PS to the Previous

I know that regular readers heard me say all this before but we have new readers on here and they keep writing emails, telling me that I can’t be “against immigration” because I benefited from it. And in tired of explaining that I’m like that mythical grandma who smoked 4 packs a day and lived to be 90. That grandma and I exist but we are not the norm.

5 thoughts on “PS to the Previous”

  1. Did any of your emailers tell you about secondary gains and tertiary gains from immigration? I’m rather surprised you haven’t started using that language yet in your discussions.

    Like

      1. Hence the existence of secondary and tertiary gains. If you posit that far more people are immigrating and/or are “for” immigration than benefiting and that immigration is mostly terrible, then there must be some kind of other gains these people, who do not directly benefit from it, get.

        With your penchant for psychologizing, I’m surprised you haven’t gone there.

        As for your email writers, the explanation for your stance is quite simple and rather classic.

        Like

        1. People from Central America leave their countries not for any obscure psychological reasons but because of extreme poverty and gang violence. And the extreme poverty and gang violence will keep existing in order to keep pushing them out. Because it very directly benefits a small group of rich bastards in the US and Central America.

          Like

  2. “we have new readers on here and they keep writing emails, telling me that I can’t be ‘against immigration’ because I benefited from it…”

    1) Historically, progressives stood with labour against uncontrolled immigration because it depressed working class wages while it served the economic interests of capital and the upper class. Today, having largely abandoned labour through their promotion of neoliberal globalism, ‘left’ political parties in the west cynically welcome illegal migrants as potential replacement voters.

    2) Illegal immigration undermines democracy in western countries because it places policy-making power in the hands of the bureaucratic and judicial elites and removes it from the elected legislature – a route which nearly always favours capital and the upper class at the expense of the lower middle and working classes.

    3) Many decades of experience with foreign aid, remittances, and migration prove that these are not catalysts for the economic and social transformation of the poor countries. In fact, they tend to entrench the existing power of local elites that have the most to lose if the system of corruption and extreme exploitation that underwrites their rule is changed. For them, migration is a safety valve that removes from the country those most likely to press for fundamental social change.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.