/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Open borders, no ifs no buts.
I will emphasize time and again that Britain did not have external border controls until 1905, and that many countries had or have (but are winding down) internal border controls. There is no consistent, non-prejudiced argument for "national" borders that could not be extended to sub-national ones, yet we now regard it as self evidently absurd that you might ban someone moving between towns.

>>2888454
I ask because there are some people on this website that argue for closed borders on the notion that immigrants are a form of cheap labor ripe for exploitation.

Under capitalism, unironically zero immigration in order to disrupt the capitalist process which requires decreasing wages via higher labor supply and increasing consumption from more number of buyers.

Under communism, obviously there will be no nations.

No one is illegal on stolen land.

>>2888454
>the country surrounded by water didn't have borders before planes and motor boats were invented
don't get that argument,where would the immigrants even come from ? they would take their little fishing boat and brave the sea after they already reached France ???

>>2888460
>Motor boats were invented in 1905
>Britain, a nation which colonised a huge chunk of the world in the age of sail, was protected by the impossibility of entering or leaving Britain by sea prior to the invention of the steamship
Unspeakable retardation. Even if you wanted to make this idiotic point, a better timed argument would be the invention of the airplane in 1903!

Immigration is just a strategy used by big business to cut costs, and right now governments are using it as a political weapon. Look at what's happening in Ceuta, Spain, right now

>>2888458
You know that today's natives outside of Alaska are chudded af right?

>>2888463
Chuds are a majority in nearly every population.

>>2888464
Hence why doing [insert random ethnicty] worship is useles

That reddit, twitter and hexbear users need to fuck off back to their own padded cells ("safe space").

>>2888453
Picrel is actually pretty fitting considering the show supported "Muh heckin wholesome forgiving Nazis"; I don't know what the conservative pearl fiasco is about

>>2888458
Nobody's "illegal" period. Even even literally every immigrant raped children it would be good to arrest at least most of them but it would be hypocritical to not also arrest the elites for doing and facilitating the same but on a bigger scale per capita, hence not being legally valid. Fascism itself is all about creating new exceptions to the law until it doesn't exist; such takes precedent over palingenesis and the first thing to understand about any legal or political theory is that.

>>2888462
This is reductive reactionary retardation. There are possible negative outcomes, but immigration can, and has been in most cases, overwhelmingly beneficial.

Open borders for all women and genderqueer people. Barbed wire walls for moids.

>>2888469
I don't understand a thing, but I also saved this picture in the hope that /pol/tards won't understand it either and will think that it's too smart for them

Fully open borders makes no sense with global inequality this severe, recent happenings in Ceuta are a good exhibit of that. City's population would have doubled overnight with no capacity to integrate the newcomers.

>>2888472
Most bazed mp4 i've seen in quite a while; very fond of this

immigration speeds up the leveling of the value of labor power and is therefore historically progressive

Under capitalism? Absolutely zero. Immigration is a tool of wage suppression, obviously, but it’s also used to detach and divide the proletariat of the Global South between the diaspora in the core and the rest of the periphery. Diasporoids get co-opted by capital—which is why a lot of them end up working against the material interests of their people in the periphery.
Communist utopia? Live wherever you want, but I suspect most people will still have in-group ethnic preferences and prefer to live among people similar to them.

>>2888475
You have the internet, you can look it up. And the US is the obvious example.

>>2888478
I was being too generous
>so overwhelmingly beneficial he is unable to cite a single example in his own words

>>2888477
>>2888456
>Immigration is a tool of wage suppression

Factually wrong generalization. It could possibly be true in some countries, but virtually every single meta analysis on the impact of immigration on wages in the US finds that the impact goes from statistically insignificant to negligible (less than 1%).

https://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2025/wp2025-07.pdf

>>2888480
You’re being disingenuous. A lot of these bourgeoise "studies" do the same thing. They focus on the aggregate economy even though immigrants disproportionately compete for "unskilled" low-wage jobs—agriculture, service, food processing, and some manufacturing sectors. Their negative effects are concentrated at the bottom-end of income-earners, particularly uneducated and teenage native workers. Why else is the agriculture sector in the US almost entirely dominated by Latino illegal immigrant labor? Not to mention immigrant workers often have a much lower reservation wage than native workers (another reason why capital loves them so much).

>>2888477
>Immigration is a tool of wage suppression
it raises wages for immigrants

No one will complain if they import women only

>>2888481
Uno - These studies do take into account that the impact on low-skilled labor is higher, and the difference is still negligible. Even with the reservation wage disparity;
Dos - Latino illegal immigrat labor being notable in the agriculture sector doesn't mean that jobs are "going away". The labor pool is not finite, this is very important. And immigrants create demands for new kinds of jobs;
Tres - A larger labor force isn't only beneficial under capitalism. Even if the economy is fully decommodified, more able-bodied workers means more collaborators for meeting community needs, which means less work-hours for meeting such needs, since it reduces the dependent-to-worker ratio.

>>2888484
>These studies do take into account that the impact on low-skilled labor is higher, and the difference is still negligible.
The study you linked is just a calculation of the average effect on wages in the aggregate. Using it to "disprove" the negative distributional effects on lower working class wages is retarded.
Moreover, I skimmed through the study and saw this on page 14:
<we compute the I2 statistic, quantifying the fraction of observed variance that cannot be attributed to sampling errors. The calculated I2 is 96.38%.
This is basically saying that there's a 96% real variance in the data collected across the 88 studies examined. The parameters used and the results of these studies were all over the place—some found high negative effects, others found high positive effects, and others were in between. When the results were averaged out, the net effect equaled around zero. This doesn't mean the studies finding large negative effects on low-skilled natives are outliers or "negligible." Quite the contrary, they are part of the genuine range of outcomes of immigration. In this vein, your study might actually support my position; I don't know for sure because I don’t have the time to go through all 88 studies. Nevertheless, citing the average as proof of anything is statistically meaningless because the studies themselves are highly context dependent. The authors indirectly address this in their abstract when they say:
<We highlight the critical role of contexts and methodological choices in shaping wage estimates.

>Latino illegal immigrat labor being notable in the agriculture sector doesn't mean that jobs are "going away". The labor pool is not finite, this is very important. And immigrants create demands for new kinds of jobs
Wtf is this libertarian nonsense lol? No one is claiming the labor pool is finite—that would be antithetical to the reserve army of labor, which capitalism must maintain in order to drive wages down. The issue isn't whether new jobs are "created," that’s a bourgeois framing of the social relations of production; the issue is that every new job created by capital is built on the exploitation of a new and vulnerable underclass, which dually depresses the native working class' conditions.

>A larger labor force isn't only beneficial under capitalism.
A larger labor force means a larger surplus value is being extracted—meaning more exploitation.

Migration from town to town is already bad enough, let alone nation to nation. No one should take even a step from where they were born, same with every crop, mineral, or natural resource, nothing good comes from trade

>>2888453
>immigration
from where? to where? by whom? for what purpose? by what means? under what mode of production? doesn't it depend highly on context? this is such an open ended question. maybe you are asking it in a vague way on purpose so that people can make assumptions and be assholes.

>>2888454
personally i think if you meet your wife anywhere outside of your mudhut village it's sexpat behavior. if you go more than 3 miles to find a job you're scabbing. everyone should stay exactly where they were born and marry their cousin otherwise they're sexpat rootless cosmopolitan scabs.