No Borders is a idealistic fantasy which provides justification for migrant labour hungry capitalists, whose philosophy neatly corresponds with their own objectives, and is a fantasy which has no practical application in the real world. People who support No Borders in the UK are either middle-class "activists" (usually from overseas) who have no conception of what it means to live on the breadline and tussle for scarce resources which we'll all be doing soon enough in the coming age of austerity and would be doing in even larger numbers if there was a 'No Borders' policy in place, or they are state agents playing along to the tune of big business.

sorry mate, yuo obviously completely misunderstood what no borders is about. maybe try reading some of the literature that we've put out, the a-z is a good place to start, or the response to english anarchists in the last black flag magazine.

just to give you a hint - no borders is not a policy suggestion!

One of No Borders, you don't advance your argument at-all hiding behind a silly, easily misunderstood name like "No Borders". Anyone coming across the name for the first time would obviously presume that the organisation actively fights for what it says on the tin....

Many No Borders activists know exactly what living on the breadline is like, know what police harrassment is like and can empathise with those who have had deeply traumatic experiences in escaping from their countries and trying to travel to a safer place. If you think that's idealistic bullshit, you're entitled to your opinion, based as it is on ignorance. But I think you should come and spend some time in Calais, living and talking with migrants, listening to their experiences and very modest hopes for the future ( a roof over their heads, to not be woken with blows and beatings in the night, a chance to study or work to be able to feel human and regain some sense of self pride). It sounds unlikely, but you may just throw off some of your prejudiced ideas.

Did I say at any point I don't support migrants fleeing persecution or asylum applicants fleeing persecution overseas? I didn't because, I DO. I just happen to think "No Borders" is a silly name, and your contrary argument of my criticism of why it is a silly name has not been intelligently argued by yourself.

Oh dear. What ignorance you display 'Bull**** Detector'...

"No Borders is a idealistic fantasy which provides justification for migrant labour hungry capitalists"

Yeah so, like, people should stop coming to the UK - in fact stop migrating at all - because it might just lead to more precarity in the UK/Europe. Like people everywhere aren't suffering enough.
Yours is the 'idealistic fantasy', believing that people on the breadline everywhere should and could stay put for the sake of the economy over here. That they should in effect sacrafrice themselves for us, even if its multinational corporations which are doing much of the screwing over of their countries in the first place. What imperialistic arrogance.

I take it that you refuse to be a wage slave, refuse to have taken yourself off grid, refuse to drive a car, and do all the other shit that feeds the capitalist economy then?

"People who support No Borders in the UK are either middle-class "activists" (usually from overseas) who have no conception of what it means to live on the breadline"

Ha! That one really won't wash. Those who have been busy in Calais and lots of people in the UK know precisely what it is like to struggle, to be without a home, or to have the added pain of being 'without papers' , which is probably why we empathise with those living in dire situations in Calais, or facing destitution in the UK.
You really haven't a clue what you're talking about there.

"No Borders" is a silly name

Oh, you mean reference to the natural state of this planet, before it was carved up by power hungry Empires? Yes, it makes far more sense to stay within arbitrarly demarcated political borders like we're told to.

X, you protest rather too much. Touch a nerve, did I? You struggle to make a contrary argument, flaling around for anything in argument against me, stopping short of just about calling me racist, after rather pathetically calling me an 'imperialist'. Arbitrarily demarcated political borders may have been arbitrarily demarcated when they were imposed (in Europe, they came about with the rise of competing imperialist powers), but now with a world population of 6.8 billion, I'm afraid borders are here to stay, particularly in a world of growing resource constraints.

X, I'm afraid you are in denial. No Borders is a philosophy of the ivory-tower, a nice idea but not based in reality if taken literally. An argument was made earlier that it is not meant to be taken literally (the person who said that was betraying any semblance of intelligence; for what would be the point of announcing "No Borders' if you didn't want to bring them about).

As for the nonsensical argument that no borders applies to all, because all aree free to migrate wherever they want, you avoid the obvious fact that the majority of people are quite happy living where they are! Most people prefer the stay living where they have long-historical family ties, a sense of community. It is big business who is more keen to disrupt community lineage, to breakdown long historical lineage of working class communities and community knowledge of struggle through the breaking apart of working class communities through cntrally planned displacement, gentrification ..etc (eg. post-war communities in South London, active encouragement of migrant population dispersal across areas of East London which has had the effect of disintergrating working class areas - a process which had the byproduct of creating a straight racial conflict which was characterised as a race-hate issue against new Bangleshi communities by white nationalist fascists who sought to represent white working class communities).

Activists would be better concentrating on the push-factors of migration, which is new colonialism, and fighting against that and it's main manifestations.

yeah, detector, er...you are genius for pointing that out. "Freedom to move, freeedom to stay" is one of our bylines...clealry, much migration is a (negative) symptom of capitalism : it not a good thing in itself but neither is being stuck in place where you and your family cannot make a living...would you deny somones right to be able to do that based on their country of birth ? If so, tell me how that's not racist?

