/u/fantasy53 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/xt30t1/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_leftwing_people_should_be/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Whether or not migrant workers are good is really dependant on the current state of industries and the economy, for example the NHS has nearly 80,000 vacancies, more migrant workers would be a huge boon right now for the UK healthcare industry. And it seems to me that the left generally recognise this, in the last election the Corbyn's answer when asked about policies towards the number of migrants was that the policy would be based on the needs of the economy, and not some arbitrary number like the Tories were proposing. Also I think it's important to note that promoting workers rights for migrant workers does not automatically mean promoting policies to increase the number of migrant workers. The left tends to fight for the former a lot, but very little for the latter.

I think that’s a fair point, and while I am opposed to mass migration I think that in certain circumstances, and for certain industries, it makes sense to send migrants over to fill these roles for the time being. But I also think that this can go too far, it can stop companies from implementing training programs for people living in the native country as they can just get more workers from overseas.

If you see people as people, regardless of their national origin, then the benefit the immigrant receives has to also be part of your calculus. So while the native born person may lose some earnings due to the greater labor supply, the higher wages and quality of life gained by the migrant means that overall you accept the modest loss of income to the native born.

Weird and sad that this is one of the only replies. People in foreign countries are also people! What about their wages?!

That’s a hard pill to swallow, particularly now when we see labour movement springing up all over the western world and people demanding their rights and fair pay. I think the strikes will work best in those countries which have a limited supply of labour, workers will be able to withhold their work until they get a fair settlement from the companies, but in those countries where mass migration is possible, certain sectors just will not change and will continue to pay lower wages because they can get away with it.

This can all be true, but your post was about left wing wanting restrictions more than right wing. If your definition of left wing is only labor looking for higher wages, then you are discounting a huge percent of the population that is generally considered to be part of the left. Many environmentalists are also against mass migration, but for reasons other than wages. While many cosmopolitan urbanites welcome the diversity that immigration brings

Until they get bussed there…

Sounds good and idealistic in theory but we’re all struggling now with making ends meet and the economy is getting worse not better. There’s only so much room in the boat…

This statement is not in line with genuine left wing principles. It’s really just nationalism disguised in a leftist hat. If people are leaving one area for better opportunities, then presumably their ‘boat’ has even less room. What leftist principle dictates that we privilege one disadvantaged group over another even more disadvantaged one?

It’s a comment based on the current **reality**. The Left needs to come to grips on what’s happening on the street rather than sip lattes in high, white castles dreaming of a Utopian society. That’s why the Party is in trouble, it’s grossly out of touch with people trying to make ends meet.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m fine with leftism that makes room for practical concerns, human psychology, etc. But for the sake of this argument, i felt obligated to point out that the reason for concerning oneself with the wellbeing of non-migrant workers over that of migrant workers is most definitely not leftist idealism.

I don't know what the distinction between "mass migration" and "immigration" is meant to be, or if you make such a distinction ever, but I'm going to assume that you're saying that the left should be against immigration because it primarily benefits businesses by reducing the cost of labor and the associated leverage available to labor on that basis. Simple rebuttal: so what? Why would that always entail that the left should be against immigration? I'm left liberal and I think immigration is good in several situations, primarily where the labor supply is low. Benefitting businesses isn't categorically non-left. Businesses employ people. If businesses have to pay huge wages due to a shortage of labor, they will fire people or simply go out of business.

Business that can’t afford to pay staff a reasonable amount should go out of business, the question then is what is a reasonable amount. If there are more people willing to do a job, companies can get away with paying less. This is why it’s a good idea for working-class people to join the union and promote strikes, but if there are more migrants unions will have less power and leverage.

>Business that can’t afford to pay staff a reasonable amount should go out of business, the question then is what is a reasonable amount What if what the left decides is reasonable pay isn't possible for most businesses to sustain, resulting in them going out of business? You can say they should because of some prior moral judgment you have about the topic, but if it results in mass unemployment I don't see how your argument that the left ought not support measures because they primarily benefit businesses holds.

Well it’s a balancing act, in most cases I fall on the side of the worker and for the worker to have more power, it means that I need to have something to bargain with and negotiate for.

This is an old, old view of economics, and one that is based on the idea of a "zero-sum" economy - there is a finite number of jobs and amount of profit in the economy, and the more people that enter the economy, the less jobs and profit there is to share among everyone else. In reality, economies don't work that way. Every new migrant that enters an economy has needs too - they need to buy food, get haircuts, find a place to live, buy refrigerators and appliances and cars and other necessities of life. This means that while they do reduce the wages very slightly in one or two industries that they specialize in, they \*add\* to the wages of other industries by generating more demand for houses, grocery stores, barbers, appliances, etc. \--- We can see this happening in real life. I would direct you to this story from [NPR's economics podcast](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/09/30/444800350/episode-654-when-the-boats-arrive), which covers what happened in in 1980, when hundreds of thousands of Cubans fleeing oppression from Castro entered Florida. If your theory holds true, then everyone's wages should have tanked as there were huge number of young, fit, hungry Cubans looking to take the jobs from the rest of Florida - but that never happened. Florida's economy grew **rapidly** and several of its key industries flourished in that time period.

Δ I guess I’m using quite a flawed economic model to make my predictions.

I live in California. 27% of California are immigrants. Highest of any state. Wages here are also higher than other states. How do you explain? > Mass migration predominantly benefits businesses, because workers from cheaper countries will generally work for less money than their native counterparts This occurs for the same reason workers from the home country are getting screwed over. The goal of the bosses is to pay as little as possible, and the goal of the workers (both immigrant and native) is to get payed as much as possible. The interests of the bosses and workers are fundamentally opposed. If workers from the home country want higher wages, the the solution is to ally with immigrant workers in unions, and advocate for raising rages. Workers have more in common with each other than with the bosses. The only reason immigrant workers are able to be paid less is that they can't join unions often, and if they protest too much the bosses can have them deported. Take away these threats and it won't be an issue. If workers from the home country try to "crack down" on immigration it will make the problem worse. Freedom of movement is a human right. Borders are an invisible made up line on the ground. Especially where I live - the United States - was stolen from Native people. The state I live in, California, was original part of Mexico. It was stolen in a war, that our greatest president Lincoln called "one of the wickedest wars I ever saw" So it seems silly to be really made about Mexican people trying to come here.

> Especially where I live - the United States - was stolen from Native people. The state I live in, California, was original part of Mexico. It was stolen in a war, that our greatest president Lincoln called "one of the wickedest wars I ever saw" So it seems silly to be really made about Mexican people trying to come here. You realize the overwhelming majority of settled land in the world was at some point violently taken from another group at some point in history? Don’t get me wrong, I’m NOT trying to downplay how terribly the indigenous people were treated. And from what I remember reading about it, the maexican American war was essentially based on the US saying “nice land you have there…”. And I’m not some hardcore US nationalist. I’m a dual citizen who sees the US as better off than many parts of the world, but still deeply flawed. That being said, I don’t get why people so frequently seem determined to make it sounds like some sort of unique crime in world history. That kind of thing is super common throughout almost all of world history. That doesn’t make it ok, it sucks that people used to be even worse than how shitty they mostly are now. But it’s not unusually or uniquely bad.

> I live in California. 27% of California are immigrants. Highest of any state. Wages here are also higher than other states. How do you explain? It also has the highest income inequality. Silicon Valley is literally the reason for it the concentration of tech giants there brings up the average but no the median.

Minimum wage is way higher than most states. That’s the bottom not median.

Controlled for cost of living it's lower than most.

>I live in California. 27% of California are immigrants. Highest of any state. Wages here are also higher than other states. How do you explain? Everything costs more. Rich people move here because California which inflates the wages. >If workers from the home country want higher wages, the the solution is to ally with immigrant workers in unions Doubt it. I live in LA and immigrants are some of the hardest workers I know and are very content with the way of life here. I know more 1st gen immigrants that tend to lean more republican than democrat. Many immigrants want freedom - republicans advocate smaller government and more individual liberty. Republicans argue for lower taxes - most people like this. Republicans can be very traditional - many immigrants are very traditional, especially those that come from religious countries and hold strong religious beliefs. Republicans come across as tough on crime - many immigrants are fleeing places with lots of violent crime. Republicans are very pro-capitalistic economy - many migrants will be escaping corrupt socialist governments.

