain, even if we work to ensure people want to stay where they are rather than migrate, even if the economics is changed for the better, they would still support ecologically damaging open borders and unlimited immigration -- in the name of equality!
In this regard, compare the difference between genuine ecologically-aware advocacy, as found in Sovereignty with that of the Marxist Bogus "Greens":
Sovereignty challenges neo-liberalism. We campaign for economic justice for all. To those ends, we advocate building Self Reliance Worldwide (see for example, The Principles and Purposes of Foreign Aid, and Appendix to our Asylum Policy, we support the Cancellation of Third World Debt and we advocate thoroughly throughout this website, the economics of Localism not Globalism.
At the same time we advocate restricting immigration and asylum levels severely, and enforcing the immigration laws. We campaign for ecological sustainability and emphasise its central relevance to the issue of migration.
Marxist Bogus "Greens" on the other hand, put freedom of movement above economic justice and ecological sustainability because they are fixated on their religion of "equality" in every field of human life.
This ideology demands that there must be no laws which "discriminate" in any way towards any particular person for any reason whatsoever. Thus, immigration laws are inherently anti-equality and "racist" and must be torn down and there must be open-borders.
Moreover, they try to justify this in economic terms because they believe that freedom of movement is a necessary tool to achieve their economic goals in the first place.
They believe that only when we can all move about unimpeded will the world economy stabilise at a level which is the same for all. Only then, as a result of this economic equality will the social problems caused by inequality be sorted and ecological sustainability achieved.
Of course, in reality this free movement of people will be politically, socially, economically and ecologically damaging and unjust to many areas and peoples of the planet -- but that is of little concern to them.
The Marxist Bogus "Greens" will destroy the planet in their efforts to achieve "equality".
No History of "Tolerance" to Immigrants in Great Britain
Alistair McConnachie considers whether Britain really does have a "history of tolerance" to immigrants.
"NO HISTORY OF TOLERANCE IN GREAT BRITAIN"
The following letter from Alistair McConnachie was published under the above headline in the Bolton Evening News, (Circ 37,700) on 17 August 2005, in response to a reader's letter urging that failed asylum seekers from the Congo, who had been in the country for three years, should be allowed to stay instead of being removed.
GERARD Groves claims that Britain has "always opened its heart and borders to the people of other lands" (Letters, August 11). That is nonsense.
From the Romans to the Vikings to the Normans, the indigenous people of Britain physically fought the invaders of their homeland, who often violently destroyed their cultures.
It is only in the last 50 years that the UK has opened its doors to the rest of the world. If we were using history as a guide, we would be closing the borders, not leaving them open for anyone to breeze in and claim asylum.
Mr Groves also talks about "compassion" and "justice". The compassionate and just thing to do is not to allow bogus asylum seekers to enter the country in the first place. To that end, Britain should withdraw from the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
We should also speed up the appeals process so those accepted at the port of entry are not left waiting for three years for a decision. Three weeks should be more like it.
People who make an appeal to Britain's "proud history" of "accepting" immigrants and refugees are just trying it on. These are the same people who berate Britain for its "shameful past" when they think they can promote their open borders agenda by exploiting a misplaced sense of guilt about our history.
Indeed, there is much more to say about Britain's supposed "tolerance" of immigrants and refugees. For example, we sent the following letter, which was not published, to The Daily Telegraph on the 12 August 2005.
So, Muslim extremists, the number of ten, face deportation (Report and Leader, August 12).
Queen Elizabeth I would have approved: "Her Majestie understanding that there are of late divers blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are allready here to manie…Her Majesty's pleasure therefore ys that those kinde of people should be sent forth of the lande, and for that purpose there ys direction given to this bearer Edwarde Banes to take of those blackmoores that in this last voyage under Sir Thomas Baskervile were brought into this realme the nomber of tenn, to be transported by him out of the realme. Wherein wee require you to be aydinge and assysting unto him as he shall have occacion, therof not to faile."
Quote from: Peter Fryer, Staying Power: The History of Black People in Britain,See also a history of immigration to Britain here and a Declaration of Moral Principles for a Sustainable Immigration Programme here.
(Concord, MA: Pluto Press, 1984), p.10.
IMMIGRATION and OUR SENSE OF OWNERSHIP
Many open-border anarchists and capitalists are keen to attack the indigenous population for its supposed "fear" of incomers or its "envy" of them. That is to suggest that any objection on their behalf is actually a psychological weakness, rather than a rational concern. What is rarely acknowledged is the way in which the sense of ownership -- the natural proprietorial sense, common to all human beings and held by all indigenous people, over their living spaces -- is being lost. These two short comments sum it up.
