The Left and border control / immigration policies

[Kritias]

Well I disagree with about everything you said, I just wanted to know what you as an obvious socialist thought about immigration.

It's more than okay to disagree! I'm not trying to convince you; I'm just giving you my take on it. The fun thing is that for most western libs today, I am way too conservative. I can't really agree with anyone!

Then why was immigration lower before the 90s and 00s? Did human nature change?

What changed was the system of migration. Before the 80s and 90s, migration used the gastarbeiter system - this was a system of state agreements for transfer of workforce from one to another. In the 90s and 00s, this system was replaced with the padrone system, the privatized migration system where individuals are organizing migration instead of states. This difference in the system caused a boom in migration since the early nineties. In addition to that, however, there were also international issues adding to migration; in the early nineties the USSR collapsed, which caused huge numbers of people immigrating to continental Europe. The situation in Africa and the Middle East, the war on terror etc have also played their part in creating migration flows.

Modern slavery isnÂ’t representative of the wider immigration topic. Sure, of course it is terrible, and relevant, but most immigrants in the West work regular jobs.

Well, you could argue that - however according to Therborn (2006), the atypical patterns are dominant in migrant occupations. From the literature, it seems most immigrants do not work regular jobs, and those who do have arrived there through years in the atypical markets.

What are you talking about. In Northern Ireland in 2001 1.8% of the population was foreign, in 2011 it was 4.5. You are not describing my society at all accurately, in 2001 or now.

Oh no! I'm giving you aspects from the international literature, describing the mean variations using the more specific cases as signifiers on what the literature shows. I'm not talking about N. Ireland specifically. That's why I bring up Greece, where the atypical markets are less regulated, and the North of England (the most detailed work of the UK immigration literature came from Durham University, and they checked it around Newcastle, Sunderland etc. Their cases are more indicative of these areas). I can check the literature on N. Ireland specifically if you want to have that discussion, but it will take me a couple of days to inform myself.

[Aexodus]

Ok that’s fair enough. To be bluntly honest, I don’t care much about immigration to Europe, I want to know about the facts as they relate to Great Britain and Ireland (as geographic regions not states), and I suppose Canada too. Speaking of which, what do you make of the Canada debate on increasing immigration at first glance?

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pm...23145ecf1/amp/

This was implemented by the government there, in spite of the majority of the electorate rejecting it.

[Kritias]

Actually, Canada seems at first glance to be more in par with international experience in migration. According to statistics, the last decade there has been a boom in the service sector mainly in Alberta, Montreal and Toronto. I assume that as it has been witnessed in other countries, lax immigration initiatives aim to replace the shift to services. I quote from the Canadian embassy website:

This sector accounts for 75% of Canadian jobs and 78% of the country’s GDP. The sector includes the following sectors; transportation, economic, health care, construction, banking, communication, retail, tourism and government. As a vital part of the Canadian economy, the most popular sector is retail with some big franchise names including Walmart and Future Shop.

In recent years, the financial services, real estate and communications industries have grown exponentially, especially in the business hubs of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto.

Known as “Hollywood North”, Canada has become a powerhouse of international and local films, with many American film studios choosing to move their sets here.

Services play a key role in economies around the world and Canada is no exception. Gradually, the proportion of our economy stemming from services has been increasing, from 65% in 2004 to 69% in 2013. The gross domestic product (GDP) of service industries in 2013 totalled $714 billion*—almost double the amount in 2001.

The economy is divided into two sectors: the goods-producing sector, which makes tangible products, and the services-producing sector, which is essentially everything else. Services comprises a diverse range of activities, including high-tech and knowledge-intensive jobs, as well as low-skill, labour-intensive jobs—everything from software developer to fast food server.

Census metropolitan areas (CMAs) have a large concentration of service jobs, at 78% of total employment in 2013, compared with 68% elsewhere. Throughout the 1990s, almost all CMAs became more service-oriented.