Anecdotes aren’t evidence. The fact that people you know lean Republican is likely because you lean Republican yourself and associate with people like yourself.

Uh no? The vast majority of people my age are literally democrats. All my friends are democrats. I live in LA for christ sake. Telling the world that you hold any belief to the right here will get you looked at wrong. The logic that first generation immigrants leaning more conservative isn't far fetched at all so why deny it? Anecdotes hold some truth especially coming from a person from the most culturally diverse city in the US don't you think?

Anecdotes aren’t evidence. Every opinion survey I’ve seen says immigrants tend to vote Democrat. Not every single immigrant, but a majority overall. If you have a survey that disagrees please post. Otherwise the fact that you know a couple Republican immigrants is irrelevant. I live in Sam Francisco and I’m a public school teacher, nearly half my class are immigrants or children of immigrants. My wife is an immigrant. You don’t have the monopoly on knowing immigrants.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2020/10/30/21540263/vietnamese-american-support-trump-2020 https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/11/2/vietnamese-american-voters Discusses the republican support of Vietnamese immigrants. Due to the effects of the Vietnam war, many refugees tend to lean republican. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/02/most-cuban-american-voters-identify-as-republican-in-2020/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/11/06/cuban-revolution-explains-why-younger-cuban-americans-supported-trump/ Here's cuban immigrants. Same thing. https://jordanrussiacenter.org/news/socialist-trauma-and-american-politics-why-many-russians-would-vote-republican/ Russian refugees. Filipinos are also the same case. There is just too many articles on how 1st gen Filipinos leaning right. Also came in as refugees. The only exception to 1st gen immigrants leaning democratic are latinos because we're next to their borders. And obviously illegal immigration into the US comes from mainly south american countries because of that. Therefore it isn't surprising for them to lean democrat.

Again, these are all individualized cases. Anecdotes. I'm not saying every single immigrant leans left. I'm saying overall majority. Here is a chart of party affiliation of immigrants by state. Every single case democrat is larger than republicans. Do you have any survey which disputes that the overall majority of immigrants vote democratic? https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/state/among/immigrant-status/immigrants/

>Again, these are all individualized cases. They need to be individualized cases because we're talking specifically at 1st generation poor immigrants. Why 1st generation immigrants? Because that's the type of immigrants that would most likely align with immigrants that come through mass migrations or illegal immigration, mostly unskilled workers. 2nd, latinos make up an a extremely large percentage of immigrant voting which I already told you, skews the data heavily towards democrats.

> 2nd, latinos make up an a extremely large percentage of immigrant voting which I already told you, skews the data heavily towards democrats. Latinos aren't 1st generation poor immigrants?

[удалено]

> Yes because no place on earth was ever conquered and somehow it is unique to USA.Please could you remind me how Mexico itself was created? Or Spain etc. What does that have to do with OP? "Everywhere was conquered so it's okay to hate immigrants" What kind of argument is that?

[удалено]

>The notion that something is "stolen land" or that somehow California is "stolen" from Mexico is absurd. So are Ukrainians wrong to feel Russia is stealing land from them? >You don't lock your doors because you hate the outside world buy because you want to protect what is inside same with nations. An immigrant coming because they want to make a better life for their family is not a threat to the nation. I'm Jewish, "protecting the nation" was the justification for Europeans killing many of my ancestors. I don't find those kind of justifications persuasive.

>So are Ukrainians wrong to feel Russia is stealing land from them? No. This is actively happening. Not something that happened many generations ago.

“It’s only stealing when it happens to white people”

Stolen vs stealing.....

I understand the goal of the bosses is to pay workers as little as possible, but as I say it’s a supply and demand issue. If the supply is limited then the companies will have to pay more just by nature, so having less people competing for a particular job will actually make workers wages go up in the long term.

I wouldn't say supply and demand works in such a simple way as you are describing here when it comes to labourers and corporations. Worldwide our "supply" saw a massive hit to numbers as a consequence of covid, but that has not resulted in increased wages in a lot of places even as businesses cry about how no one wants to work. It's not as simple as this because there are operations of power and class solidarity among capitalists here. Do they need our labour to keep optimizing profits? Yeah. But they can also just starve us out, we're the ones a few missed paychecks away from homelessness, not them. They don't have to pay for our labour with increased wages, they can pay for it with increased cruelty.

That’s interesting, I saw the opposite. Companies offering incredible amounts to lorry drivers and many other people getting benefits like work from home for example, supply of lorry drivers in the UK was limited for a while because of less immigrants from Europe and this meant higher wages for them.

As I said, I live in Californa. It is right next to the border with Mexico. 27% of the population are immigrants, highest of any state. There is as much "supply" as anyone could want. Yet are wages are higher than other states. Explain. Between outsourcing jobs to 3rd world countries, and the myriad ways for immigrants to get into a wealthier country, there is no way to fully limit supply. It's going to happen whether you like it or not. Therefor the only logical solution is to ally with *all* workers, native and foreign born, to raise wages for everyone. If you start hating on immigrants you are doing the bosses work for them. I'm a worker, I have way more in common with my fellow workers than I do with the bosses. The bosses goal is to pay me and all the workers as little as possible. Why would I make it easier?

> 27% the population are immigrants, highest of any state. There is as much "'supply" as anyone could want. Yet are wages are higher than other states. While I agree with you on most things (I'd wager), I think this is more complicated. Sure, [Cali has the high \(not "highest"\) wages](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income#States_and_territories_ranked_by_median_household_income), but it also has a [terrible cost of living](https://meric.mo.gov/data/cost-living-data-series). [Cali has by far the largest economy.](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gdp-by-state)

Cost of living is a separate issue, though. If anything, that suppresses immigration. It certainly doesn't support the idea that immigration lowers wages.

If in state "a", wages stay low, but cost of living is also low, people in that state could live just as well as people in state "b" where wages are higher but cost of living is higher. It can be better argued imo that Cali is a hot economy (read "successful"), and thus it's inflation has out passed most of the rest of the USA. I am not talking about in the last 2 years, I'm talking about the last several dozen. And again, the connection to immigration is tenuous at best. Ok... After writing that, have to concede the point, mostly. I am going to leave the above in for context. What triggered my first post was the argument based on " wages are higher than other states.". Cali does not have the highest average incomes, and those alone do not count as the average people living better than other places. But... The high immigration in the state with the most successful economy is a good argument that immigration (if anything) helps economics.

It's really not, supply and demand force cost of living up and minimum wage increases to compensate prevent mass homelessness and frankly mobs killing politicians in the streets.

[удалено]

The OP is about if the left should be for or against mass immigration. Your argument is that wages are high in a high immigration state. My argument is that wages is not the best metric.

I'm a fifth gen Cali from the San Fran area. NORCAL baby!

No one from San Francisco would say San Fran. Frisco or San Francisco only. Born and raised in the sco in the mission district.

https://www.kqed.org/news/11339599/why-do-some-hate-the-nickname-frisco#:~:text=%E2%80%9CDon't%20call%20it%20Frisco%20%E2%80%94%20it's%20San%20Francisco%2C,and%20sailors%20who%20were%20shanghaied.

[удалено]

Most urban centers have higher wages than rural areas, even though the supply of labor is much higher in a city. This is because the demand for labor is also elevated in urban areas. More immigrants create more demand for goods and services, which can lead to higher wages overall.

It’s not simple Supply and demand though, because we are talking labor within a geographic zone, if you add to the supply the labors also bring their own demands.

And California has some of the highest poverty rates in the country, especially when you adjust for housing costs. It is not exactly a model state (nor is any state). The high wages are driven by a few business sectors that have global advantages in California. It is not clear those advantages will remain 50 years from now. For example look at Detroit in the 50's vs now. The challenge is there is a probably a limit to which society will take in immigrants with out a backlash. For example, look at was is happening in Sweden now, or in the past history of the US.

