.

• ALSO check out:

Representative Democracy Is No Longer Democracy! http://nationalliberal.org/swiss-model

THIS IS the fifth and final part of a series entitled Trade Unionists Against Mass Immigration. It should be read directly on from part 1 http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-–-national-liberal-trade-unionists-–-trade-unionists-against-mass-immigration-part-1 part 2 http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-–-national-liberal-trade-unionists-–-trade-unionists-against-mass-immigration-part-2 part 3 http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-–-national-liberal-trade-unionists-–-trade-unionists-against-mass-immigration-part-3 and part 4 http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-–-national-liberal-trade-unionists-–-trade-unionists-against-mass-immigration-part-4 Originally called The Left Case Against Open Borders – https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/– it was written by Angela Nagle for American Affairs, a ‘quarterly journal of public policy and political thought.’ Angela Nagle is a graduate from Dublin City University (DCU) in Éire.

As our name suggests, National Liberal Trade Unionists (NLTU) are not socialist trade unionists. But that doesn’t mean that we’re in favour of capitalism. Far from it! Indeed, we would describe ourselves as ‘neither capitalist nor socialist, neither left nor right.’ With this in mind, we’re interested in a variety of social & economic ideas such as Distributism, Guild Socialism, Social Credit, Syndicalism and Workers Co-Operatives to name just a few. We sincerely believe that a synthesis of these ideas would ensure freedom for all ordinary working folks.

The NLTU is opposed to mass immigration as we feel that it’s an exploitative event caused by capitalism. However, despite the NLTUs opposition to mass immigration we’ve nothing against individual immigrants simply because they wear a completely different style of clothing or pray to another God.

In Britain, mass immigration began in earnest in the years following WWII. Here, Afro-Caribbean, Asian and Eastern European folks have been used to plug holes in the British workforce. With Globalisation now in full swing, capitalism has responded and has imported huge numbers of people from the other side of the world to prop up its flagging economies. Whilst the capitalists may be happy with this, ordinary working folks are not. Massive population shifts have made existing economic & social problems much worse. Many areas suffer from great poverty – from the brutal Austerity policies of PIP and Universal Credit (which are destroying the welfare safety net) through to sink council estates that attract anti-social behaviour.

Angela Nagle’s article is important as it shows that some leftists are realising that it’s not ‘racist’ to want to restrict or limit immigration. The NLTU is weary of seeing middle class leftists carrying ‘refugees welcome here’ placards into poor working class areas. To add insult to injury, the middle-class left then tell locals that they’re all racists and fascists if they oppose the settlement of immigrants and/or refugees – all of which puts a further strain on the precious few resources available. Indeed, there’s nothing more galling than seeing ‘champagne socialists’ lecturing the most needy in society. By doing so, they’re unwittingly acting as recruiting sergeants for rightist organisations.

The NLTU might not agree with everything Angela Nagle writes. However, in the spirit of comradeship, free thought, free speech and open debate, we feature her article below. We invite our readers to share their thoughts when this article is reproduced on the NLTU Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/groups/277840098977231/ – and the NLP Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/ It goes without saying that there are no official links between Angela Nagle, American Affairs, the NLTU and the National Liberal Party. Please note that the NLTU has kept the original US spelling and phrases as they are.

.

The Left Case Against Open Borders – By Angela Nagle (Part 5)

Defending Immigrants, Opposing Systemic Exploitation

Angela Nagle (left) is a modern leftist who’s not afraid to talk about social & economic problems relating to immigration. In doing so, we believe that she follows in the footsteps of Robert ‘Bob’ Blatchford (1851 – 1943). Blatchford was a patriot, who described his ‘English’ Socialism thus: “English Socialism is not Marxian; it is humanitarian. It does not depend upon any theory of 'economic justice' but upon humanity and common sense." Blatchford founded and edited The Clarion, and wrote books such as Merrie England (1893) and Britain for the British ( 1902). The following quote from Blatchford gives a sense of his patriotic Socialism: “At present Britain does not belong to the British: it belongs to a few of the British who employ the bulk of the population as servants or as workers. It is because Britain does not belong to the British that a few are very rich and the many are very poor. It is because Britain does not belong to the British that we find amongst the owning class a state of useless luxury and pernicious idleness, and among the working classes a state of drudging toil, of wearing poverty and anxious care."