The largest concentrations of service employment in 2013 were in St. John’s, Ottawa−Gatineau, Halifax, Victoria, Regina and Québec all of which had over 85% of their work forces employed in service-related jobs.

Much of the growth in services employment can be attributed to job creation in professional, scientific and technical services (mainly business services). This was especially the case in Canada’s five most populous CMAs (Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa−Gatineau and Calgary), where 280,000 such jobs were created from 2010 to 2014. This job growth accounted for 11% of the total increase in all service jobs in Canada over this period.

Professional, scientific and technical services are becoming an increasingly important industry in the Canadian economy. From 1994 to 2003, their share of total GDP increased from 3.0% to 4.5%. Most of this growth took place from 1996 to 2000, primarily in a few key industries. Notably, computer systems design and related services turned in the fastest growth, increasing its share of GDP from 0.6% in 1997 to 1.1% by 2003.

Firms in the ‘other professional, scientific and technical services’ industry specialized design services, management and other technical consulting, research and development services and other scientific and technical services grew their share of GDP from 0.7% in 1997 to 1.0% in 2003. By contrast, architectural and engineering services remained fairly constant at 1.1% of GDP in 1997 and 1.0% of GDP in 2003. The rest of the professional, scientific and technical services industry legal services, accounting, tax and bookkeeping services and advertising services accounted for 1.3% to 1.4% of GDP during the same period.

With service-sector job growth up two per cent in December from a year ago, it’s the biggest annual increase since early 2013. The largest annual gains were in the cultural and recreational industry, while the biggest month-over-month increase was in professional and technical services.

And the trend has been building. Over the past five years, all but a fraction of new jobs were created in the service sector, with health care and social services—otherwise known as the business of taking care of old people being the biggest driver so far. What gains there have been in the goods-producing sector of the economy were overwhelming concentrated in the construction industry.

What’s more, the job market gap between the goods and services sectors doesn’t break down along the same regional lines that have led to imbalances in the Canadian economy over the last decade or so. In manufacturing-heavy Ontario, the goods sector added just 5,000 new positions last year, while services added 76,000. Meanwhile in Alberta, jobs in the goods sector fell by 53,000, while the services sector added 34,000 not enough to make the province a net job creator, but certainly proving that Alberta’s economy is more diversified than just oil and gas jobs.

It’s true that the wages of many of the new service jobs being created don’t always match the goods-sector jobs that have been lost. Wholesale and retail trade was the third-biggest driver of employment last year, yet those are not high-wage jobs, and certainly don’t come close to replacing high-paying positions in the oil and gas sector. On the other hand, the average hourly wage in the health care and social assistance sector last year’s biggest jobs winner was higher than in manufacturing.

[Ludicus]

[/COLOR] for most western libs today, I am way too conservative...

Nah, you are farway of being a conservative.
I have never met a true conservative particularly worried about the unequal recognition of human individuals as persons, or about the multidimensionality of inequalities in the context of globalization, that is to say, the inequalities produced by capitalist political dictat-ship, imperialism, racism, and sexism. I never met a true conservative inspired by Therborn or Amartya Sen.
Oh, and on a side note: Marx-ism has an uncertain future, but in the sinuous road from Marxism to post-Marxism, the reports of the death of the left-wing intellectual creativity are great exaggerated.

[Kritias]

Here's some preliminary evidence for the Republic of and Northern Ireland:

Before the Second World War, less than 3,000 non-Irish national resided in the country (ICI,2003b). Whilst most of Europe was experiencing net inward migration after the war (Garson andLoizillon, 2003), Ireland has for a long time been associated with high levels of emigration,particularly to Great Britain, the United States and Australia (Ruhs, 2009). Even in the late 1980sthe country was losing up to 40,000 of its population per year (Barret and Duffy, 2008). Non-Irishnationals, with the exception of those born in the United Kingdom who had gained this rightpreviously, were permitted to reside and work in Ireland for the first time when the country joinedthe EU (ICI, 2003b). Yet numbers remained very low for several decades. With the rapideconomic growth from the 1990s onwards and job creation on a large scale, the Republic ofIreland, also called the „Celtic Tiger‟, saw a change to net immigration by the early 2000s. Also,there was a large increase of asylum applications (Quinn, 2009; Ruhs, 2009). Ireland became oneof the countries with the highest level of inward migration in the OECD (OECD, 2008). This wasfirst driven by return migration, which made up around half of the immigrant inflows, but by themid-90s an increasingly diverse population entered the country (Barret and Duffy, 2008).Between 2002 and 2004 new peaks were reached in immigration flows from non-EEA countries(Quinn, 2009: 15). The biggest shift occurred with the accession of the ten New Member States(NMS) in 2004. Ireland was one out of only three countries to allow new EU citizens full accessto the labour market (Barret and Duffy, 2008), although this was not the case for the most recentaccession countries Romania and Bulgaria. Overall immigration levels peaked between 2004 and2007 due to the substantial inflow of NMS immigrants which were still high levelling off in 2007and 2008 (Quinn, 2009: 15). With the severe impact of the global economic crisis in Ireland,immigrant levels have dropped significantly in recent years (Krings, 2010) although this decreasehad already begun before the onset of the crisis (Ruhs, 2009).

It is well documented that during the past two decades Ireland has become an increasingly diverse country. The 2016 Census indicates that the 535,475 non-Irish nationals living in Ireland originate from 200 different nations. The largest group are Polish nationals at 122,515, followed by 103,113 UK nationals, and 36,552 Lithuanians. Overall, there are 12 nationalities with more than 10,000 residents living here in Ireland from America, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Italy, Latvia, Romania, and Spain, in addition to Poland, Lithuania and the UK.

Ireland is a country whose history was characterised by substantial patterns of emigration. The 1990s however, introduced a ‘new’ Ireland with the expansion of the economy and the years of ‘The Celtic Tiger’. In light of thisdramatic change the phenomenon of net immigration to Ireland began. This process of social change took the Irish government by surprise and has led to an abundance of ad-hoc immigration policies and to the lack of a coherent
integrative framework for ethnic minorities.

It seems the boom in service jobs with American companies during the period of the Celtic Tiger led to positive net migration in the early 2000s. This development seems to have taken both Irish states by surprise, with policies struggling to deal with immigrants. There's a clear transition between those immigrants with Irish or British background until the late nineties to immigrants of non-Irish/British background in the early 2000s. The political economy in Ireland allowed from members from other EU states full access to its labour market in '04 which lead to ever growing flows of immigrants from the ascension countries. However, there also seems to have been barriers that pushed immigrants to atypical work; one of those barriers was the exclusion of asylum seekers from the job market. Another was that foreign students can only find employment in menial jobs.

The relatively active recruitment of non-EEA students explains the high numbers of Chinesestudents in the country. Ireland is also quite popular for English language learning amongst bothEU and non-EU students, who come to study and work in the country for a limited amount oftime either on exchange programmes, specific language courses or to complete a degree. Theyoften fill low skill and low paid positions to finance their stay.

Her theory of ‘redistribution or recognition’ (Fraser 2003)can be applied to the Irish situation as barriers to employment exist and ethnic minorities tend to make up the bulk of service sector low paying jobs. Stereotyping ofethnic minorities also persists in the Irish context and views immigrants as welfarescroungers and ‘the alien’ in society if negative connotations like this continue to beassociated with ethnic minorities in contemporary society then injustices of ‘misrecognition’ and ‘mal-distribution’ will prevail (Fraser, 2003).

I haven't reviewed the full extend of the literature, so I will refrain for the time being from saying anything definitive about it. If you give me some time to inform myself, I will keep the thread posted. Sources used above: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

@Ludicus,

That was a wholesome feeling right there!

[Aexodus]

Ok. It’s certainly true that the ROI had significant economic growth in the 2000s, but all you seem to have presented to tie immigration to that is a correlation.

I want to tie this back to the original contention. Do you still claim that our service sector economies are the reason for illegal immigration, and for the supposed idea that it is not possible to stem the tide of it?