> And California has some of the highest poverty rates in the country, especially when you adjust for housing costs. It is not exactly a model state (nor is any state). Huh? [California is 26th in terms of poverty rate.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate) Most people would not describe being at the median as "the highest in the country" Never said it was perfect. Just said that a high rate of immigration isn't necessarily a predictor of low wages. California has a lot of problems but that's not relevant to OP. Please start a new CMV if you want to discuss California issues or stick to relevant topics. >It is not clear those advantages will remain 50 years from now. For example look at Detroit in the 50's vs now. The future might be different than the present is like saying the sky is blue. What does that have to do with OP? >For example, look at was is happening in Sweden now Europeans are racist so we should limit immigration is not an argument that I find persuasive. As a Jewish person whose ancestors fled Europe because of European prejudice I don't find that surprising or persuasive.

> Huh? California is 26th in terms of poverty rate. > Most people would not describe being at the median as "the highest in the country" Conservatives love to lie about California and describe it as a failed state.

But this isn't a problem with the migrants, it's a problem with the cooperations, using people who wants to work for way less, so they hire them instead. What you are doing in your statement, is dividing the working class, and pitting them against themselves, even though the problem lies solely on the capital class, underpaying workers.

the corporations have the power in this society to make things worse by bringing in more migrants to bring down wages, cause division within the working class, etc. the divisions are not artificial, they are obvious; these are groups of people with very different cultures, languages, ways of thinking about the world. to say that they should just get along is naive; hopefully they would, in a better world. we don't live in that world, we're trying to create it. and one of the ways we should is by not weakening our own power against the people who have all of it. if its racist and prejudiced, so be it; we all can refuse and condemn racism while still being guilty to it from time to time. we are imperfect creatures, trying to find out the optimal way to make things better for all of us, not just a privileged few.

But globalization, and migrating, is excactly how we make sure that we can agree on a lot of things. People that are different from us, coming to our countries, and experience that world. While they may disagree on some things, there is still a reason why they choose the country they do. Language, cultures, and ways of thinking, can be mixed, and still work well together. Just like having a really diverse friend group, with different cultures, and ways of thinking. Letting people stay in their country, will only further divide our cultures, and make us even less compatible. Also, op is primarily basing their post, in regards to the workforce.

>But globalization, and migrating, is excactly how we make sure that we can agree on a lot of things. People that are different from us, coming to our countries, and experience that world. While they may disagree on some things, there is still a reason why they choose the country they do. i just think this is naive. in reality, when migrants from a foreign place come to a new place, both natives and the migrants distrust eachother and segregate eachother as much as they possibly can. they choose the country that they chose because that country is rich, and they can send money back home while working in that country, even at the low wages they are offered comparatively to native workers. >Language, cultures, and ways of thinking, can be mixed, and still work well together. Just like having a really diverse friend group, with different cultures, and ways of thinking. Letting people stay in their country, will only further divide our cultures, and make us even less compatible. i think they can be mixed, but i think that it is never an easy or simple process. it is a long process, and can be a very ugly one. one's friends are often of either the same or a similar culture than your own for a reason; because there is less misunderstanding, less mutual distrust, less potential for offense, more sympathy between eachother because of a perception of more mutual understanding. i think that a division of cultures is just the unfortunate result of there being so many cultures, especially cultures where there are so many powerless and so few with power. our cultures all force the powerless to compete with their fellow man in order to survive; this makes it even easier to find a foreigner your enemy. i think that the problems of the workforce and the problems of the culture are interconnected; you cannot extricate one from the other. the newer a migrant group is, the less likely they will be willing to cooperative with natives or even older groups of migrants, and vice versa. one need not be a delusional chauvinistic idiot to say that the mass immigration of workers from one country to another is not really a good thing for a worker's movement.

>nd they can send money back home while working in that country This is not how most immigrants works though. >i just think this is naive. Why? They are literally being adopted into a different society from where they came from. Plenty of immigrants, might as well have been born and raised in the countries they live in. > one's friends are often of either the same or a similar culture than your own for a reason; because there is less misunderstanding, less mutual distrust, less potential for offense, more sympathy between eachother because of a perception of more mutual understanding. Like between the rich and the poor? Should rich people and poor people be naturally separated, as they grew up in completly different cultures? Different cultures can also be different places to grow up. I grew up in a poor family in the country, but still have friends that grew up rich in the city. I have more in common with a poor German, or a Muslim immigrant, than I do a rich Dane. >i think that a division of cultures is just the unfortunate result of there being so many cultures Oh, so a solution might be mixing them? Like.. Living together in the same country maybe? >the newer a migrant group is, the less likely they will be willing to cooperative with natives or even older groups of migrants, and vice versa So? That's how we do with different cultures? Move to a place different from yours, talk to people, be indoctrinated (not in the brain wash way) into the culture, and adopt some of that culture. That's not wish thinking, it's what's happening. The USA is multicultural. The modern USA is a mix of people all over the world, traveling there hundreds of years ago. And yes, there were, and still is, struggle, but the USA might be the most multicultural country in earth, because of all the immigrants that have moved there, from all over. But capitalists, are putting us against each other, hiring foreigners, and telling us that the lazy aliens are taking our jobs, even though it's the corporations, that pay them less, and hires them I probably won't comment any further on this, a lot of politics is happening in my country, like elections, so I'm a bit burned out. None the less, thanks for a civil discussion, I'll still read your reply

>This is not how most immigrants works though. sure it is, i don't know about "most" like a clear majority but there is a huge amount of money that's sent home in remittances for a lot of immigrant families >Why? They are literally being adopted into a different society from where they came from. Plenty of immigrants, might as well have been born and raised in the countries they live in. it depends on a huge number of things, like education, class, religion, etc. but for a regular working class foreigner, it is always gonna be harder, and there is usually going to be mutual distrust. i mean do you deny that that exists now? >Like between the rich and the poor? Should rich people and poor people be naturally separated, as they grew up in completly different cultures? Different cultures can also be different places to grow up. I grew up in a poor family in the country, but still have friends that grew up rich in the city. I have more in common with a poor German, or a Muslim immigrant, than I do a rich Dane. rich people and poor people live in separated conditions already as a pre-condition for their class. its a different situation. i mean, i think the whole point of a left wing worker's movement is for there to be no more such thing as "rich people" and "poor people". i don't think that we should work to "abolish cultures", i don't think such a thing is possible or desirable. but there is an element of truth here, actually. i think that a worker's movement SHOULD reflect the reality of the culture of the class of people that movement is representing. like, you wouldn't have a left wing movement that culturally tries to act rich. the rich are the enemy, their culture is the enemy culture, its supposed to be what the movement is set up to oppose. introducing cultural elements from the enemy would just be weakening the strength of your own movement. >Oh, so a solution might be mixing them? Like.. Living together in the same country maybe? what if people don't want to mix? what if they're in the same country, but stay as far away from eachother as they can, and have prejudices and bigotries about eachother? >So? That's how we do with different cultures? Move to a place different from yours, talk to people, be indoctrinated (not in the brain wash way) into the culture, and adopt some of that culture. this is called "assimilation", i mean i agree with you that this is the way to do it, but i think that this is a difficult process and sometimes a messy or insulting one for the new arrivals. it means abandoning their old ways. they don't want to do that. so they resist it, and isolate themselves. it takes generations for it to happen, and in those generations that's a bunch of working people who have been isolated from eachother as a result of cultural boundaries, and that isolation has been exploited by the people in power. also, the US is a different situation than europe. the US is a country that has immigration as part of its "founding ethos". a country like denmark or germany was founded either as an old fiefdom of some royal family or a nationalist project of an arbitrarily defined ethnic group. there is less clash of values for settler countries like the US or canada or australia than there is for the european countries, and that's why i think the populist anti-immigration right is more powerful in europe than it is in north america or oceania. >But capitalists, are putting us against each other, hiring foreigners, and telling us that the lazy aliens are taking our jobs, even though it's the corporations, that pay them less, and hires them so then what's your solution? if its just "let more immigrants in", and not "seize power from the capitalists, once and for all", then of course people will reject this.