If open borders is “a Koch brothers proposal,” then what would an authentic Left position on immigration look like? In this case, instead of channeling Milton Friedman, the Left should take its bearings from its own long traditions. Progressives should focus on addressing the systemic exploitation at the root of mass migration rather than retreating to a shallow moralism that legitimates these exploitative forces. This does not mean that leftists should ignore injustices against immigrants. They should vigorously defend migrants against inhumane treatment. At the same time, any sincere Left must take a hard line against the corporate, financial, and other actors who create the desperate circumstances underlying mass migration (which, in turn, produces the populist reaction against it). Only a strong national Left in the small and developing nations—acting in concert with a Left committed to ending financialization and global labor exploitation in the larger economies—could have any hope of addressing these problems.

To begin with, the Left must stop citing the latest Cato Institute propaganda in order to ignore the effects of immigration on domestic labor, especially the working poor who are likely to suffer disproportionately from expanding the labor pool. Immigration policies should be designed to ensure that the bargaining power of workers is not significantly imperiled. This is especially true in times of wage stagnation, weak unions, and massive inequality.

With respect to illegal immigration, the Left should support efforts to make E-Verify mandatory and push for stiff penalties on employers who fail to comply. Employers, not immigrants, should be the primary focus of enforcement efforts. These employers take advantage of immigrants who lack ordinary legal protections in order to perpetuate a race to the bottom in wages while also evading payroll taxes and the provision of other benefits. Such incentives must be eliminated if any workers are to be treated fairly.

Trump infamously complained about people coming from third-world “shithole countries” and suggested Norwegians as an example of ideal immigrants. But Norwegians did once come to America in large numbers—when they were desperate and poor. Now that they have a prosperous and relatively egalitarian social democracy, built on public ownership of natural resources, they no longer want to (1). Ultimately, the motivation for mass migration will persist as long as the structural problems underlying it remain in place.

Reducing the tensions of mass migration thus requires improving the prospects of the world’s poor. Mass migration itself will not accomplish this: it creates a race to the bottom for workers in wealthy countries and a brain drain in poor ones. The only real solution is to correct the imbalances in the global economy, and radically restructure a system of globalization that was designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. This involves, to start with, structural changes to trade policies that prevent necessary, state-led development in emerging economies. Anti-labor trade deals like nafta must also be opposed. It is equally necessary to take on a financial system that funnels capital away from the developing world and into inequality-heightening asset bubbles in rich countries. Finally, although the reckless foreign policies of the George W. Bush administration have been discredited, the temptation to engage in military crusades seems to live on. This should be opposed. U.S.-led foreign invasions have killed millions in the Middle East, created millions of refugees and migrants, and devastated fundamental infrastructure.

Marx’s argument that the English working class should see Irish nationhood as a potential compliment to their struggle, rather than as a threat to their identity, should resonate today, as we witness the rise of various identity movements around the world. The comforting delusion that immigrants come here because they love America is incredibly naïve—as naïve as suggesting that the nineteenth-century Irish immigrants Marx described loved England. Most migrants emigrate out of economic necessity, and the vast majority would prefer to have better opportunities at home, among their own family and friends. But such opportunities are impossible within the current shape of globalization.

Just like the situation Marx described in the England of his day, politicians like Trump rally their base by stirring up anti-immigration sentiment, but they rarely if ever address the structural exploitation—whether at home or abroad—that is the root cause of mass migration. Often, they make these problems worse, expanding the power of employers and capital against labor, while turning the rage of their supporters—often the victims of these forces—against other victims, immigrants. But for all Trump’s anti-immigration bluster, his administration has done virtually nothing to expand the implementation of E-Verify, preferring instead to boast about a border wall that never seems to materialize. While families are separated at the border, the administration has turned a blind eye toward employers who use immigrants as pawns in a game of labor shortage.

Meanwhile, members of the open-borders Left may try to convince themselves that they are adopting a radical position. But in practice they are just replacing the pursuit of economic equality with the politics of big business, masquerading as a virtuous identitarianism. America, still one of the richest countries in the world, should be able to provide not just full employment but a living wage for all of its people, including in jobs which open borders advocates claim “Americans won’t do.” Employers who exploit migrants for cheap labor illegally—at great risk to the migrants themselves—should be blamed, not the migrants who are simply doing what people have always done when facing economic adversity. By providing inadvertent cover for the ruling elite’s business interests, the Left risks a significant existential crisis, as more and more ordinary people defect to far-right parties. At this moment of crisis, the stakes are too high to keep getting it wrong.

