>>2875207>ok prove it, all you're doing is crying that Marx doesn't support mass migration.I just proved that Marx did not advocate for repressing Irish immigrants; people who oppose mass immigration—like you—interpret that stance as supporting mass immigration. You are the one who needs to prove where—and in which program throughout his life—Marx advocated cutting off or preventing immigration by empowering the bourgeois state to repress immigrants. So far, you haven't cited anything; you simply focus on the text where Marx describes the English worker's mistaken view of the Irish immigrant as a hostile competitor. In that same text, Marx writes that by opposing the Irish immigrant worker, the English worker becomes a tool of the English bourgeoisie and aristocracy, thereby strengthening the ruling classes against the English workers themselves.
If Marx wrote nothing demanding the repression of immigrants, then the bourgeoisie will bring in and incentivize immigrant workers, and coerce them. If you argue that this must be stopped—or that it constitutes an "emergency" justifying state power to repress and deport immigrants—then that is the conclusion you reach. However, Marx clearly sided with Irish workers in his texts. If you claim this means opposing English workers, it is only because you believe the lie that views immigrant workers as enemies; it is solely due to your own prejudices that you perceive Marx as supporting mass immigration.
Marx places no importance on what is shared with—or merely feigned to be shared with—the ruling classes. He clearly sides with the Irish worker against the English aristocracy and bourgeoisie, and he advocated for English workers to adopt this same position without ever supporting any anti-immigrant laws.
>then you're just changing the subject because we're discussing the system of immigration not the immigrants themselves.Marx clearly wrote that English workers can do nothing other than grant Irish workers the right to liberate themselves from their own subjugation by English capitalists and aristocrats. This puts an end to any discussion about an immigration system; in his writings, Marx himself advocates for abolishing employment certificates in France. Therefore, Marx would oppose any immigration system you could imagine, since he refuses to grant the bourgeois state any power of repression whatsoever.
>already did initially you were confused over the prescription/description nature of the letters.Wrong again. You are confusing the text where Marx writes the following:
"The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland."
Here, he is literally stating that the English worker who views the Irish immigrant worker as a competitor lowering his standard of living is mistaken; in doing so, he becomes—as the text says—"becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself". The Irish worker then—as the text says—The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland."
Marx clearly views you as a "stupid tool" of the bourgeoisie.
>again what is being discussed is the policy of mass migration not who and who not to organize.And the position, as Marx states, is that English workers have no political recourse within England other than to defend these exploited workers of other nationalities. This runs counter to any immigration system you might wish to propose.
>other then the laws that preventing immigration in the USSR. Both Marx, Engels and Lenin did not support any law to encourage mass immigration of workers either.Show proof of these laws. You haven't shown anything. Organizing a socialist state and planning its resources is not the same as how to organize within a bourgeois state; the communist position is one of solidarity with workers worldwide for the emancipation of all workers. You didn't provide a single quote, so I am right and you are wrong—as always, the liberal resentful of immigrant workers has no source to cite.