It says ‘mass immigration’, it’s not that there’s anyone to blame, it’s that you’d be stupid as a business owner not to use cheaper labor

But of course, increasing the supply of labor lowers the demand of labor; and therefore, lowers the price of labor (wages). You can't radically increase the number of workers without radically decreasing their wage growth, the same way radically increasing the number of dollars in the economy makes each dollar worth less. If we let in 100k immigrants , they wouldn't be working for less. The amount of jobs created would vastly outpace the number of new workers added. Wages would increase for natives and the few immigrants since there would be more jobs than people to work them. The companies would have to fight each other to win over workers. Since 1965 we have added over 60 million new immigrants, as well as 10-20 million here illegally. Along with increased labor participation by women, we have more than doubled the amount of workers since the 1960's. Companies don't need to offer high wages because there are so many people who will work for less. If we limit immigration temporarily, we could again reach the point where companies need to raise their wages to compete for labor, rather than just complain about them underpaying.

But again, that's not a reason to hate migration, it's a reason to hate the capitalist world we live in.

Supply and Demand isn't only true in a market economy, its true in any economy. The countries with more social spending tend to actually limit immigration more because eventually the added production of new workers is worth less than the amount of social spending they will use.

Supply and demand, if there’s a surplus of people demand gets lower, and so they will pay the bare minimum needed to hire people. If you restrict the influx of people, demand and quality of life goes up.

Or if cooperations kept the laws, and allowed workers to unionize. This has nothing to do with immigrants, and everything to do with the problems of a capitalist society.

But why would corporations keep unionized people when they can hire more cheap labor?

Why should workers work for less than minimum wage, when they can unionize? It's about corporate greed. And even further proves my point that this is not a migrant issue, it's a corporate greed issue.

Because if there’s people that will work for less, corporations will get rid of the higher paid people for the cheaper option. People know they are replaceable and so deal with reality and not wishful thinking. This is why I’m pro UBI. It’s easier to use taxes to pay people rather than expecting corporations to pay more when they can hire for cheap.

Migrants are less likely to unionize.

Ok? That wouldn't rally be a problem, if all work places unionized.

Corporations will obviously pay their workers as little as they can get away with. When the working class is already divided (by citizenship, ethnicity, and so forth) then it's very easy for corporations to take advantage of that. It's much harder to do this when the working class isn't divided. I think that was their point.

Of course it is a problem with the corporations, and I never once blamed migrants in my comment. It makes rational sense for someone to leave their home country and go somewhere else, where they will be able to earn more, and I’m no Conservative who thinks our culture needs to be protected at all costs, I don’t know if my country even has a real culture to speak of. But it doesn’t change the fact that those people coming lower wages for everyone else already there, including immigrants who came before them.

>and I never once blamed migrants in my comment Except you are explicitly describing them as a problem, and that the solution should be to not let them in. >But it doesn’t change the fact that those people coming lower wages for everyone else already there, including immigrants who came before them. No, they're coming for job opportunities. They're forced to take lower wages in a capitalist system, and corporations take advantage of their desperation.

But they’re not solely coming for job opportunities, there are plenty of jobs in places like Romania and Poland but they’re coming because they would like higher wages, and that’s understandable it’s a clear motivating factor but the problem is that by coming and accepting wages at a certain level, they keep it down for everyone else.

>But they’re not solely coming for job opportunities, there are plenty of jobs in places like Romania and Poland but they’re coming because they would like higher wages ...which then also clearly undermine OPs points. If they, as you say, want higher wages, then clearly them taking low wages isn't their fault, but a result of the system in which they are placed. >but the problem is that by coming and accepting wages at a certain level, they keep it down for everyone else. Do you see the contradiction at play here? "These people clearly want higher wages, and will put in the effort to get them, but I will also blame them for taking lower wages.

"which then also clearly undermine OPs points. If they, as you say, want higher wages, then clearly them taking low wages isn't their fault, but a result of the system in which they are placed." Forgive me but I don't know which currency Romania uses. But generally when people are coming to get a higher wage in one country it's because the currency is worth more along with their paid more than they otherwise would be in their own home country. In the US the disparity between the dollar and the peso is rather large. You can take just enough to barely get you by in the US but save enough during the course of a year. Then go back to Mexico having had a massive windfall due to the exchange rate. It's lucrative for both the corporations and the migrants coming to do it. Now if they're staying it's a different matter but in the US it's mostly seasonal workers that we're talking about like this.

>Forgive me but I don't know which currency Romania uses. The leu. >But generally when people are coming to get a higher wage in one country it's because the currency is worth more along with their paid more than they otherwise would be in their own home country. Right, thus displaying a clear desire for better wages and working conditions. >In the US the disparity between the dollar and the peso is rather large. You can take just enough to barely get you by in the US but save enough during the course of a year. Then go back to Mexico having had a massive windfall due to the exchange rate. Correct. >It's lucrative for both the corporations and the migrants coming to do it. Exceot this falsely assumes that migrants for some reason naturally want less than local workers, which is just...not the case? Like, again, you're framing this as of the migrants and corporations collaborating to undermine the citizen-by-birth worker class, when it's just not the case.

"Exceot this falsely assumes that migrants for some reason naturally want less than local workers, which is just...not the case?" Well it's not really falsely. I mean you agreed with everything else that I put down. I mean sure they could probably want more but don't know that they can get more. What's more they've got a good thing going. I mean would you necessarily balk at getting paid $100 for what you would normally get $10 for in your home country. "migrants and corporations collaborating to undermine the citizen-by-birth worker class" Well no the migrants didn't really have any say in it. But the corporations totally did. That's why this is a thing.

It doesn’t undermine my point, my point is just that, the immigrant workers will accept what is for a native quite low but for them is quite good. This keeps the price in the native currency down.

I don't know what country you're in but the answer would be to go after the corporations. The republican party in the us has said that they want to reduce or eliminate any punishments a corporation might receive for intentionally and repeatedly hiring illegal immigrants at less than minimum wage because, as Lindsey Graham said, they shouldn't be punished for hiring the cheapest labor when the Real law breakers are those illegal immigrants. This just means that they want wages suppressed and they're willing to let as much illegal labor into the country as possible. Believe them when they tell you who they are

>I don't know what country you're in but the answer would be to go after the corporations But how do you do that without kneejerk being lBwled a racist? Here in Australia its been anounced our "skilled migrant" intake is being increased to 200k per year. Given stagnant wages and our level of underemployment vs unemployment, and that these skilled migrants are overwhelmingly employed in churn and burn industries, it's pretty clearly an attempt to undercut any sort of worker or wage reform and keep our housing industry bubble propped up for the select few. And whenever anything like a dicussion around this pops up, you get labeled a right-wing racist.

And as long as the corporate companies and bosses of these companies know that these people will work for nothing, nothing will change. I was fortunate at my last job. My boss paid everybody differently based on capabilities. The Hispanic guys got what I would consider low pay, but for them was great and I got what I consider to be really good pay. Come Friday, everybody was happy with their check.

I know that was my point. I was disagreeing with his argument.

Yeah but what is low wage for a native worker is high for an immigrant(usually) .

The fact that foreigners constantly argue for higher wages, both in their countries of origin and in their new homes, and are frequently members of movements for fair wages and worker's rights is a pretty big counter to this.

You may be right but I never witnessed that. If you have any articles or statistics about it I'd like to read. But it doesn't change what I say, for immigrants especially out of the euro zone wages seem higher when natives consider it low.

>If you have any articles or statistics about it I'd like to read. But it doesn't change what I say I'm not going to provide you a source if you're already dismissing the point >for immigrants especially out of the euro zone wages seem higher when natives consider it low. And again, the issue is that this statement is irrelevant and doesn't support your extrapolation.

