Does being on the left necessarily mean being in favor of mass immigration?

From Wikidebates
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Balance of reason weighing pros and cons
This article aims to expose all the pros and cons of the debate “Does being on the left necessarily mean being in favor of mass immigration?”, to allow everyone to form a critical and informed opinion.
Searchtool.svg
 Further reading: Founding Principles
Hammer symbolizing construction
This debate is under construction
The debates under construction are the debates that contain at least:
  • a coherent plan;
  • the most well-known “for” and “against” arguments;
  • a beginning of writing.
Unlike constructed debates, it may lack: arguments, justifications, objections; an accomplished introduction, an adequate bibliography, webliography or videography.
. Arguments are missing or not written. The introduction and bibliography need improvement.
Feel free to complete them.
Warning danger sign
This debate is sensitive. Arguments relayed on this page may shock.
Reminder: these arguments are only relayed insofar as their presence can be attested in the public space. They are endorsed neither by the editors of the site, nor by the association which administers Wikidebates.
PROS
Argument forAll left-wing parties are relatively pro-immigration
Argument forMigrants come to Europe because of imperialist wars and the plundering of their countries, so it's only right to welcome them.
Argument forIt's impossible to be on the left and reject others who are disadvantaged
Argument forThe left is internationalist
Argument forImmigration strengthens the proletariat and left-wing forces
Argument forRejection of immigration is racism
Argument forXenophobic nationalists want to close borders
Argument forThe media and governments that serve capitalist interests stir up fear of immigration
Argument forThe bourgeoisie stirs up divisions in the proletariat by inventing a pseudo immigration problem
Argument forImmigration promotes multiculturalism, which is a plus for a society and human progress.
Argument forSolidarity means welcoming migrants
Argument forMuslim migrants convey the human values that our hyper-individualistic societies need.
CONS
Argument againstSeveral left-wing parties and governments are relatively opposed to immigration
Argument againstThere's also a historical left-wing tendency against immigration
Argument againstEmployers and urban bourgeoisie want immigration
Argument againstCertain Marxist analyses are unfavorable to mass immigration
Argument againstImmigration is contrary to the interests of French workers and immigrants themselves.
Argument againstMass immigration is a by-product of unbridled liberalism and globalization
Argument againstIn working-class neighborhoods, mass immigration gives rise to complex "culture clashes" that fuel the far-right vote.
Argument againstSome migrants advocate patriarchal and retrograde values that the left fights against
Argument againstEmigration is a wrench, and a left-wing policy is to reduce North/South inequalities so that people in the South don't need to emigrate.
Argument againstThe left sees mass immigration more as a necessary evil than an asset
Argument againstThe question of being for or against immigration makes no sense, since it will always exist whether we like it or not.
Argument againstThe real profiteers of mass immigration are far-right populists
Keywords : Immigration, Left[ edit ].

To understand the debateTo understand the debate

[ edit ]

IntroductionA more complex question than it seems

Immigration is a subject that structures the political arena. For many, the left is by definition in favor of immigration. The right is generally hostile to immigration, and the further to the right you go, the greater this hostility becomes. Yet nothing is so simple: a tradition of left-wing authors and movements has been reserved on immigration, while right-wing liberals are in favor of it. In the 1980s, Georges Machais's PCF took positions on this issue that today we would attribute to populists!

The left has always fought racism, but it also saw that it was big business that wanted to bring in foreign workers en masse, creating additional exploitation and making workers already in France more precarious. The issue is therefore more complex than it seems. All the more so as today, the Social Democratic parties in Denmark and a left-wing movement in Germany are taking up theses unfavorable to mass immigration.

In France, too, the debate exists or is emerging on the left. In 2015, Jean-Luc Mélenchon said of the great wave of migration in Germany that "welcoming refugees is not the answer to the problem". "True realism is to block the causes of departure. It's not about preventing people from arriving, it's about dissuading them from leaving," he insisted. "The French are more intelligent than their elites think. They've understood perfectly, they're all in favor of welcoming refugees today - and I say we have to do it because we have no choice, we're not going to throw them back into the sea! [...].people [...] know that if we start like this we'll have to continue year after year, and that makes no sense!" alarmed the former presidential candidate, while France has pledged to take in 24,000 refugees over two years." (http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-scan/2015/09/11/25001-20150911ARTFIG00089-pour-melenchon-accueillir-les-refugies-n-est-pas-la-reponse-au-probleme.php#xtor=AL-155-[Twitter]). Jean-Luc Mélenchon's critical stance on the reception of migrants revealed the complexity of the problem.
Wikipedia.svg[ + Add a link ] to a useful Wikipedia page to complement this introduction.

Arguments forPros

[ edit ]
What are the pros of mass immigration on the left?
  • Argument forAll left-wing parties are relatively pro-immigration
  • Argument forMigrants come to Europe because of imperialist wars and the plundering of their countries, so it's only right to welcome them.
  • Argument forIt's impossible to be on the left and reject others who are disadvantaged
  • Argument forThe left is internationalist
  • Argument forImmigration strengthens the proletariat and left-wing forces
  • Argument forRejection of immigration is racism
  • Argument forXenophobic nationalists want to close borders
  • Argument forThe media and governments that serve capitalist interests stir up fear of immigration
  • Argument forThe bourgeoisie stirs up divisions in the proletariat by inventing a pseudo immigration problem
  • Argument forImmigration promotes multiculturalism, which is a plus for a society and human progress.
  • Argument forSolidarity means welcoming migrants
  • Argument forMuslim migrants convey the human values that our hyper-individualistic societies need.

Arguments againstCons

[ edit ]
What are the cons of mass immigration on the left?
  • Argument againstSeveral left-wing parties and governments are relatively opposed to immigration
  • Argument againstThere's also a historical left-wing tendency against immigration
  • Argument againstEmployers and urban bourgeoisie want immigration
  • Argument againstCertain Marxist analyses are unfavorable to mass immigration
  • Argument againstImmigration is contrary to the interests of French workers and immigrants themselves.
  • Argument againstMass immigration is a by-product of unbridled liberalism and globalization
  • Argument againstIn working-class neighborhoods, mass immigration gives rise to complex "culture clashes" that fuel the far-right vote.
  • Argument againstSome migrants advocate patriarchal and retrograde values that the left fights against
  • Argument againstEmigration is a wrench, and a left-wing policy is to reduce North/South inequalities so that people in the South don't need to emigrate.
  • Argument againstThe left sees mass immigration more as a necessary evil than an asset
  • Argument againstThe question of being for or against immigration makes no sense, since it will always exist whether we like it or not.
  • Argument againstThe real profiteers of mass immigration are far-right populists

To go furtherTo go further

BibliographyBibliography

For“Pro” side [ edit ]
No references have been entered yet.
Against“Con” side [ edit ]
No references have been entered yet.
Neither for nor againstNeither “pro” nor “con” [ edit ]
No references have been entered yet.

WebliographyWebliography

For“Pro” side [ edit ]
No references have been entered yet.
Against“Con” side [ edit ]
No references have been entered yet.
Neither for nor againstNeither “pro” nor “con” [ edit ]

VideographyVideography

For“Pro” side [ edit ]
No references have been entered yet.
Against“Con” side [ edit ]
No references have been entered yet.
Neither for nor againstNeither “pro” nor “con” [ edit ]
No references have been entered yet.
[ edit ]
Show the latest changes in the debate

---

Retrieved from "https://en.wikidebates.org/w/index.php?title=Does_being_on_the_left_necessarily_mean_being_in_favor_of_mass_immigration%3F&oldid=7502"