[Kritias]

Ok. It’s certainly true that the ROI had significant economic growth in the 2000s, but all you seem to have presented to tie immigration to that is a correlation.

I want to tie this back to the original contention. Do you still claim that our service sector economies are the reason for illegal immigration, and for the supposed idea that it is not possible to stem the tide of it?

It's more complicated than a straight-forward cause/causation link. Illegal immigration is the effect of the padrone system. That's the only certain thing in the literature. By padrone is meant the system where private individuals organize immigration from one place to another, with financial profit from the immigrant (the "fee" the migrant pays the padrone), and a goal of tying that immigrant to an atypical ("black market job") job market. The use of smugglers, human traffickers etc are a characteristic of the padrone system in part, and some times in the whole of the immigration process.

What the service sector did was destroy the industrial jobs which were in turn supported by the gastarbeiter immigration system; by gastarbeiter is meant the immigration system where a state would ask for a definitive number of foreign skilled or unskilled labourers who would be employed for a fixed amount of time. The collapse of that system on the one hand with the increased need for working hands on the other gave rise to 'private initiative'.

What I maintain is that a) the de-industrialization process created a need for immigrant labour since more and more native workers entered into the service industry and b) that the gastarbeiter system was replaced by the padrone system which is based on exploiting illegal immigration.

Insofar there's no state-mandated immigration policy or a revival of the gastarbeiter system that regulated immigration, then the padrone system will continue pumping immigrants into the western societies - there's simply too much money to be made from desperate people with no other way out.

[Aexodus]

So you’re talking about people smuggling and over staying on visas? The solution therefore would be better border enforcement and deportation policies.

I have no idea what this ‘padrone’ system is you’re talking about, I have never heard of it before. If I look it up online all I get are references to American immigration from the 1890s to 1930s.

[sumskilz]

I have no idea what this ‘padrone’ system is you’re talking about, I have never heard of it before.

It sounds downright Italian, almost offensively so.

[Kritias]

So you’re talking about people smuggling and over staying on visas? The solution therefore would be better border enforcement and deportation policies.

I have no idea what this ‘padrone’ system is you’re talking about, I have never heard of it before. If I look it up online all I get are references to American immigration from the 1890s to 1930s.

It sounds downright Italian, almost offensively so.

And gastarbeiter is a German term. Literature usually uses the same terms over and over, especially when the characteristics are the same. You can see the same term referred to as work-gang system, or apprenticeship system - but it's widely just called the padrone system. Example of reference from John Hopkins journal, 2019:

The second element of work regulation relates to the so-called padrone system of employment. One of the most coercive aspects of a migrant’s job, which is usually overlooked by research, is the type of employer and the set of values and rules that predominate in specific job sectors. In the history of labor migration, the padrone (or padroni) employer was an important figure, especially at times when the entry of immigrants into a country was difficult and the state imposed restrictions on employers regarding foreign contract labor.These employers were usually identified as smugglers and labor contractors who provided migration passages and secured employment for individuals in exchange for personal and work deference (Kraus 1970). Padrone-type employers have been associated with coethnic or work group affiliates and with certain industries (Hutt 1933)...In terms of physical dependencies, the padrone system is mainly exercised through the manipulation of travel documents, the securing of lodging, food, and clothing, or other essential items for workers’ survival. Concerning social dependencies, the padrone secures the submission of migrant workers through the enforcement of cultural and moral patronage. This usually involves the employer acting as a spiritual guide, a godfather, a fictive kinsman, a protector, or even as friend—and thus as the person responsible for the migrant’s well-being.