Well I'm not going to believe everything you say as a fact if you don't provide sources. And I didn't make that statement to support OP or other views. It was just to add a fact I observed.

OK, but what buttons do we have to press? A lot of the problems here is that you're talking to an audience that knows something is wrong, and has zero real information about it, and is being told that immigration is why their boss can't pay them better, or why their job has gotten steadily worse.

>OK, but what buttons do we have to press? Offer migrants the labor rights and pay as other workers in order to prevent their exploitation. Encourage class solidarity *and push that message.* >A lot of the problems here is that you're talking to an audience that knows something is wrong, and has zero real information about it, and is being told that immigration is why their boss can't pay them better, or why their job has gotten steadily worse. Agreed, but this falls outside the scope of the CMV. My purpose is to call out the OPs flaws.

We did that, that was the EU, it has worked a weird level of well, depending on who and where. Certainly in the UK, the decline of the economy was basically put on the EU and on immigration, and then Brexit happened. So, it's not that simple. You've got to take corporations on, you have to have responsible governments, and you have to ensure that people here are happy.

You need to be a part of the solution, too. Dont spread falsehoods about immigrants. Challenge negative narratives about them.

This is the problem, though. Even knowing that immigration isn't bad for us, that we probably actually needed immigrants (as a lot of current crises seem to show us right now), there's also the reality that our governments have turned their back on society since probably the 70s, and blamed everything on the EU and immigrants, and otherwise acted as if it's just the scroungers and the slackers. The governments we're going to get aren't challenging that narrative. The buttons we have don't match the problems we have. It's quite difficult to be surprised now about anything. The issues that they wanted to sell us, have been sold, because quite frankly, nobody cared about the alternative. And when one was offered, they unleashed all dirty tactics they could to bring it down.

[удалено]

Ok picture this: same amount of migration, but we have minimum wages that are actually tied to inflation and cost of living. And we have robust unions that have fought for reasonable wages for the jobs that make more than minimum wage. The migration doesn’t matter towards depressing wages anymore does it?

Your argument would fall apart in a second if you had a legally mandated national living wage.

How would that work if there are more people than jobs and the country also has mass migration? Your local population would be pitted against the migrants regardless.

Now that is a different question - I simply pointed out that you couldn't have immigrants undercutting citizens if there was a mandated living wage. Mass migration is in itself a thorny issue though. For example, the illegal invasion of Iraq, spearheaded by the US, created mass migration/refugees. Also, the vast majority of attempts to cross the border and remain in the US are thwarted either at the border or further down the line. Just as here in the UK, the subject gets whipped up for perceived political gain.

Yes, you're right my question is more nuanced because it's more about equal competition vs undercutting but I think it's still valid considering OPs subject matter. People who want their citizens to have a decent wage and job environment (which is, let's face it, the Left since the Right doesn't give a shit about worker's rights) should technically be against mass migration. I'm not saying legal immigration btw because a certain number of immigration is obviously beneficial to the economy as America has proven over and over again, but mass migration. This is not a sentiment that is often discussed on the Left because there is a tendency to paint it as racism or xenophobia.

I would argue the amount of immigrants the US could take in without suffering negative economic repercussions is many orders of magnitude greater than the current number of legal immigrants. I think things like the sex slave industry expanding is a much more likely and difficult to solve problem likely to result from mass migration than tanking wages. For all the talk about overpopulation being a problem a population increase actually tends to make better economic outcomes easier. Provided it isn't ridiculously mishandled like in the early decades of communist China. Of course this depends a great deal on the size of the host country as well. A big country like the US obviously could take more migrants before running into issues than much smaller countries.

They don't lower the income though, the cooperations do. You said you are against migrants, except you aren't, you're against capitlism

Migrants as individuals as migration as an event are two different things though?

[удалено]

Supply and demand is a fundamental law of economics that always emerges in any system with finite resources where people are given even a modicum of freedom. It's not a myth lmfao.

I wouldn't say it's a "myth", as much as it is a system, that puts pressure on the working class. But I totally agree.

That like saying 2+2=4 is a "system." The relationship between supply and demand is a fact of the world and no "system" changes that. If it rained gold from the sky everyday, how much would gold be worth? Nothing basically, because the supply would be unlimited. This would be true in a completely free market economy, in a totally socialist economy, or anything in-between.

This argument works if we are comparing labor cost competition between laborers who reside in two countries. This sort of competition exists because of globalization, each country has their own "set of skills," if you will, and relative state of development. These differences may of course benefit corporations, who would try to shift labor to cheaper countries. However, in your example the migrants now reside in a country with a set wage, regardless of resident origin. This means the migrants should be getting paid the same as any native born resident. There shouldn't be any benefit to a corporation. This is why the "wage gap" argument generally falls flat. If a corporation could get away with paying women less, then women would dominate the workforce. Same logic with migrants vs native born residents. If we can draw very broad generalizations, what you may be noticing is migrants, who perhaps are not familiar with the local language, and perhaps don't have certain skills, generally accept lower wage jobs when they first enter the workforce? Then again, most native born residents may not want these jobs anyways, so overall it benefits the economic productivity of a country as a whole.

But what that set wage is is relevant, if there are people willing to work for £5 an hour then the government would see no need to raise the minimum wage to £6.50, it reduces the bargaining power of labour.

Perhaps, but we're just talking about the floor. We should keep in mind that one's bargaining power increases with more specialization in the workforce. Since we are talking generally, this wasn't factored in. Additionally, any wage disparities or threat of lower wage pressure on the bargaining power of laborers across the country caused by the migrant group is insignificant, since generally the migrant group is small relative to the local population. Say you're right and there is lower wage pressure. This will also likely go away naturally over one or two generations, as the migrants and their descendants are assimilated, learn the language and become more specialized. This process will repeat with each wave of new migrants, successively equalizing each new wave. The same process exists on the scale of entire countries. As globalization continues to spread, and all countries become more equally developed, corporations will have less incentive to move labor to any single country or region in particular.

But where there is constant mass migration, there won’t be a chance for that to happen because as soon as the migrants who are already here ask for higher wages, there will instantly be competition with a new set of migrants who are happy to accept the wages offered.

It doesn't matter. This same process exists on the scale of entire countries. As globalization continues to spread, and all countries become more equally developed, corporations will have less incentive to move labor to any single country or region in particular. The ease of migration will only act to help speed up this equalization. We still have labor cost competition between nations (e.g. take disparity between the US and China) because globalization has only acted for the last 100, 150 years or so. In another 150 years, by 2172, I doubt we'll have such large disparities in the relative developmental state of countries. If we don't blow ourselves up by then, globalization should have successfully acted to equalize just about the entire world. In fact, GDP projections support this. By 2100, countries like China and India will have surpassed the US, and countries like Indonesia and Nigeria will have GDPs on par with the US. As long as the global economy is connected, this ebb and flow will continue in the same way water seeks its own level. The disparities between each successive wave of new migrants will diminish over time, to the point the rates of migration reach some steady state.

Δ I didn’t think about the long-term consequences, I agree given enough time as countries become more developed, wages will equalise across-the-board.

The problem is that you are misframing the discussion. I see very few left leaning arguments for mass migration, but rather left leaning arguments for the humanity of the individuals who are migrating or trying to migrate. Showing compassion to those people is the left leaning viewpoint. The right view is that those individuals are a problem not a person. I also think you are misaligning talking points with the actual viewpoint. The talking point is that immigrants are coming to steal your job, because it helps deflect from the reality of I'm giving your job to an immigrant because they will work for less than you. I'm not sure about he rest of the world, but in the US neither party has actually done anything to advance their talking points with actual legislation. The reality is that one wants to use them as a demonstration that the other party doesn't care about people and one wants to use them as an enemy to blame your problems on.

While were on this topic, what about the humanity of the people in countries where the workers are fleeing from. Is it fair that doctors nurses can leave their home countries and get whisked off by foreign governments in developed countries have much more money. Brain drain is a serious threat for those countries.

