NationStates

Some of you may remember a Tweet that was released years and years ago which said something to the effect of "Meet New Zealand's Trudeau, except on Immigration she's more like Trump". Said politician protested indignantly despite campaigning on massive reductions in immigration (with a minor increase in the number of refugees) and is presently enforcing probably the strictest border closure in the world because Covid.

If you know who I'm talking about, you'll know I'm talking about a politician that leads a Labour party, i.e. a left-wing party.

And if you know anything about Trump, you probably know that he was (kind of) the leader of a right-wing party... in a country that's seen to be positioned to the right of all other Western democracies.

Indeed, I would argue that most talk about immigration strongly takes the character of "left for and right against", particularly in America... thus this parody ad from Swing Vote. Indeed, the same film implicitly positions being pro-immigration as central to the Democrat ("left") position as abortion (see here). But not in New Zealand.

Here in NZ, immigration is framed pretty exclusively in terms of neoliberalism, i.e. the post-1980s paradigm of the Anglosphere (you also know it by the terms Reagonomics, Thatcherism, Rogernomics and Ruthanasia). Now, that gets a bit weird too (the Roger in Rogernomics was a Labour politician) but just go over to the section of Reddit known as r/newzealand and talk about how "immigration = good" and "house prices must go up" is ruining the country, you'll see what I mean pretty quickly. Despite Ardern's Blairite credentials (as in, she literally worked for Tony Blair) she very much presented her Labour back in 2017 as "transformative" and the NZ First alliance was seen a political order ranged against neoliberalism.

Though, of course, you do get all the same tropes like "being anti-immigration isn't the same as being anti-immigrant"... it's just that the people who say these things might well identify with seemingly absurd positions. Unless, that is, I'm wrong... and people don't usually see being anti-immigration as being right wing at all. After all, congestion charging... possibly the single most neoliberal policy conceivable... is widely regarded as a leftwing and/or environmentalist position.

But that's just what people think. Where should we put being pro-immigration on the left right system?

My personal position is that it doesn't make sense to ask that question. You can develop "right wing" (or, at least, neoliberal and conservative) arguments to support immigration just as easily as you can develop arguments against immigration (or, at least, traditionalist and conservative ones). And while I'm not necessarily convinced there's an authentically left-wing critique of immigration (as opposed to a reflexive and unthinking dislike of immigration as a symbol of neoliberalism, which is anti-left), there are certainly leftwing arguments for immigration (e.g. it's redistributive).

In terms of the poll, though, my position is more "theatre of politics" than being "beyond the left/right model" because I'm implicitly saying something more like "you don't have a position on immigration because you're too busy using immigration to demonstrate your other positions".

But that's just me... what say ye, NSG? Where does being pro-immigration belong on the political spectrum? Does it belong there at all? And do people really treat it as a left wing idea?

Not necessarily. Neoliberals are very pro immigration as are many rightlibs because immigration is a source of cheap labor, especially illegal immigration.

Being pro immigration in the name of human rights is more leftwing.

Depends on what your reasoning for the stance and who you want to let in is, doesn’t it?

Kowani wrote:Depends on what your reasoning for the stance and who you want to let in is, doesn’t it?

I love when people say "such and such group or person is anti immigrant." Anti immigrant is usually code for "hates blacks, Arabs and hispanics." Most "anti immigrant" people aren't against immigration from places like Ireland or Germany or Britain or Norway. They're against certain immigrants of certain backgrounds.

Kowani wrote:Depends on what your reasoning for the stance and who you want to let in is, doesn’t it?

The Kochs are for open borders for cheap labor. They're not left wing of course.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Kowani wrote:Depends on what your reasoning for the stance and who you want to let in is, doesn’t it?

The Kochs are for open borders for cheap labor. They're not left wing of course.

Theres a long history of corporations using illegal immigrants to pick fruit while paying them substandard wages. Capitalists love when they have an immigrant labor pool they can use and abuse.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:The Kochs are for open borders for cheap labor. They're not left wing of course.

Theres a long history of corporations using illegal immigrants to pick fruit while paying them substandard wages. Capitalists love when they have an immigrant labor pool they can use and abuse.

I oppose immigration on that basis. I don't know what that makes me, but I would happily deny corporate America a source of cheap labor.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
Theres a long history of corporations using illegal immigrants to pick fruit while paying them substandard wages. Capitalists love when they have an immigrant labor pool they can use and abuse.

I oppose immigration on that basis. I don't know what that makes me, but I would happily deny corporate America a source of cheap labor.

Most of us here hate the "free market" as it currently stands. The free in the phrase must stand for "free to make the world a worse place to live for everyone who isn't rich."

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:I oppose immigration on that basis. I don't know what that makes me, but I would happily deny corporate America a source of cheap labor.

Most of us here hate the "free market" as it currently stands. The free in the phrase must stand for "free to make the world a worse place to live for everyone who isn't rich."

You're 100% right.

From what I can tell the debate in the U.S. at least is less about immigration and more about illegal immigration. No one is saying that we shouldn't allow immigrants the the U.S. Everyone seems to be in agreement that's ok, but there are people to move into the US without going through the proper processes, and the debate is more concerned around them. The further right wing you get the more you hear arguments supporting mass deportation and increased security measures on the border. The further left wing you get the more you hear arguments of just giving them citizenship if they managed to get here and opening up the process to make it easier and easier.