This article originally appeared in American Affairs Volume II, Number 4 (Winter 2018): 17-30.

1 Krishnadev Calamur, “Why Norwegians Aren’t Moving to the U.S.,” Atlantic, Jan. 12, 2018.

2 Tracy Jan, “Trump Isn’t Pushing Hard for This One Popular Way to Curb Illegal Immigration,” Washington Post, May 22, 2018.

• ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Angela Nagle writes for the Atlantic, Jacobin, the Irish Times and the Baffler. She is the author of Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right (Zero Books, 2017).

• CHECK OUT THE National Liberal Trade Unionists (NLTU) here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/277840098977231/

• ALSO CHECK OUT issue 1 of Liberal Worker – Voice of the NLTU. To get hold of your FREE pdf copy, simply e-mail natliberal@aol.com

WELCOME TO the sixth debate hosted by Liberal Future – LF – the youth wing of the National Liberal Party. This debate relates to an article written by Kevin Albertson (who is Professor of Economics, Manchester Metropolitan University, in Lancashire, England) it appeared in The Conversation, which describes itself as ‘an independent source of news, analysis and expert opinion, written by academics and researchers, and delivered direct to the public.’

Originally called Hate Globalisation? Try Localism, Not Nationalism, Professor Albertson wrote his article a little while ago – see the original here: https://theconversation.com/hate-globalisation-try-localism-not-nationalism-86870 – although it’s only recently been brought to our attention. Despite this, we thought that it was very thought-provoking and should form the basis of this debate.

LF doesn’t agree with all of his extremely well referenced article. For instance, we get the impression that Professor Albertson is happy enough with capitalism whereas we’d like to get rid of it completely! We believe that it’s a cruel dog-eat-dog system that it obsessed with centralisation, control and gigantic profits. We’d like to overthrow capitalism and replace it with Distributism & Social Credit.

LF also questions his rather one-dimensional view of nationalism. Not all forms of nationalism are bad. Indeed, there’s probably as many varieties of nationalism as there are varieties of communism, socialism, liberalism, anarchism – and every other ‘ism’ that one can think of! It all depends how one defines nationalism and it’s important not to conflate nationalism – a love of one’s people & nation – with imperialism.

That said, we agree with Professor Albertson’s view that localism is an effective antidote to the misery and exploitation of globalism. For localism supports the local production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. In short, it puts the local economy, community and environment first.

Whilst his article concentrates on the theory of localism, we’re interested in the practicalities of disengaging from capitalism and promoting localism. Simply put – How Do We Keep It Local?

We invite our readers to share their thoughts when this article is reproduced on the Liberal Future Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/groups/706779429376233/?epa=SEARCH_BOX – and the NLP Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/ It goes without saying that there are no official links between Professor Albertson, The Conversation, Liberal Future and the National Liberal Party.

Hate Globalisation? Try Localism, Not Nationalism

IT HARDLY needs saying, but there are changes afoot in the political economy of the world. Where there is globalisation (1), there are globalisation protestors (2). This is nothing new (3), but it is becoming mainstream.

The antithesis of globalisation, nationalism (4), and the pursuit of your own country’s interests over those of everyone else, has bubbled back up in Europe (5). And it’s not just Europe, of course. In the US, president Donald Trump (6) is (among other initiatives) rethinking the American commitment to free trade (7).

In the rest of the world (8), the experience of globalisation shows it creates some winners (9) and some losers (10). This varies geographically (11) and in different economic fields (12), and is shown in different aspects of our lives (13).

And so, someone in London might find their house is worth more. As foreign capital flows in to buy up large swaths of the capital (14) it increases their wealth, while others might be priced out of the market. In some sectors of the market, wages might be declining (15) as a result of global competition, migration, casualisation (16) or automation (17). In the final analysis, however, it is not a matter of whether globalisation causes these changes (18), it is rather more that people feel that it does (19).

Walls and Wails

Globalisation is not, however, merely a matter of trade (20), migration (21) and foreign outsourcing (22). To many it seems Britain itself is for sale (23) as an increasing proportion of UK businesses and assets answer to foreign owners (24).