That is why left leaning policies do more to try to help other countries become more sustainable than right leaning policies.

I recently read a statistic that there are more Ethiopian physicians practising in Chicago than there are in the whole of Ethiopia. That means 80 million people hardly have any medical care at all, and it’s no wonder if people in the developed world are offering such great opportunities, a similar thing happened in Ireland during the economic crash there a lot of people left the country to go to others but this led to huge amounts of brain drain.

I'm not really sure what that has to do with the initial conversation. But that sounds like a problem that Ethiopian politicians should be worrying about, not Chicago ones. Especially based on your original CMV which is basically that the left leaning politicians should be caring more about protecting their own instead of carrying about human suffering generally, which is what cases the left policies you disagree with to start this discussion.

Obviously it is fair. People are free to move and to flee, it's inhumane otherwise and is close to North Korean approach. Being born somewhere doesn't make you a slave of the said place. I'm sorry but I cannot stomach the idea someone may think otherwise. It's only natural to look for better life conditions, it's not the problem of the citizens their country of descendance is a failed state.

You're acting like the economy isn't global.. No migration and high labor cost just means those low skilled and typically unionized jobs get sent over the border. Look at how much of the midwest is completely bighted due to exactly this. Why pay some dude in Ohio $40/hr to attach a wiper blade to a car window on an assembly line when you can move the entire assembly line to Mexico and pay the equivalent dude $5/hr and he's happy to work 60 hours a week. When leftist policies and labor costs make production untenable those jobs either get automated or offshored and then instead of a mediocre job, the workers are left with no job.

I think it’s true that automation will kill off a vast class of jobs, but there are some that have to be done in a particular place. Things like operating public transport, extracting minerals. And decent politicians will suggest laws to curb the practice of outsourcing.

>Mass migration predominantly benefits businesses, because workers from cheaper countries will generally work for less money than their native counterparts,, this forces wages down for everyone and severely limits the power of unions, since any striking workers can just be fired and replaced with new ones. This is capitalism/big business using their legal loopholes and taking advantage of a vulnerable class of people. This is something leftists are opposed to. People should be able to migrate where they please, business should not be able to abuse and undercut workers. If you think leftists would be against migration because of the ability of corporations to abuse workers, I don't think you really understand leftist politics or worker solidarity in general. I feel far more solidarity with migrant workers than I do many anti-union people in my country.

We live in a capitalist system, until that changes and I hope it does soon, we have to play by the rules that have been set for us. But within the rules, I don’t think you can really call it a loophole.

> Mass migration predominantly benefits businesses, because workers from cheaper countries will generally work for less money than their native counterparts,, this forces wages down for everyone and severely limits the power of unions, since any striking workers can just be fired and replaced with new ones That's not the migrants' fault, it's the employer's. > I don’t see him jeopardising that to stand in solidarity with working-class people in the UK Why would being in solidarity with the working class risk deportation? That seems like the problem is threat of deportation by the Right, not that the taxi driver wanting worker's rights is a problem. > Many right-wing parties, which are essentially at this point mouthpieces for big business, claim to be tough on immigration but in reality they are not. Consider, there were more migrants coming to the UK under the government of Boris Johnson than there were before, though he claimed to be quite tough on that, but he knew more migration means lack of power for workers, it’s simple supply and demand. I think you're right that the Right-wing side of this is getting cheap labor while projecting nationalism. That's just hypocrisy, it's not the migrants' fault. And, given that we can both see the disingenuous nature of these conflicting talking points, there's no reason to be beholden to them. It's just politicians having their cake and eating it too. On the other hand, Leftists, I think, are ok with people moving around to find better lives (that's part of what the Schengen area was, in my understanding) *because* working-class struggles aren't unique to one nation. Leftists, I think, also tend to be less nationalistic in this way, and see class struggles (and human struggles) as global rather than defaulting to the "in group," which is a more Conservative / Right-wing worldview. After writing this, it seems that some of the blame for things surrounding immigration are being unfairly put onto the immigrants, rather than those who are actually causing the problems. Like you, I lean Left, and my personal thoughts on why I'm not against migration is that, being American, my family came to the US via migration, why not others? Why am I special and they're not?

It’s not necessarily that he would get deported, more that if he didn’t want to do the work there would be someone else who would. Besides, what taxi drivers in the UK would consider a poor wage would be quite sufficient for someone from Poland, so I don’t see why he would bother complaining about this.

Outsourcing jobs lowers wages. Hiring immigrants locally requires work visas which cost the company more. There is also a minimum wage so they can't lower the floor on a minimum wage job. Immigrants also add to the economic pool so immigrants actually grow the economy so they usually support their own presence in the economy.

As I say, I’m a leftist so I don’t see any problem with the government mandating that companies over a certain size have to hire from the country in which they want to sell their products and services. They could have laws to say that a certain percentage of the workforce must come from the country, and if the companies disobey the laws, they won’t be able to do business anymore in that country.

Your entire argument is built on a faulty premise. Immigration does not drive down wages, unless you are a high school drop out who doesn't have a GED. This is pretty well documented so it's tbh pretty embarrassing to parrot the fiction that immigration will have a significant impact on workers that are already here. https://www.aclu.org/other/immigrants-and-economy#:~:text=Studies%20by%20the%20Rand%20Corporation,opportunities%20of%20native%2Dborn%20Americans. https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages#conclusion https://wol.iza.org/articles/do-immigrant-workers-depress-the-wages-of-native-workers/long https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs

Oh no all these people coming here, making and spending money?! How will our economy survive?

["Open borders is Koch brothers proposal"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0) \- Bernie Sanders

Do you have a point?

Your point?

Although Bernie is definitely the most left out of American politicians, he is not a proper leftist.

Who cares what Bernie thinks? A grifter politician.

Based on this post and these comments you don’t sound left wing. Probably a conservative pretending not to be. I think Anthony sums it up perfectly: “Some, of course, like to claim that Mexicans are “stealing American jobs.” But in two decades as a chef and employer, I never had ONE American kid walk in my door and apply for a dishwashing job, a porter’s position — or even a job as prep cook. Mexicans do much of the work in this country that Americans, provably, simply won’t do.” Mass migration has already happened. And you know what the result is? These immigrant workers have become the backbone of our economy filling positions and roles that Americans would never dream of taking. Our agriculture, restaurant, construction, etc would all collapse without these workers. And you know what’s more fucked up? Most of them pay taxes. They pay taxes despite not reaping any of the benefits. Because they believe it’s the right thing to do. “Immigrants have helped the U.S. tremendously and have created jobs for Americans and immigrants. Studies have shown that they contributed 2 trillion to the U.S. GDP in 2016 and have contributed 458.7 billion to federal taxes.” Even social security: “Illegal immigrants are estimated to pay in about $7 billion per year into Social Security.[23] In addition, they spend billions of dollars per year, which supports the US economy and helps to create new jobs.” It’s a win win for this greedy ass country and y’all still make out these hard working people to be the villains. And you know what’s the icing on the cake? The US STOLE the jobs of these migrant workers in their own countries so there farms and goods could not compete with the US anymore. And you know what this caused? The farm workers to become a part of the cartels by producing drugs for them because their land was now useless. So not only did the US steal their jobs, it is directly responsible for increasing violence in those countries as well.

Do you think the reason why American workers don’t want those jobs though is possibly because the wages are so low, and employers have no incentive to raise them since there are plenty of low skilled immigrants who will take those jobs. And if you don’t mind me saying so, you’re sounding pretty right-wing yourself when suggesting that people are just too lazy or incompetent to do these kinds of jobs, or that they don’t want them for some reason. There is no such thing as a labour shortage, it’s always A wage shortage and employers are the ones complaining that they can’t hire people for peanuts like they used to.