Another, here:

If successful migrants are small businessmen in the host society, then recruitment is usually accomplished through the apprenticeship system. With this system one recruits employees from a fairly small circle of fellow countrymen,usually close friends and relatives, with the understanding that after about three years of being an employee, the apprentice may establish himself in thes ame or related business in a new location...As noted elsewhere (Hamilton,1977: 63-4), this pattern of recruitment is able to spawn a self-generated network of long-term temporary migrants in a relatively short period. The apprenticeship system is common among the African rural-to-urban migrants(Cohen, 1969, 1971; Sudarkasa, 1974-5), among Chinese migrants (Watson,1975: Omohundro, 1973: Hamilton, 1977), and among many southern and eastern European immigrants to the United States (Thistlethwaite. 1964) as well as "guest worker" migration from the same locations to northern Europe(Rose, 1969; Krane, 1979; Rhoades, 1978b). If the successful migrants are wage laborers in the host society, then new workers are often enlisted through what might be called the work-gang system. For example, under this system,southern Italians would be recruited by a labor contractor, himself a fellow countryman, and delivered to various industrial and nonindustrial employers(Thistlethwaite, 1964: MacDonald & MacDonald, 1962; Nelli, 1964; lorrizzo,1970). The group worked for the employer while remaining under the discipline of the labor contractor or padrone who often decided who would work,how much he could earn and whether a migrant could remain as a resident(member) of the enclave. Being unaccustomed to job opportunities or how to obtain them, the southern Italians were well-served by the work-gang organized by the padrone. Similar systems developed among the Chinese and African migrants.

As for your second question, unfortunately no. The only thing you'll accomplish with stricter border enforcement and deportation policies is to skyrocket the profits of smugglers. For example, just for 2019, Europol estimates that 50 million euros were made from the Western Med Route, 20 million from the Central Med route and an additional 90 million from the Eastern Med route. During the migrant crisis of 2015, around 5 billion euros were made by smugglers when several states closed down their borders. Unless we treat the underlying cause, the preventive measures will only add to the private profits of the smugglers.

Closing down borders will only make the fees these people pay higher; but at the same time demand for immigrant workers stays the same. It's a self-feeding loop of demand and supply for private profit, really. According to Europol, even closing the borders on one side only reactivated previous routes. This means that, so long there's demand for immigrant workers and so long it's profitable to smuggle them in, these people will keep coming. Even the solution to deny immigrants demand for their work by shifting natives to do them would require huge amounts of social re-engineering to re-educate a workforce with higher expectations to re-enter jobs that do not fulfill those expectations.

[Cyclops]

Good post Kritias, that certainly reflects the situation in Australia. We get a lot of students on student visas to bogus colleges who blur into the workforce: they are allowed a little work to help support themselves but the padron is in a position to exploit that.

Taxi drivers and sex workers are often foreign students either profiting from or caught up in one of these sort of schemes. There was scandal around 7-11 workers being made to pay up to a third of their wages back to their employers, and they were susceptible to this because often they were employed on terms that could see them deported so they were often unwilling to report the abuse. In turn the franchisees exploiting the workers were on such ruinous contracts with the parent company they could only turn a profit by reducing labour costs in this way. So the system is actually quite entrenched.

There's quite a few foreign workers in the building industry too, there's a skilled tradesman shortage because of stupid cost cutting in the tech schools. I'm not sure about the exact dynamic there, hopefully some skilled workers are at least getting paid well.

It sounds downright Italian, almost offensively so.

Or Spanish? I believe the agricultural sector in the US South West basically runs on seasonal Mexican labour. Be a shame if some idiot built a wall to stop them getting in, it'd be bad for business.

[Kritias]

@Cyclops,

I'll give another example from Greece that foreigners don't really hear about.

After the war and the civil war (1944-1949), in order for a native to work in the country, one had to have the so-called 'political affiliation' papers. The police issued those and what it meant was that basically you were not a leftie. If you didn't have those papers, well, you couldn't really work in any meaningful way or have private or public insurance. The only way out was doing one of the 'dirty jobs'. Either that, or you wound up in exile. A great deal of the Greek workforce was actually imprisoned in islands for the better part of 1950s up to the 1980s.

Now, as dirty jobs Watson (2010) describes work that physically or psychologically leaves a 'stigma' on the worker. It could be simple, like stench in garbage collectors, metaphorical stigma like undertakers, moral stigma in the case of prostitutes etc.