Economic theory suggests, therefore, the nation will increasingly be run for the benefit of foreign capital (25), rather than the citizens (26). On top of this, there is the danger that inflows of foreign capital will cause the exchange rate to appreciate, making it more difficult to export (27), reducing manufacturing output and reducing employment in those sectors affected.

To protect them from forces beyond their control, citizens across the world are increasingly looking to the nation state for protection, hence the rise of what is often called nationalism. As Abraham Lincoln (28) noted:

The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but can not do at all, or can not so well do, for themselves – in their separate, and individual capacities.

It is clear, no individual or community can stand against the forces of global capital (29), and Western governments appear averse to giving the workforce the means to protect itself (30), through, for example, increasing employment rights (31) and unionisation (32). However, in their search for a strong government to protect them, citizens are in danger of giving the state too much power over their lives (33).

It is by no means assured that the policies which suit a strong domestic government will be better than those which suit foreign owned multi-national corporations. Also, history indicates the fear of global capital may be coopted by unscrupulous politicians into a fear of other nations or fear of other peoples.

Think Locally

Rather than nationalism, therefore, we might turn to localism (34). In the UK context, this might be devolution (35) with real (financial) localised power, and that power realised through local government and local business.

An economy of big businesses (operated for the benefit of global owners) is less than ideal for the individual and society. In contrast, a society of many small local businesses is more resilient, more empowering (36) and more in keeping with the spirit of capitalism and of the market (37). We must also bear in mind that increasing business concentration (fewer, but larger firms) is a driver of increasing inequality (38). If a business is too big to (be allowed to) fall (39), then the government has failed in its duty to keep business small.

Economic theory indicates that those with no stake in a community other than profit extraction avoid suffering from localised ill effects such as unemployment (40), poverty (41), want (42) and homelessness (43). It follows those who live and work in a community have a greater stake in its prosperity.

The government might likewise consider how we might prevent those who do not even live in the country from driving up house prices (44).

Local protection from exploitation by global interests requires the right mix of global and local policies. And local government policies require adequate financing. By local financial power, I don’t mean local taxes. That has the potential to fragment the nation, as it has, to some extent, in the EU (45) (whether perceived rightly (46) or wrongly (47)).

If we fund education or social care out of local taxes, for example, there will tend to be a race to the bottom as local authorities will be motivated to underperform to encourage vulnerable families to go and live elsewhere (48). It follows taxes should be collected nationally, and shared proportionally (on the basis of demographic profile) to the devolved authorities.

There is no space here to discuss in detail other possible localism policies here, but there are many ways to promote local ownership and local empowerment. That could include local currencies, boosts to council housing, local authority ownership of utilities or support for locally-owned high street shops. However, it is not a policy mix I suggest, rather it is an emphasis.

