3 ms·

I feel like you're misrepresenting things on both counts. About (1) I would say that internationalism in the old socialism is not AT ALL about open borders. Ra

I feel like you're misrepresenting things on both counts. About (1) I would say that internationalism in the old socialism is not AT ALL about open borders. Rather it is about causing socialist revolutions within every country. The movement should cross borders, not people and certainly not goods. In fact, I believe they are against international trade except where absolutely necessary. About (2) I can only say that I have. It has come to the point that you cannot say in leftist company even basic things like "illegal immigrants should not be allowed to remain". Talking about "immigration must be limited strictly to below the point where it destroys the labour market" is likely to get you banned. Is your experience different ?

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Talking about "immigration must be limited strictly to below the point where it destroys the labour market" is likely to get you banned. Is your experience different ? My experience is that leftists generally have no ideological problem with efforts to restrict the overall level of immigration (I've seen several arguments that the current system of hard quotas and tossing money at enforcement aren't a cost-effective means of doing that, but that's a different issue), and, speaking of the US, in particular often favor more sharply limiting (or even abolishing) employment-based immigration (including non-immigrant programs like the H-1B.) They tend to prefer loosening existing numerical restrictions on family reunification immigration. I've not seen any significant support for genuinely open borders, and I myself am the only even left-leaning (I won't call myself a leftist) person I've encountered who proposed any (though limited—based on fees rather than quotas) legal immigration outside of existing preference categories. The kind of oversimplifying statements you suggest which treat immigration as a whole and the sole concern in immigration policy being the market effects on wage labor are something that I can see being unwelcome on the left, whether old or new, but not because either favors open borders.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Talking about "immigration must be limited strictly to below the point where it destroys the labour market" is likely to get you banned. Is your experience different ? My experience is that leftists generally have no ideological problem with efforts to restrict the overall level of immigration (I've seen several arguments that the current system of hard quotas and tossing money at enforcement aren't a cost-effective means of doing that, but that's a different issue), and, speaking of the US, in particular often favor more sharply limiting (or even abolishing) employment-based immigration (including non-immigrant programs like the H-1B.) They tend to prefer loosening existing numerical restrictions on family reunification immigration. I've not seen any significant support for genuinely open borders, and I myself am the only even left-leaning (I won't call myself a leftist) person I've encountered who proposed any (though limited—based on fees rather than quotas) legal immigration outside of existing preference categories. The kind of oversimplifying statements you suggest which treat immigration as a whole and the sole concern in immigration policy being the market effects on wage labor are something that I can see being unwelcome on the left, whether old or new, but not because either favors open borders.