In the minds of such disappointed, independent, but sometimes struggling people, the question is: "What can we call ours?" If you are very rich, you can buy distance from all these problems. If you're not, you can't, and the sense that British people are entitled, in this non-financial sense, to own the streets and parks and public services and culture around them is very strong. That ownership is stolen if there are drunks in the park, muggers on the streets, and people who can't speak your language filling up the housing or the hospital beds.
Charles Moore, "Blair believes mass immigration is good for Britain -- do Britons?"
The Daily Telegraph, 16-4-05.
Which brings me back to the new immigrants. They are for the most part adults who have had their formative experiences in other countries. When my sister-in-law's sister begins working here she will pay her taxes and become a useful member of the community. Perhaps that is enough. But should it be? It seems to me that the most urgent question to ask about any fresh immigrants is how can we expect them to have a deep sense of loyalty to an idea of Britain if their sole reason for being here is economic.
The men who dream of moving from Lahore to Leicester, the women who pray that an arranged marriage will transport them from Bangladesh to Brick Lane, are not coming because they have any affinity with what might loosely be described as British values.
They seek to come for the simple reason that it is better to live here than where they came from. That is an entirely honourable and understandable reason. But it is ludicrous to suggest that the only impact this has on our country is economic.
It is not something that most people will admit to pollsters or even to their friends. But I suspect that the reason that so many people cite immigration as a concern is not simply the uninformed suspicion that they are being cheated of homes or social security. The figures appear to suggest the opposite: that immigrants benefit the economy. What really frightens them is the fear that their country is being slowly stolen from them by people who do not have a stake in it.
For all the talk of how immigration has benefited Britain there are many who are not convinced. And the reason, I think, is not that they do not appreciate Indian food or their local Sikh GP, but because they feel that this does not feel like their country.
Asylum and immigration are two separate issues, but what they both share is that they involve the arrival of adults from other countries into Britain, adults who, like the first generation of Asian immigrants, are unlikely to think of this country as anything other than a place to come to work.
Sarfraz Manzoor, "It's about feeling you belong here",
The Guardian, G2 sec., p.5, 27-4-05
ECONOMIC INCONSISTENCY of LEFT-WINGERS who SUPPORT MASS IMMIGRATION
The following by Alistair McConnachie appeared previously in editorials in the August 2005 and October 2006 issues of Sovereignty, and in an article in the May 2006 issue. Also see here and here
Many who defend and promote the huge levels of immigration into the UK are self-styled "anti-capitalists" and "greens" who would be expected to oppose anything -- like mass immigration -- which promotes capitalist economics and unsustainable growth.
Let's consider some of their defences in the light of basic capitalist economics.
Immigrants are the best way to address our essential skills shortage/are needed to fill job vacancies
Basic economics tells us that a skills shortage in any field of labour is always remedied in a market economy by offering higher wages. These rising wages will act as an incentive for people to train to enter these fields.
Consequently, after a few years, the shortage is remedied, while per capita incomes have risen.
However, if shortage of labour is merely remedied by importing ready-trained workers from abroad, then the wage level never rises, and indeed, may fall. At the same time, the shortages will continue because there will be no financial incentive for the indigenous population to train in that field. They will have been dis-incentivised!
This will be exacerbated by the fact that employers will have no incentive to invest in training programmes, because they're able to get ready-trained employees without expense.
Thus the indigenous skills-shortage will continue, and in the long-run, per capita income will fall. The only beneficiaries here are the employers.
And it is not just us saying that, it is the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King. He was reported as saying that the recent migrants from Eastern European EU countries had kept the lid on wages and prevented inflation from rising: "Without this influx to fill the skills gap in a tight labour market it is likely that earnings would have risen at a faster rate, putting upward pressure on the costs of employers and, ultimately, inflation." (Larry Elliot and Charlotte Moore, "Migrants hold down inflation says governor", The Guardian, 14-6-05, p.15.)
In this regard we cannot do better than to quote MigrationWatchUK's Sir Andrew Green and his response in The Daily Mail letters column of 11 May 2006.
Immigration has little effect on vacancies. We had 600,000 vacancies in 2001 when the Government first gave this as a reason for expanding immigration and we still have a similar number, despite net immigration of roughly 900,000 in the same period. The reason is that the number of jobs in an economy isn't fixed. Immigrants also create demand and thus extra vacancies, so there is no end to the cycle. It would be much better if employers trained British workers rather than importing them from abroad. They could also try paying a decent wage to the unskilled, whose pay is being held down by the current large-scale immigration. No wonder some employers are happy.
So why do those who claim to be for "the workers" and against "the employers", support mass immigration? Why should those who claim to speak for the working class support an immigration system which holds down wages for the benefit of the employers?