In the 80s, right after a military junta, we had a socialist government that released the political prisoners and cancelled the political papers. However, what turned out to happen was that a few years later the soviet union collapsed; we had a great deal of migration from Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Russia in the early 1990s. The state closed the borders; but these people kept coming in through smugglers. And lo and behold, most of them ended in the same atypical occupations that native communists and other leftists did before the junta.

What seemed to have happened in our case is that the need for uninsured, 'invisible' employees drove the need for smugglers to get Albanians, Romanians, Bulgarians and Russians into the country. It was a clear political decision to shut the borders and make all these people coming in illegal to drive them to the atypical market and replace native communists with foreign ones in these types of work. And the economy rolled exactly as before, only the excluded group had changed nationalities.

What I'm trying to say with this example is that politics shape who's illegal and who isn't and the reason for that might not always be good-natured. Just a thought.

[Cyclops]

...
What I'm trying to say with this example is that politics shape who's illegal and who isn't and the reason for that might not always be good-natured. Just a thought.

..up to the 1980's? Wow.

In Australia we enjoyed a lot of emigration from Europe, including a lot of Hellenes fleeing the civil war. There's a fair subset of left wingers among them but also refugees from Cyprus (eg the notoriously corrupt Theophanous brothers). The first generation were solidly left wing Labor voters.

They worked out the game of Australian life and worked hard at tough jobs, bought their houses and have become integrated across the political spectrum. A Cypriot mate of mine ("little Stalin"-a great nickname with long story but he's not like Stalin) now runs a (legal, non-sexual) massage parlour where he hires young women from Thailand to work in Australia on migrant visas. Its low status work with a slight moral stigma (the girls get propositioned a bit because they are seen as borderline prostitutes by some clients). As with most ethnic groups integrating in Australia the tipping point was sporting, specifically football ( the sport through which Irish, English, Scots and to an extent Aboriginal communities have integrated).

There was a famous footballer called Peter Daicos, a genius with an extra brain in each ankle. Through him the rest of society realised "Greeks" were not all "Greek" (he was from the Slavic speaking community in Florina) and during his career the racist epithets sort of disappeared. Now there's a Somali footballer called Daw who may do the same: we need a Sudanese footballer ASAP.

I mentioned in another thread about the security guards who started an outbreak of COVID 19 here in the lest month. Low paid African-born or first generation men on minimum wages were tasked with keeping infected people in quarantine. Instead they had sex with some of them and allowed people in the hotels to mingle. Then they got infected themselves and when they were diagnosed as sick they did not self isolate but went to work, saw family etc BOOM outbreak.

There's currently a wave of ill feeling toward Africans and security guards because of this but the young fellas were set up to fail: they were not given adequate training and they are poorly educated in any case. The employers who took them on at low wages and gave them such a vital job must take some blame here but typically they will not.

While refugees take a lot of the low status jobs I think we follow the model you describe, by giving them more to people on temporary visas, especially student visas. As non-citizens they cannot organise to improve their position and they have no representatives.

[Mithradates]

I mentioned in another thread about the security guards who started an outbreak of COVID 19 here in the lest month. Low paid African-born or first generation men on minimum wages were tasked with keeping infected people in quarantine. Instead they had sex with some of them and allowed people in the hotels to mingle. Then they got infected themselves and when they were diagnosed as sick they did not self isolate but went to work, saw family etc BOOM outbreak.

There's currently a wave of ill feeling toward Africans and security guards because of this but the young fellas were set up to fail: they were not given adequate training and they are poorly educated in any case. The employers who took them on at low wages and gave them such a vital job must take some blame here but typically they will not.

Why are you making excuses for them? "adequate training", "poorly educated" come on, being a guard is one of the most ancient and basic job, keeping infected people in quarantine is a vital, but also a very easy job. They failed to do that and thats on them only.

[Menelik_I]

Why is it that most of leftists support lax border control and immigration policies while the right / conservative support the opposite?