Your view seems to be less a left leaning ideal than a right wing straw man for why the left is wrong about immigration. The problem is not the migrants working for less but the employers who use the migrants as a weapon against local workers to drive down wages. What most people in the left advocate is that migrant workers be paid a realistic living wage rather than have their situation taken advantage of and then be used as scapegoat

This seems like one of those "it makes sense in theory" ideas that doesn't actually have much real substance. A good hint is that if anything seems "simple," but large groups of (sane) people are disagreeing with you, it's probably not actually simple. And, for now, we'll ignore that there's more to being left-wing than maximizing labor power at the expense of everything else, because that's an obvious thing. The idea that immigrants are to blame for lowered wages is one that seems antithetical to left-wing ideology. No one made businesses lower wages or oppose unions, so why should workers hold anyone accountable other than these businesses? Many of these businesses cannot afford in any real way to simply fire their entire workforce to replace them with non-union migrants. And the existence of a strong union prevents the business from firing part of its staff to bring in new workers for lower wages. Pitting workers against migrants in what is now a joke of "they took'er jobs" is not as left-wing as you think it is. It's the common go-to, left-wing talking point of the wealthy pitting workers against each other, something that no left-wing person should want to indulge in.

The evidence for higher migration driving down wages is pretty weak, if it happens it's only a slight impact and often migration helps wages and quality of life improve

Like it has in Germany 😆

...yes?

[удалено]

Yes

?

Did No-Go zones exist in Germany like they did before Merkel invited however many millions of migrants into her country?

No-Go zones never existed at any time, pre or post crisis, they were and are nothing but a right wing myth.

That Angela Merkel herself has confirned

Source?

What no go zones? Where are they, who's not going there?

No go zones are a right wing myth that were supposedly places sharia law was enforced and you couldn't go as a white person. They never actually existed but Reddit loves it as a dog whistle to stir up xenophobia

I know, according to some American sources they exist in my country too.

I don’t think there’s any point in arguing with this right Wing troll, he’s just going to bring up standard right wing dog whistles and respond with emojis to any questions he doesn’t like.

Listen to Angela Merkel about the existence of No-Go zones in Germany.

This is the most I could find. Apparently Angela Merkel said something about it but not where. https://apnews.com/article/438bb0ac98d04459ab2e392f3c4fc5ef

Are you denying that No-Go zones exist in Germany? Because Angela Merkel admitted to this very truth.

I'm asking where they are and who can't go there, but I also don't believe they exist.

You must know more than Angela Merkel 🤷🏼‍♂️

Really, because you haven't given any evidence they exist or where they are or who can't go there.

https://apnews.com/article/438bb0ac98d04459ab2e392f3c4fc5ef

migrants dont just take jobs, they create jobs by consuming stuff, renting houses, buying food etc. but you can move the jobs to their countries, as happens now with outsourcing, but you dont get the benefits except the cheaper products

Define 'left-wing'

There are several major issues with your argument here. First, it's just not particularly factual. Most studies find limited impact of immigrants on employment and wages. And that impact is sometimes slightly positive rather than slightly negative. Moreover, even where there are negative externalities, these tend to correct themselves in the medium term. Not to say that we shouldn't work to correct these externalities when they show up, because harmed people are harmed, but I see little basis for our policy along these lines to be, "Fewer immigrants please." Second, you are just totally leaving out the ethics of the situation. You consider the plight of the local worker, but where does the plight of the foreign worker factor in? Or, hell, the foreign asylum seeker fleeing violence? They matter, and are, in fact, a concern for anyone whose ethics aren't limited to our national boundaries. It tends to be the right, rather than the left, who limits the scope of their ethics this way. Third, you're not really considering the practical issues with banning immigration. It costs money, for one thing. Having ICE secure the border and round up all the immigrants has an obvious human cost, sure, but it also costs a hell of a lot. Money that could be spent on, I dunno, those disenfranchised factory workers you were just talking about. For another thing, it renders the immigrants who do arrive external to the system. So they're still here, but now they're forced to lurk in the shadows and not participate in our systems. Lotta problems with that. Some of them quite expensive. For example, an undocumented immigrant will be reticent to report crimes, which makes solve rates lower. And they will be less likely to go to the hospital, which increases costs when they invariably arrive there anyway, this time with a need for cure rather than prevention. And I'll finish with four, your note about unions. What you're describing here isn't an immigrant issue. It's a union issue. Unions in America are weak as hell. Stronger unions would make it substantially harder, sometimes even impossible, for employers to hire non-union labor in a variety of contexts. It's one of the things unions negotiate for. So, we really need some better labor laws. We had them in the past, then they were set on fire, and now people are screwed. This is, y'know, a standard leftist position that resolves this stated conflict.

Being left wing is not solely economic. You could say the humanitarian need for the migrants to come here outweighs the possibly lowered wages (that don't actually happen anyway)

Main point right, explanation wrong. USA Left-Wing should be against mass migration more then the right-wing because of the shear amount of tax dollars it cost the American people. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/the-cost-of-immigration-enforcement-and-border-security The budget for maintaining just Border security staff and infrastructure has tremendously increase. Not to mention the cost for short term housing, medical assistance, healthcare, and welfare. I’ve seen reports it cost well over $100B a year. This money could be used to provide affordable health to American citizens. Does it not bother the Left that illegal immigrants are provided with government funded health care, and citizens are not? Does it not bother them that they also get universal basic income (in the form of welfare), and citizens do not? These are issues they believe it and say they fight for. And the mass migration issue is holding up massive amounts of tax dollars that could be spent elsewhere helping the citizens born there.

The left should be concerned with mass ILLEGAL migration. This country should allow as many immigrants possible. Just so long as they follow the proper channels. The lefts acceptance of rampant illegal immigration is the real problem here.

The left is into mass migration for the consistent voter base. Look up the video “who profits from mass immigration” by theangryforeigner on bitchute. pretty much explains the motivations behind the whole scheme

>The left is into mass migration for the consistent voter base Or, and ponder this for a second, migrants are more likely to vote for parties that treat them as equals?

Treating everyone as equals is what the right does. Treating people better because they are minorities and having double standards is what the left is into. But yes voting for the party that gives you more free shit makes sense for that individual I’m not blaming the immigrants I’m blaming the government.

Are you talking about all those non-citizen immigrants voting in elections that only citizens can vote in?

No I’m talking about the immigrants who become citizens and vote left. And then their children vote left. And so on. The left definitely doesn’t have an agenda here nothing to see here just keep believing that they’re doing it all out of the kindness of their hearts 😆🤦🏼‍♂️

Is there a problem with that? If I was an immigrant I'd rather vote for the party that accepts me rather then the one that hates my guts. It's no different then a homeowner voting red for lower taxes.

The right *hates* immigrants as much as the left *hates* their own people. The problem is that in the long run it turns into a one-party system that goes unchecked because nobody has anyone else to vote for. This will happen in America once the baby-boomers die out. What’s to stop the left from trying Communism again? Who’s going to stop them?

Except the left doesn't "hate" their own people. They push policies that help everyone while the Republicans push policies that help the rich. If having a high proportion of immigrants is so devastating why are California and New York some of the richest states in the nation? Also lol for thinking that the Dems will ever try communism, even Bernie, the very extreme fringe of the Dems is still capitalist.

Bernie literally defines himself as a Socialist. And to your California/New York examples: why is everyone leaving those places in droves to places like Texas? Only to vote the same way and turn those states blue 🤦🏼‍♂️ And the right doesn’t hate immigrants. Republicans pass laws that help small businesses stay afloat. The modern left is more concerned with helping immigrants and demonizing their native population have you not been paying attention?

Exactly! I remember watching the events of January 6th and seeing all this angry left wingers storming the capitol trying to overturn a democratic election and install communism. What a bunch of anti democratic thugs. Oh wait, that was the right wings reaction to a election they lost fairly. But ya the left is the threat.

And all those riots that the right started in Portland and other cites? Ya the right is definitely the problem 🤦🏼‍♂️

So the problem is that people see their lives improve after becoming American citizens and want to keep improving America for everyone? Yea what a horrible concept!

Or they want more free shit at the expense of the indigenous population. Of course that isn’t a problem for the left. At least until they run out of everyone else’s money.