Ultimately, the only viable alternative to the choice currently on offer, the choice of Big State or Big Business (49), is Small State and Small Business, or more appropriately Local Government and Local Business. To pursue localism will require a systemic shift in how the national government goes about shaping society, but I suggest it is possible to promote social justice in a capitalist context in no other way.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
2. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/watch-liveprotesters-gather-g20-demonstration-hamburg/
3. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-andy-price/the-leftbehind-once-had-a_b_13297202.html
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_nationalism_in_Europe
5. https://www.ft.com/content/53fc4518-4520-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1?mhq5j=e5
6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fnews%2fmonkey-cage%2fwp%2f2017%2f06%2f12%2ftrump-is-a-new-kind-of-protectionist-he-operates-in-stealth-mode%2f%3f&utm_term=.05ccee3ca46d
7. http://fortune.com/2017/03/24/trump-executive-order-trade-deal/
8. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/10/25/The-Winners-and-Losers-of-Globalization-Finding-a-Path-to-Shared-Prosperity
9. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/winners-of-globalization_b_4603454?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVjb252ZXJzYXRpb24uY29tL2hhdGUtZ2xvYmFsaXNhdGlvbi10cnktbG9jYWxpc20tbm90LW5hdGlvbmFsaXNtLTg2ODcw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALjgjxdZq0FNm5wFpu_OKjcrntMfnZZ5FmKPGDny358BYykAN-Kc2wge6S-J4pEM0513Hy_uMRKdOny5j73wmidDy_PJdOfRqfkGAY_c40hNZUUtokqqvm0Q85gMrwbEmjSTkxOPrna_u-eKoKcYXAchr1H6WXi1X0Z5FWv82w_Y
10. https://theconversation.com/the-least-skilled-workers-are-the-losers-in-globalisation-63655
11. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jan/19/north-south-divide-widen-thinktank-data
12. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11941578/The-perfect-storm-that-has-brought-Britains-steel-industry-to-its-knees.html
13. https://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198728863.003.0002
14. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/new-homes-sold-to-corrupt-foreign-buyers-gh6v9vf3
15. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2016/11/30/trump-is-right-globalization-has-slowed-middle-class-income-growth/#642557b22183
16. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/06/uk-workers-poverty-pay-gig-economy-frank-field-report
17. https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/28/15086576/robot-jobs-automation-unemployent-us-labor-market
18. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/30/globalisation-poverty-corruption-free-trade-liam-fox
19. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/globalisation-poll-low-wages-inequality-technology-comres-a7467491.html
20. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/05/06/the-pros-and-cons-of-globalization/#70b76ee9ccce
21. http://www.oecd.org/insights/43568302.pdf
22. http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/offshoringandemploymenttrendsandimpacts.htm
23. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/outlook-we-cant-sell-all-of-britain-to-foreigners-1155179.html
24. https://www.regionalstudies.org/
25. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/companies/33-quintessentially-british-brands-that-are-not-actually-british/ss-AAfpa3h
26. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1369046/Last-British-owned-port-sold-abroad-UK-sells-soul-highest-foreign-bidder.html
27. https://theconversation.com/steel-is-just-another-tipping-point-for-britains-unbalanced-economy-58298
28. http://housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/lincoln/fragment-on-government-july-1-1854/
29. http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/robinson/Assets/pdf/Global%20Capital%20Leviathan.pdf
30. https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fnews%2fposteverything%2fwp%2f2017%2f08%2f30%2fthe-trump-administrations-ongoing-attack-on-workers%2f%3f&utm_term=.ad0f2d4e686c
31. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/7-times-theresa-tried-slash-10426005
32. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/conservatives-attacks-trade-unions-are-attack-our-most-fundamental-freedoms
33. https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Road%20to%20serfdom.pdf
34. http://www.betterway.network/examples-of-localism/
35. https://www.gov.uk/topic/government/devolution
36. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/dec/06/shop-locally-small-business-saturday-seven-reasons
37. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/nov/22/house-prices-boosted-thriving-local-trade-small-businesses
38. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/cities-economic-fates-diverge/417372/
39. https://news.sky.com/story/bank-of-england-governor-ending-too-big-to-fail-not-complete-11059507
40. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/4000-more-people-unemployed-north-13777711
41. https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2017/oct/05/poverty-austerity-england-charity-support
42. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/29/food-poverty-is-new-normal-in-uk-we-adopted-from-the-states
43. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/homelessness-rough-sleeping-rise-crisis-homeless-three-quarters-decade-a7884261.html
44. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-31/new-zealand-to-slap-home-buying-ban-on-foreigners-to-ease-market
45. https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/european-court-justice-cracks-down-benefit-tourism
46. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11224615/EU-benefit-tourists-face-being-sent-home-after-landmark-court-ruling.html
47. https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/news/true-cost-welfare-tourism
48. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/over-50000-families-shipped-out-of-london-in-the-past-three-years-due-to-welfare-cuts-and-soaring-10213854.html
49. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative

• CHECK out Liberal Future here: http://nationalliberal.org/liberty-wall-3/liberal-future

• ALSO check out previous Liberal Future debates here:

Liberal Future Debate (1) – Should We Lower The Voting Age Throughout the UK? http://nationalliberal.org/liberal-future-debate-1-%e2%80%93-should-we-lower-the-voting-age-throughout-the-uk

.

Liberal Future Debate (2) – Must The Earth Die Screaming? http://nationalliberal.org/liberal-future-debate-2-must-the-earth-die-screaming

.

Liberal Future Debate (3) – Do Sport And Politics Mix? http://nationalliberal.org/liberal-future-debate-3-%E2%80%93-do-sport-and-politics-mix

Liberal Future Debate (4) – Is Tony Blair A War Criminal? http://nationalliberal.org/liberal-future-debate-3-–-is-tony-blair-a-war-criminal

Liberal Future Debate (5) – Is It Racist To Highlight The Sexual Abuse In Rotherham & Telford? http://nationalliberal.org/liberal-future-debate-4-is-it-racist-to-highlight-the-sexual-abuse-in-rotherham