Such trend in West politics seems quite illogical - after all the left is for more welfare and the right usually not. Isn't it obvious that the more benefits you provide to residents the stricter entry restrictions you have to apply in order to reduce further waste of national resource, a number of them already having to be allocated to those who can never repay it (e.g. poor elders, serious long term illness or forever unemployed due to minimum salary, etc)? The benefits are, whether they're labeled as essential human right or not, privileges that have to be paid by residents in the form of tax.

It doesn't make sense for the right to support stricter control either - if they have their way, there would be little negative impact if any since the state provides only basic functions - anyone who join would have to integrate and work, like a slave if they have to, because there would be zero support from the government (imagine refugee camps as sweatshops). A 18th century US wouldn't need to block potential immigrants at all.

Am I misunderstanding something here? Or the parties today are completely guided by ideologies with no regard to logic?

Simple my friend:

If Political Power is justified by a vote tally, the one with majority rules, thus to control power you either have to control the information people need to make their voting decisions, or you control who vote by restricting ballot access, create your voters by political indoctrination via education or by choosing your voters via mass immigration. Or combine all of it.

The right reaction to it a belief, justified or not, that the rate of mass immigration will soon be suficient to change the nature of the state undoing as a country of their nationality, plus it is deeply undemocratic to react to your people recusal to vote for your policy by adding addicional voters to vote your way into power.

[Muizer]

Simple my friend:

If Political Power is justified by a vote tally, the one with majority rules, thus to control power you either have to control the information people need to make their voting decisions, or you control who vote by restricting ballot access, create your voters by political indoctrination via education or by choosing your voters via mass immigration. Or combine all of it.

The right reaction to it a belief, justified or not, that the rate of mass immigration will soon be suficient to change the nature of the state undoing as a country of their nationality, plus it is deeply undemocratic to react to your people recusal to vote for your policy by adding addicional voters to vote your way into power.

Time for a reminder

Do not take as the position of "The Left" what the right says it is.

To which I'll add such theories as espoused by Menelik say infinitely more about him and the people who make them up than about 'the left'. It is probably the kind of thing they would do if they had the opportunity.

[Menelik_I]

To which I'll add such theories as espoused by Menelik say infinitely more about him and the people who make them up than about 'the left'. It is probably the kind of thing they would do if they had the opportunity.

It is not a theory, it is happening before your own eyes in the USA, let me just copy the text from another thread, each make their conclusion:

This is simple:

1. Favor immigration from countries whose political culture is most aligned to yours, for example Africans and Latin Americans are much left-leaning than Americans in General.
2. Designate your opposition party as the enemy of the immigrant, use racism if needed.

Perfect recipe, and the data shows that immigrants in the USA vote at +70% for the democrats, with similar patterns replicating in the UK and Switzerland. See the studies below:

Migration Background and Voting Behavior in Switzerland: A Socio-Psychological Explanation
individuals with migration background belonging to outgroups have a higher propensity to vote for the Left than natives
OLIVER STRIJBIS Berlin Social Science Center (WZB) Abstract: Research on electoral choices of citizens

Excerpt and link

with migration background has remained largely descriptive. What is missing is a systematic test of theories that can explain individuals with migration background’s voting behavior. This article provides such a test on the basis of a post-electoral survey from the 2011 Swiss general election. It is the first study on the electoral behavior of the first and second generation in Switzerland. And it shows that specific migration background impacts considerably on vote choice. In particular, individuals with migration background belonging to outgroups have a higher propensity to vote for the Left than natives. This relationship is partly explained by the party identifications adopted by the citizens with migration background belonging to outgroups. KEYWORDS: Migration, Elections, Switzerland, Identity, Voting behavior https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/spsr.12136

Surge in immigrant Conservative voters, but most vote Labour In the general election of 2013, over 60 per cent of voters with an immigrant background from Africa, Asia and Latin America voted for centre-left parties, with the Labour Party being the most popular.