Why should people like Mike Brider, Scottish secretary of the T&G say to a meeting of Polish immigrants, "T&G Scotland warmly welcomes the role and contribution which migrant workers are making to our economy and communities." (Dave Sherry, "Polish workers organise", Socialist Worker, 14-10-06, p.14)
Does he not have a clue that in October 2006 it was revealed that there are 962,000 claiming jobless benefits in the UK, and a further 3 million on incapacity benefit of which the government estimates one third are fit to return to work? Does he have anything to say about this? No he doesn't! He just wants to suck up to people he thinks will join his "Union" and keep him in a job!
What we are saying is that importing cheaper foreign labour keeps wages low throughout society.
The economy is growing as a result of immigration
Yeah, and so are interest rates, house prices and taxes -- as wages fall.
Obviously, any influx of people will encourage an economy to "grow" in the sense that there are more people needing more goods and services and more economic activity is likely. For example, if we imported the whole of Poland tomorrow we would, overnight, create hundreds of thousands, if not millions of new jobs, and we would have huge economic growth.
But why is that growth, per se, necessarily a good thing? In many ways it would be a very bad thing! You would only consider that a good thing if you were some kind of "capitalist"! Why do those who want a sustainable economy and world, justify immigration levels on the basis of growth?
The indigenous Britons are lazy
Why do those who claim to speak for "the working class" attack the British as lazy and feckless?
Britons are unwilling to do these jobs
Rubbish. That's a slur on British people. There is not a single job in the whole of Britain that a young Briton somewhere is "unwilling" to do…if the price is right. If they are not doing these jobs then it is because the price is wrong, and the price will continue to be wrong just so long as employers are able to keep wages low by importing people.
We have an aging population
Why does that mean we should import young people from abroad! As young people come here, then the countries from which they emigrated will be deprived of their young people, and that will only exacerbate that country's aging population problem.
Immigrants have larger families who will ultimately provide us with a new and motivated workforce
This is arguing that the present British working class should be outbred, and ultimately replaced, by a new class of "super-workers". That is a highly capitalistic, and inhumane, way of viewing the working class and the economy. Why do those who support the workers speak in such busy-bee, hive-style economic terms?
Why some "Leftist" Open-Door Advocates Argue for Immigration on a Capitalist Basis
There are various types of left-wing mass immigration supporter. Some are obsessed with their principle of "equality" which mandates open-borders regardless of how physically damaging in practice. Others don't want to make judgments in case they have to "discriminate", and others simply are doing what they think is "right" because they have never been presented with a sensible alternative. It is to the latter we address the following comments:
We venture to suggest that you who come out with this economic nonsense in order to defend present levels of immigration may not necessarily be "capitalists". So why are you making an argument for capitalist economics, which leads to unsustainable growth? Why are you siding with "the employers"?
It is because instinctively you don't want to be seen to be "nasty" to immigrants. Immigrants, after all, are often fine people. You think that any argument seeking to limit immigration is "racist" -- in the sense of being hostile to immigrants simply because they are immigrants.
Understandably, you want to be seen to be "moral" and "good" and "nice people". So, you don't speak out against the present level of immigration because you can't see any moral or economic alternative to it.
Therefore, you grasp at economic fallacies which sustain present levels of immigration, even though you sense deep down that these arguments are going against your principles of solidarity with the working class, and environmental sustainability.
You want an economic alternative which is fair to all -- fair to the indigenous population, fair to the immigrants, fair to their home countries and which helps these countries to prosper -- and which is not "anti-immigrant", or mean-spirited.
Sovereignty has always argued that there is no contradiction between wanting to stop present levels of immigration and wanting the best for the immigrants and their home countries.
However, it is in glaring contradiction and highly inconsistent, to be against capitalism and unsustainable growth, yet support open borders and mass immigration!
Sovereignty has long championed the principle of Localisation as the moral, economic and sustainable alternative to Globalisation, of which mass immigration is one of its inevitable symptoms.
It is highly consistent, morally and economically, to argue as we do for border controls and localised economics.
OPPOSING MASS IMMIGRATION FROM THE EU
Large numbers of EU immigrants are coming to Scotland and throughout Britain. Here we examine the arguments for and against EU immigration to the UK. The following by Alistair McConnachie appeared previously as an editorial in the August 2005 issue of Sovereignty, and in an article in the May 2006 issue. Also see here
Using Poland as an example, they say:
Immigration to Britain benefits Poland because the Poles send money back to the Polish economy.
However, Poland suffers from the drain of its young people and its skilled people. There is no net plus for Poland! So why do those who claim to be against capitalism support a system which damages the economies of other countries?
A similar argument can be applied to Africa.
Africans here send money back to their families and this is a better form of aid than government aid, because it goes directly to the people who need it, instead of getting lost in a maze of government corruption.
To the extent this may be accurate, it is not, from the general perspective of wanting to see African countries prosper, a long-term sustainable solution. The long-term solution is for African countries to develop themselves to such an extent that people don't want to leave.
Also, there is an issue here about how much, if any, money earned in the UK economy should be allowed to leave here.