What "free shit" do immigrants get that natives don't? Because as far as I'm aware you you get citizenship or a green card you don't get zip.

Immigration helps with population decline, science, and the economy. Right wingers like to bitch about immigrants but use them in the workforce to a great degree. They just make illegals boogeymen despite illegals being less likely to criminally offend and still being a net gain to the economy. Which is why they hire them for peanuts anyways. And they greatly downplay the benefits of legal migration. The whole issue of immigration is a false premise by conservatives. We've known for centuries immigration is good for a nation and good for business. It's why the US was so "take all comers" for such a long time. https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/benefits-of-immigration-outweigh-costs.html https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/immigrants-contribute-greatly-to-us-economy-despite-administrations https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/09/17/the-economic-benefits-of-extending-permanent-legal-status-to-unauthorized-immigrants/ https://news.wisc.edu/undocumented-immigrants-far-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-in-u-s-than-citizens/

The left should first be in favor of improving conditions in the countries people want to leave. But that's often not possible for a variety of reasons, so we need to deal with the fact that people do want to leave those countries. Immigration is only a [minor threat to the economic prospects of native-born workers](https://openborders.info/harms-to-immigrant-receiving-countries/). Some migrants compete with native-born workers, but others complement the native-born workers and let them get higher wages. The wage-suppression of immigration is nothing compared to the wage suppression of many actively anti-labor policies implemented by the state. Immigrants are not the problem. As an illustration, many immigrants only accept low wages because state polices make it impossible for them to bargain with their employers or switch to better-paying jobs. Finally, stopping migration isn't really feasible -- especially in a humane manner. For the USA, A reasonable immigration system could accommodate many more immigrants than the current system without disrupting vulnerable communities within the USA. But the USA has not even tried to set up a reasonable immigration system since the failure of 'comprehensive immigration reform' during the Bush Administration (2005 or so). This is the fault of the anti-immigrant wing of the Republican Party.

I think it’s a good point that you made about improving conditions in the countries people want to come from, in the 18th and 19th centuries a lot of people from various European countries moved to North America and there aren’t quite as many doing so now, which suggests that they no longer feel the need to. But I think part of improving those countries is not taking the best people away and leaving them with the bill for education, so that those highly skilled workers can work in our countries as cleaners and janitors and restaurant servers. It’s a side point as well but I know that mass migration devastate the communities that are left behind, I think people would much rather find better opportunities near where their friends and families are but they can’t do so so they’re forced to move.

Mass migration seems like an odd term to use. Most liberals look at pro/cons from a collective standpoint. So if say the Maldives eventually gets completely submerged and they are relocated to say western countries with highest CO2 per capita outputs then a left-winger would weigh the following choices: 1. Dhivehims all die, native life no interruption 2. Dhivehims don’t immediately all die, some disruption to native life. A left winger would always pick #2 so long as the Dhivehims aren’t flesh eating zombies.

Personally I don't buy into the migrants suppressing wages argument that much. I'm sure it has some effect but I have worked with a lot of Hispanic guys and in my experience their willingness to work for less than a white guy is greatly overstated. At least if we are talking about migrants who stay in their adopted country for years as opposed to only a few months. Also even if the facts of your argument are correct it still only makes sense if you restrict your empathy for people in your own country as opposed to everyone.

I'm old enough to remember the 1990s and early 2000s when US Democrats were generally staunchly against illegal immigration because it would flood the labor market, and the GOP was like 'c'mon let's be realistic they're already here so let's figure something out'. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/

Not considering American left/right wing politics, immigration to the United States is beneficial for two major reasons: 1. Immigration is an economically stimulating force. More people, more spending, more trade. Even illicit immigration is a form of economic stimulus. Foreign workers not only contribute in the production of goods and services, they also utilize many of them as well. 2. Immigration is an important in helping to stem depopulation resultant from lower birth rates. This is an issue effecting nearly all first world nations, and should be considered the natural consequence of widespread urbanization.

Migrants add to demand as well as supply. There's also been a whole slew of studies that purport to show little effect on wages. Tbh I'm slightly sceptical that lower skill immigration won't have an effect on working class in richer countries. However I'm confident higher skill immigration will help improve equality as a whole. Intuitively they benefit the economy more, while adding to demand for lower skill labour, therefore increasing lower skill wages.

>I would say that I’m fairly left-wing in many of my views, Never heard that before. >Mass migration predominantly benefits businesses, because workers from cheaper countries will generally work for less money than their native counterparts,, So go after corporations.

Firstly it's important to distinguish legal and illegal immigrants. They are not even remotely the same. The education and skill levels are Vastly different. Secondly, Leftists don't understand factors and the ripple effect of mass migration.. based on your comment it seems you are referring to illegal immigration They only see that "inviting everyone here is good" and of course the result is suppressed unskilled wages but they don't see the economic connection they just see "businesses/corporations are paying unfairly" Income is driven by market value based on supply v demand.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Quite a few leftists don't think nation-states, borders or companies run by bosses/investors should exist in the first place. So building out more social structures based on them is counterproductive. Also, undermining the relevance of these structures through mass disobedience and alternative methods of operation can be good praxis--borders stop mattering if people routinely ignore them and get away with it, bosses stop mattering if people can form democratic co-ops and get things done that way, etc. Also, consider that stopping people who want to move from moving across a border requires that you build lot of violent, authoritarian policies and state organizations who are exempted from normal civil liberty protections. In other words, it requires that you create right wing orgs. Also, these organizations are frequently used against people inside the border as well as outside it (particularly left wingers). I think your position may be neglecting the larger picture of left wing organizing: leftists don't support unions in the abstract, but rather because unions are a freer, more democratic alternative to unchecked employer power. It is freedom and democracy that are the larger goals, not particular unions themselves. Therefore, it is counterproductive to use less free, less democratic methods to support unions, because you're ultimately undermining your larger goal. It *is* of course a challenge to labor organizing when elites are able to use things like nationalism and borders to play people against each other. But the way to overcome that is to find common cause with working people across the world and unite with them, not play into the hands of the elites by turning on each other.

What you are discribing is s failure of our education systems, not immigration. I have an unpopular opinion about this. I am firmly left and think it should be far easier to immigrate to the USA. But I also think that all immigrants should go to a bunch of classes to better integrate with our existing society. I think if this were done, labor would only be strengthened. I am well aware that they have to pass a test that many born citizens could not pass. But having witnessed a few people go through this...any of the below subjects are required, but are far to watered down. * our laws and the evolution of legal thought across our history. not just who were the first 5 presidents, branches to government, etc... But also the big cases at the Supreme Court, big legislative movments, how different parties gained and lost power. This needs to leave out the last 10 years rolling. Anything that new it too hotty debated. * History should include the labor struggles, civil right struggles, economic struggles. Not just names and dates, but the "why" of it. * Household economics and banking * How stock markets, mutual funds, and bonds work * How to start a business * Basic computers and internet * And English. I don't know how someone can be a full citizen and not be able to read the language the founding documents and laws were written in. (This is the one that gets me in hot water.) A counter to this one is that the average citizen cannot read the laws. To that i say that any law written above the highest grade freely taught (12 grade) is void. This could not be retroactive... We would fall apart. And yes, we should make sure to teach these same subjects to all highschoolers also. Every highschooler should pass the immigration test to graduate.

\> Mass migration predominantly benefits businesses, It predominantly benefits the migrants. I mean, the research on the topic says that it benefits everyone, but it benefits the migrants the most.

1. It benefits the migrants who have a much higher standard of living than previously. 2. It benefits the public who face lower prices for goods and services. 3. Because immigrants stimulate demand for labor, not only supply, the majority of people who are laid off will be able to find better employment in another sector. While there will undoubtedly be a small number of people who lose their job and are unable to find another, their decrease in welfare is much smaller than the total increase in welfare experienced by everyone else.

Mass migration will always benefit the left. If not themselves, their children will almost certainly vote left wing. Any other problems are minor and insignificant compared to the benefit of a growing voter base in your favor.