[The Clockwork Rat]

Point taken.

[Revolutionary Mind]

I think it depends on the person, and is an independent view from or somewhat independent view from what economic theory you support.

For me, as a person some would define as socialist, I am pro legal immigration, and making it easier to get in legally so we have less illegal. I recognize that immigrants play an absolutely crucial role in our economy and society, and that a socialist government would be representing them a lot, as they are the proletariat. I couldn't tell you what others think though

[exploitedworker]

We might be socialists or communists, but America cannot just base their determination of our right to immigrate on the basis of political ideology. Remember, the Chairman of the Communist Party of USA is a native-born American.

Herodic-thinking Americans act as if they can just throw any Left-leaning American out of its borders. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republic respects the rights of American capitalists to canvass for money-grabbing schemes on their shores without having been deported, including our women often treating them as mere sex objects in singles gathering!!

[Negotiator]

I dont know if I count as a socialist or a liberal or just a democrat, but asylum is a human right.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Now I am not a law person and I have trouble interpreting Article 14.2 - what are "the purpose and the principle of the UN" ?

But in my interpretation, because the rich countries of the world actually are the cause of the poverty of the poor countries of the world (the later have exploited them since centuries, and in many cases still continue to do so), immigration of poor people to rich countries is just.

[Someone5]

Well, it has been no surprise that the right-wing(on this forum and elsewhere) have made their objections to mass immigration, for reasons of cultural/national preservation and the effects of the influx of cheap labor. I am wondering and have been wondering for quite some time, what is the socialist stance on this? How would socialism have the ideal Socialist State deal with this,

The ideal socialist society has no state apparatus--no government. It would have only as much government as required to assure the recognition of its territorial claims by external states.

and how would socialism have the contemporary Social-Democracies deal with it? If anyone wants to shed led light of this, in the American-context, I would be happy to hear it too. Is immigration even a problem?

Open borders is the only sensible approach. Especially for a stateless socialist society.

If so, why is it a problem? Would you advocate restricted borders or immigration quotas?

How would that even work without a government to tell people not to cross?

What is the left's response to the immigration question?

Dismissal. It's not important.

[Rich]

Socialists don't have to worry about immigration problems because nobody wants to live in actual socialist states.

I don't quite follow your logic. I've learnt from our Libertarians that Obama is an out and out socialist. Well that surely makes the Scandinavian countries nearly full Communist, and lots of people want to move to them.

[Eauz]

Socialist countries need to make sure not to create a "brain drain". Moreover, if the country guarantees employment, it may see rising immigration from destitute countries -- it is not clear that the state would benefit from an open doors policy in this case either.

Regardless if immigrants are admitted into the country through strict or open door policies, the cultural philosophy of the socialist state should be to uniform itself within a socialist culture, as opposed to an individuals culture. The current problem we notice today is that the finances (as you pointed out), move freely, yet the labourers are unable to do the same. However, when they are able to move, it is often to these capitalist countries that have adopted a marketing plan based around individualism & Freedom. The fascists and right-wingers are unhappy with the individuals moving around where the money goes, because of this marketing plan to sell certain countries, in order to develop a pool of cheap labour. Yet, they completely ignore this problem as they usually do, to justify their hatred. Their hatred should be directed towards the free movement of capital and the marketing plan to encourage the expansion of capitalism.

A socialist culture should be opposed to individualism in the liberal-capitalist definition, when it comes to immigration. It should be promoting uniformity, in terms of collective economic structure and oppose propagation of individualism in society. This, however, does not suggest that the individual is unimportant. The individual should be freely able to participate in various forms of individual development and improvement. It might be stretching it a bit, but developing an economy based around the socialisation of the distribution economy (which already exists), with the development of a mechanism that directs production according to need will help reduce hours worked and provide more individual time to partake in certain personal development activities and leisure. The concept of being a minority should not be propagated within society, as one should first be defined as an individual within a collective economy, as opposed to an individual Muslim in a market economy.

[starcraftzzz]

Mass immigration results in higher living standards for immigrants; given if those immigrants would have stayed in their country they would of ended up in less productive jobs. Immigration expands the economy and is good for people

[Vera Politica]

Regardless if immigrants are admitted into the country through strict or open door policies, the cultural philosophy of the socialist state should be to uniform itself within a socialist culture, as opposed to an individuals culture. The current problem we notice today is that the finances (as you pointed out), move freely, yet the labourers are unable to do the same. However, when they are able to move, it is often to these capitalist countries that have adopted a marketing plan based around individualism & Freedom. The fascists and right-wingers are unhappy with the individuals moving around where the money goes, because of this marketing plan to sell certain countries, in order to develop a pool of cheap labour. Yet, they completely ignore this problem as they usually do, to justify their hatred. Their hatred should be directed towards the free movement of capital and the marketing plan to encourage the expansion of capitalism.

A socialist culture should be opposed to individualism in the liberal-capitalist definition, when it comes to immigration. It should be promoting uniformity, in terms of collective economic structure and oppose propagation of individualism in society. This, however, does not suggest that the individual is unimportant. The individual should be freely able to participate in various forms of individual development and improvement. It might be stretching it a bit, but developing an economy based around the socialisation of the distribution economy (which already exists), with the development of a mechanism that directs production according to need will help reduce hours worked and provide more individual time to partake in certain personal development activities and leisure. The concept of being a minority should not be propagated within society, as one should first be defined as an individual within a collective economy, as opposed to an individual Muslim in a market economy.

This is true but you are speaking here of, at least what seems to me, long-term policies while certain issues which I mentioned may be short-term problems that a socialist country cannot simply ignore. My only point was to say that we should not be idealists when it comes to immigration policy and that there may not be some universal socialist approach to such policies.

[Nunt]

I don't quite follow your logic. I've learnt from our Libertarians that Obama is an out and out socialist. Well that surely makes the Scandinavian countries nearly full Communist, and lots of people want to move to them.

Its strange that people always seem to believe that Scandinavian countries are more socialist than the rest of the world. While it is true that taxes are high and governments spend a lot, they tend to have a lot of business, trade and investment freedom. See for example: http://www.heritage.org/index/country/denmark for a short description.

[SE23]

Good question, i always find it to be a contradiction when left wingers support an open door immigration policy, as it appears that third world immigrants come off worse out of this arrangement more so than anyone else, at the expense of big businesses and certain capitalists who exploit them for virtually cheap slave like labour. I have spoken to a few immigrants who recently migrated here from north west Africa, and they showed their annoyance of turning up to a country which they assumed would have streets paved with gold, they also were annoyed with the lack of religion and culture of moral relativity in u.k society, and the corrupting influence they thought it would have on their children, ironically enough its this post modern stance which made it easy for them to immigrate to the U.K.