Nurses are leaving the UK to find a better wage in the USA and Australia and so you can't blame nurses from Africa coming here to seek a better wage several times greater than what they get in Africa.
We have not, and we are not, "blaming" anybody. The desire for a better economic life is perfectly natural. We understand that. What we are saying is that importing cheaper foreign labour keeps wages low throughout society.
We are aiming for an economy where people are not forced to migrate for economic purposes. This means policies for national self-determination on the part of both Britain and African countries, and international co-operation for self-determination worldwide. The bottom line is that mass migration is not a sustainable economic solution for either the developed or developing world.
The free flow of labour is as essential as the free flow of goods
This argument is often heard from the free-marketeers but was addressed well in a letter from Randhir Singh Bains in The Daily Telegraph of 1 May 2006: Charles Moore rightly states (Comment, 29 April): "There is a strong economic argument for the free flow of labour, just as there is for the free flow of goods."
However, the former has deep social consequences that cannot be ignored. The free flow of labour exerts intense pressure on the health service, housing and race relations; the free flow of goods does not. The "laws" that govern the market dynamics of the two phenomena are also somewhat different.
The flow of labour is driven not simply by supply and demand, but also by immigrants, who enable their friends and relatives back home to migrate by providing them with information about how to migrate, resources to facilitate movement and assisting in finding jobs and housing. Thus, the free flow of labour, once begun, induces its own flow, and eventually becomes a self-reinforcing process. One can hardly say the same about the free flow of goods.
The Scottish population is falling. We need immigrants to boost our population
Scotland's alleged declining population speaks to us about the poverty of the economy and the poverty of job opportunities in Scotland. It speaks to us about the failure of successive governments to invest in long-term jobs and training.
We can reverse this very slow decline, if indeed it is a problem -- which is highly debatable anyway -- by long-term investment in jobs and training, and by family-friendly tax policies which encourage more Scottish people to have children!
The large numbers are nothing to worry about because they go back after they've made their money
That's like saying "tourists go back"…some of them may, but new ones come every day, and so their presence is constant. Therefore they represent a permanent increase to the population. Just as every day brings a group of people here saying, "I think I'll go back to Eastern Europe", so every day brings a new group of people in Eastern Europe saying, "I think I'll go to the UK for a few years." It's a constant stream of people coming, and perhaps going, but creating a constant presence, which numbers hundreds of thousands permanently.
The Poles fought bravely for us in WW2, so we should welcome their grandchildren
Indians fought bravely for us in WW2. Does this mean we have to welcome the entire Indian subcontinent to show our gratitude? Ghurkhas fight bravely for us today. Does this mean we should welcome the entire population of Nepal?
Anyway, as far as the Poles go, many of them fought as much for themselves as for Britain, and there is no proper comparison between a time of European war and the time of peace today.
Furthermore, the numbers do not compare. According to Colin Holmes, in the 1931 census there were 44,462 people claiming Poland as their birthplace. In 1951 there were 162,339 Polish-born people in Britain. By 1971 the figure had dropped to 110,925. (Colin Holmes, John Bull's Island: Immigration and British Society, 1871-1971, [London: MacMillan, 1994], p. 212)
Robert Winder claims that 160,000 Poles -- "soldiers, civilians, government officials, men, women, children, orphans and exotic wives" -- came to Britain during the war years and by March 1946, 120,000 had "resolved to stay". (Robert Winder, Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain, [London: Abacus, 2005] pp.322-323) For more on Britain's immigration history, see the comprehensive article by Alistair McConnachie here.
According to the Accession Monitoring Report, May 2004-March 2006 published on the 23 May 2006, there had been 392,295 applicants for Worker Registration certificates to work in the UK, from the 8 Accession countries -- excluding Malta and Cyprus -- from their date of accession on 1 May 2004 to 31 March 2006. Of this number, 374,555 were approved -- the rest being refused, exempt, withdrawn or outstanding -- and issued with Worker Registration certificates and cards (Table 1, p.6). In this latter number, the top three applicant countries are Poland 228,235 (81%), Lithuania 46,255 (12%) and Slovakia 39,010 (10%) (Table 2, p.9).
Thus, as that Accession Report demonstrated, almost twice as many Poles came to Britain -- that we know about -- in the 23 months between 1st May 2004 and 31 March 2006 than all the Poles present in Britain after the end of WW2!
We say, "that we know about" because it must be remembered that "Worker Registeration Scheme" figures do not count children or partners of those who have registered, and also do not include self-employed workers -- such as plumbers. The actual total could be 30-50% higher!
A downloadable pdf of the Accession Monitoring Report, May 2004-March 2006: A joint online report by the Home Office, Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue & Customs and Department for Communities and Local Government, 23 May 2006, and more recent reports, can be found at: www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/aboutus/reports/accession_monitoring_report