This is one of those things where it becomes clear that the Left/Right dichotomy is not entirely linear and that not all policy-questions and solutions can be charted on it. The rationale behind immigration policy is probably more telling about whether someone is left or right wing than the actual policy itself.

Catsfern wrote:From what I can tell the debate in the U.S. at least is less about immigration and more about illegal immigration. No one is saying that we shouldn't allow immigrants the the U.S. Everyone seems to be in agreement that's ok, but there are people to move into the US without going through the proper processes, and the debate is more concerned around them. The further right wing you get the more you hear arguments supporting mass deportation and increased security measures on the border. The further left wing you get the more you hear arguments of just giving them citizenship if they managed to get here and opening up the process to make it easier and easier.

I support amnesty in some circumstances, but we should NOT have open borders or anything like that. Both those who want to deport everyone and those who want everyone to be welcome are wrong.

The Illiberal Sate accepts all immigrants of genetic and practical worth. Dysgenics, liberals, layabouts, weaklings, uglies and enemy agents are kept out. Most fighters are immigrants from the United States mainland, Europe and unconquered reaches of Canada. Personally, I live in a very unfortunate area and see many (in my personal opinion) disagreeable equatorial races and oppose it on those grounds, but I will been soon moving to the northern reaches and will likely not give two fucks about the rotten southwest.

Not necessarily, it depends on the reasons why - as others have said. Although as a fellow Kiwi I should take the time to remind you that prior to COVID, Labour weren't exactly "anti-immigration" in the way they promised, even with NZ First in the coalition.

In fact, levels of net migration into New Zealand have barely moved in either direction since 2017. So, in this particular example - yes and no.

To continue with the New Zealand theme here, National is pro-immigration because of the idea that cheap labour reigns supreme and immigration in the name of constant economic growth is the best thing ever. Labour and the Greens are in favour of it because... well, they just are. Greens have a much more diversity and refugee-themed reasoning behind their immigration support, though. ACT are for it for much the same reasons National are, and NZ First and the New Conservatives aren't "anti-immigration" as much as they are "anti-ethnicities-we-don't-like-coming-here".

Gun Rights Media Ctr and Illiberal State wrote:The Illiberal Sate accepts all immigrants of genetic and practical worth. Dysgenics, liberals, layabouts, weaklings, uglies and enemy agents are kept out. Most fighters are immigrants from the United States mainland, Europe and unconquered reaches of Canada. Personally, I live in a very unfortunate area and see many (in my personal opinion) disagreeable equatorial races and oppose it on those grounds, but I will been soon moving to the northern reaches and will likely not give two fucks about the rotten southwest.

General is an Out Of Character forum.

Both left and right wingers can be for or against immigration.

Any consistent socialist supports immigration. The free movement of goods and people is a necessary component to a democratic society.

Wallenburg wrote:Any consistent socialist supports immigration. The free movement of goods and people is a necessary component to a democratic society.

You think socialists have to be for free trade?

Odreria wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Any consistent socialist supports immigration. The free movement of goods and people is a necessary component to a democratic society.

You think socialists have to be for free trade?

If you are going to have a democratic economy, yes, and socialism is built upon the principle of democratic control of production and labor.

Odreria wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Any consistent socialist supports immigration. The free movement of goods and people is a necessary component to a democratic society.

You think socialists have to be for free trade?

Democracy doesn't require free trade either. If people don't want free trade, it doesn't happen in a Democracy. If they want it, they get it.

Wallenburg wrote:

Odreria wrote:You think socialists have to be for free trade?

If you are going to have a democratic economy, yes, and socialism is built upon the principle of democratic control of production and labor.

Free trade isn’t democratic.

Isn’t it left wing?

Since immigrants foreseeably change/alter the culture and traditions of the country and right-wingers are supposed to be about defending and re-asserting the existing national/cultural identity (or in some way reverting to a glorified past)?

I’d say if you have a country with an overall right wing economic and social ideology but you also support increased immigration, even if you use neoliberal justifications... it takes away from the overall right-wing composition rather than adding to it because it’s saying “I know immigration will do this to an extent but it’s okay in this case for the culture and the national identity to get shifted a bit.”

However, it’s possible that would just be one left wing position amongst countless right wing positions elsewhere.

Odreria wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:If you are going to have a democratic economy, yes, and socialism is built upon the principle of democratic control of production and labor.

Free trade isn’t democratic.

What isn't democratic about free trade? All individuals participating in trade determine what gets traded between which parties and at what rates. The value of traded goods is determined in an equally democratic manner.

Infected Mushroom wrote:Isn’t it left wing?

Since immigrants foreseeably change/alter the culture and traditions of the country and right-wingers are supposed to be about defending and re-asserting the existing national/cultural identity (or in some way reverting to a glorified past)?

I’d say if you have a country with an overall right wing economic and social ideology but you also support increased immigration, even if you use neoliberal justifications... it takes away from the overall right-wing composition rather than adding to it because it’s saying “I know immigration will do this to an extent but it’s okay in this case for the culture and the national identity to get shifted a bit.”

However, it’s possible that would just be one left wing position amongst countless right wing positions elsewhere.

You can be patriotic and pro-immigration at the same time, take Sweden for example.

Wallenburg wrote:

Odreria wrote:Free trade isn’t democratic.

What isn't democratic about free trade? All individuals participating in trade determine what gets traded between which parties and at what rates. The value of traded goods is determined in an equally democratic manner.

K I’m just going to assume you’re joking