except and link

This share was even higher in earlier municipal elections. If we compare the general election in 2013 with the municipal elections in 2011, support for the Conservative Party among this group of immigrants has more than doubled. The voting pattern of those with a European immigrant background is more similar to other Norwegian voters, but support for Labour is also extensive among this group. https://www.ssb.no/en/valg/artikler-...ts=14a61cadf08

Party affiliation among immigrants by state, :https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/state/among/immigrant-status/immigrants/


Now you can tell me that this means nothing and has no electoral impact, well the immigrant vote in the USA has doubled in 20 years, account now for 10% of the vote, with +70% voting dems, it means Democrats gained 7% of the vote advantage which cannot easily be switched to Republicans compared to native Americans.

https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic...oters-in-2020/

This would have more impact if the USA didn't have a electoral college and if these voters were not concentrated in California, but he potential is there and real, they acknowledge it

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...r-registration

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...2016-election/

Now do you have idea of the number of years and resources needed to to gain 7% of the electoral advantage in the USA ? The Conservative victory of Reagen in 1980 started with work in the Goldwater run in the 60, the Democrat triumph in the 1990 and 2010 was work started also 20 years before.

The same principle can be used to turn the USA more right wing via mass immigration from Europeans, with some tweeks to favor people with right-wing tendencies.

[Muizer]

You're inferring intent without basis. You just assume there's a 'grand strategy' behind this. A grand strategy that would be incredibly dumb too if it aims to solidify one party's grip on power. Especially in an effective 2 party state you're bound to see internal adjustments of political course on both sides instead. So yeah, immigration can change the mean attitude of people on a number of things, but it doesn't guarantee anyone's power. It's not as if the Republicans are condemned to doggedly sticking to their positions as their vote share drops. In Europe at least, the fact that society is becoming more progressive on a number of issues has not prevented traditional right wing parties remaining in power most of the time. They just adapt. Sometimes they struggle to keep their old conservative consitituency on board (contributing to the appearance of far right parties) but in an effective 2 party state like the US has that wouldn't even be a problem.

[Kritias]

@Menelik_I,

I think it's logical to first eliminate all other propable reasons for this trend, before we assume a conspiracy. Therefore,

Do you think immigrants would be more or less inclined to vote for Republicans if the republican rhetoric hadn't turned populistic some decades back blaming immigrants for a lot of the evils in US society? Would you even vote for Democrats, if they accused you and people like you for all the evils in the US?

In the case of Mexicans, one of the biggest immigrant groups in the US, would you say that Trump calling Mexico out for sending 'rapists' ("not their best") might have contributed in the Mexican community turning to the Democrats? Would you vote for Democrats if they accused you and people like you for being "rapists"?

In short, is it possible that instead of a 'grand scheme of the Left' what you're just witnessing is the backfire of an offensive rhetoric towards a part of the registered voters? Similarly, isn't the reason that the American Left is using a rhetoric you perceive as offensive to you personally why you feel so offended by the Left?

[Cope]

You're inferring intent without basis. You just assume there's a 'grand strategy' behind this. A grand strategy that would be incredibly dumb too if it aims to solidify one party's grip on power. Especially in an effective 2 party state you're bound to see internal adjustments of political course on both sides instead. So yeah, immigration can change the mean attitude of people on a number of things, but it doesn't guarantee anyone's power. It's not as if the Republicans are condemned to doggedly sticking to their positions as their vote share drops. In Europe at least, the fact that society is becoming more progressive on a number of issues has not prevented traditional right wing parties remaining in power most of the time. They just adapt. Sometimes they struggle to keep their old conservative consitituency on board (contributing to the appearance of far right parties) but in an effective 2 party state like the US has that wouldn't even be a problem.

It is beyond doubt that the Democrats' electoral strategies rely on building coalitions of racial minorities. That is part of the reason why they obsessively promote racial politics under the guise of anti-racism and empathy (see Malcolm X's comments on the deceitfulness of liberals). In the end, there is no conspiracy, just math.