Immigration and the Dictates of Capital
In many ways the whole definition of the state is that it is limited. There are those within (citizens) and there are those without (foreigners). For some, this definition is the whole purpose of the state. For the state to have a universal dimension would mean that all peoples are universally equal. This equality would also denote freedom of movement, as borders would in reality no longer exist. This equality is blatantly incompatible with capitalistic hierarchies, although in this sense capitalism is hardly to blame although the theme is continued from “Capital and State”.
Inequalities between nations allow a greater freedom of choice for capitalist exploitation. Some nations become dependent on foreign capital to develop their economies. Poor economies stay poor through immigration controls that limit the number of potential workers travelling from poor to rich nations, who would have accumulated enough capital to become potential entrepreneurs when they return to their country of origin.
Too many foreign workers in a domestic economy would create competition for better wages in essential jobs between wealthy nations, while none would force average wages above the rates of state benefits. Capital therefore has a choice between zero immigration and zero unemployment benefits or some immigration and some unemployment benefits. Unlimited immigration from poor countries to rich would force wages to go up to the levels in richer nations as essential workers leave their country of origin.
I have often considered that the threat of capital flight is the main reason, besides simply appeasing racists, that asylum seekers are denied the right to earn a living and are forced to live on below-poverty level benefits. Many people seeking political asylum are often highly educated or have high motivational skills. In ideal situations they would probably become successful entrepreneurs, building up capital in a foreign country then returning to rebuild their country when it is politically safe to do so. Alternately, in being forced to leave their country, they are retarding its development.
In many ways the whole definition of the state is that it is limited. There are those within (citizens) and there are those without (foreigners). For some, this definition is the whole purpose of the state. For the state to have a universal dimension would mean that all peoples are universally equal. This equality would also denote freedom of movement, as borders would in reality no longer exist. This equality is blatantly incompatible with capitalistic hierarchies, although in this sense capitalism is hardly to blame although the theme is continued from “Capital and State”.
Inequalities between nations allow a greater freedom of choice for capitalist exploitation. Some nations become dependent on foreign capital to develop their economies. Poor economies stay poor through immigration controls that limit the number of potential workers travelling from poor to rich nations, who would have accumulated enough capital to become potential entrepreneurs when they return to their country of origin.
Too many foreign workers in a domestic economy would create competition for better wages in essential jobs between wealthy nations, while none would force average wages above the rates of state benefits. Capital therefore has a choice between zero immigration and zero unemployment benefits or some immigration and some unemployment benefits. Unlimited immigration from poor countries to rich would force wages to go up to the levels in richer nations as essential workers leave their country of origin.
I have often considered that the threat of capital flight is the main reason, besides simply appeasing racists, that asylum seekers are denied the right to earn a living and are forced to live on below-poverty level benefits. Many people seeking political asylum are often highly educated or have high motivational skills. In ideal situations they would probably become successful entrepreneurs, building up capital in a foreign country then returning to rebuild their country when it is politically safe to do so. Alternately, in being forced to leave their country, they are retarding its development.
posted by Legal Smeagol at 8:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home