No Borders is an anti-capitalist position... it's true that a few capitalists would like open borders, but most would prefer a regulated border control system like we have now, which allows employers to keep their migrant workers under control, through threat of deportation ..absolute freeedom of movement would undermine the differences in the value of labour that allows us to buy cash crops from, say, south america, at bargin bucket prices, while maintaining a lifestyle that allows western capitalist to sell it to for 100x times the price that it would get in its country of origin.. e.g.. coffee if everyone had the same standard of living then much of the motivation for migrating would die.

also, i dont hear you advocating restriction of movement for EU passport holders, surely if you are trying to avoid a racist postioning then maybe we should not be able to travel (and work) in other countries?

in terms of argument, you keep just asserting repeatedly that it is a bad idea: "ivory towers" - you been to calais yourself lately, mate? oh yeah, and that standard inaccurate"middle class" insult - surely the argument of the lame brained. why don't you go and join your posho mate cameron, or (for that matter Nick Griffiths) on his platform with a cap on immigration.

as for your arguments regarding the eat end...it seems to be don't allow migration coz racists might not like it...who was that saw mosely's blackshirts...it was the "jewish" eastend.

but on the other hand if you have a boil-in-the bag solution to capitalism, then let me know.

'Noborderer'/'X'/'anon'/'one of no borders' /whatever your name is, you said: “in terms of argument, you keep just asserting repeatedly that it is a bad idea: "ivory towers" - you been to Calais yourself lately, mate?”
>>> Sorry, but just going to Calais isn’t particularly a demonstrable reason for why No Borders is a good idea. Yes, I appreciate there are an awful lot of migrants trying to get into the UK (because of our reputation of having years of having a generous asylum and welfare system for migrants). That is of course not the only reason why so many of these migrants insistent on coming to the UK, the black economy being the foremost.

If I went to Calais, I'm sure I would have my heartstrings pulled about the mass of human wastage, but I'm afraid, I would also remain of the opinion that inacting a policy of no-borders would be an absolute nightmare and might even have worse societal repercussions in the long-run than maintaining borders and witnessing undesirable consequences of migrant camps stranded in a transitory existence.

Under your [previous pseudonym ‘X’, you said: “Yours is the 'idealistic fantasy', believing that people on the breadline everywhere should and could stay put for the sake of the economy over here”.
>>> This is a nonsensical argument, that betrays an honest self-appraisal of the facts, in that you avoid answering the assertion that borders are a reality in a world of large population concentration, by simply replying with a non-answer and instead a counter-assertion that people shouldn’t be expected to not move to not put pressure on people in the north. I don’t say people should not move; they should if they absolutely have to. Just, they can’t expect a island nation like the UK with a larger population density than virtually all other countries in the world to not police there borders. In awareness of this reality, that is why the idea of ‘No Borders’ will have little sympathy with the vast majority (99.5%) of people in the UK.

I personally have done support work with migrants /asylum seekers , so I’m afraid you can’t place me into your neat box to discount the argument I am making. Really, it’s typical of the ultra-left to label anyone who questions you as being ‘racist’.

You had absolutely no answer to the what I said in response about arbitrarily demarcated political borders. Arbitrarily demarcated political borders may have been arbitrarily demarcated when they were imposed (in Europe, they came about with the rise of competing imperialist powers), but now with a world population of 6.8 billion, I'm afraid borders are here to stay, particularly in a world of growing resource constraints.


As I also said, activists would be better concentrating on the push-factors of migration, which is neo-colonialism (the exploitation of differentials in labour costs as you cited), and fighting against that and it's main manifestations.

oh come on bullshitter, don't pull the 'stop calling me a racist card' - I'm not calling you a racist - just asking to look into the politics of no borders before you reject it (based on quite a few wrong assumptions).

mainly you seem to confuse 'open borders' with 'no borders' - open borders is a policy suggestions to remove immigration controls but to remain tied into a system of nation-states. 'no borders' is not idealist, or moralist, in the slightest - quite on the contrary, it begins by stating the very material implications of being categorised as citizens/non-citizens (and note this is not just altruistic, do-gooders activism in pity with asylum seekers), derives from this a theoretical rejections of capital, nation and state, to inform very practical positions on state legislation from immigration, surveillance, welfare to environment...

as i said, you're jumping the gun rather than finding out what we are actually about. I wonder why...?

You said: "'no borders' is not idealist, or moralist, in the slightest - quite on the contrary, it begins by stating the very material implications of being categorised as citizens/non-citizens ... derives from this a theoretical rejections of capital, nation and state, to inform very practical positions on state legislation from immigration, surveillance, welfare to environment."

>> if that's the best you can do, no wonder you don't have too much support

How about we build borders rounds each county in the UK, to stop migrants from other counties damaging the local economy?

Actually let's not stop there, why not have fences around each town too, for similar reasons?

You may like some politician telling you where you can and can't live or travel, but many people don't.

Why are you so eager to deny people the freedom to move around?

@non, now you're just being silly, now that you clearly have no answer to the points I already made...

You understand my point though about where do we stop with denying people the freedom to move?

So your point is that migrant workers benefit the rich because they can use them as cheap labour? I think you are having too much of a narrow nationalist view. Migration is a way of evening out global inequalities.

In fact it's the other way round to what you say: capital likes to restrict the movement of people, whilst being able to be multinational themselves. They don't need migrant workers - they just build the factories overseas and use the cheap labour there.

If people can migrate freely, the poor countries would become richer and the rich countries slightly poorer. Which is bad for us, but you can't deny it's fair. And after it happens it means companies won't be able to lay off their workforce and move the work overseas, because labour costs will be similar everywhere.

Your viewpoint seems to be a curious mix of Nationalism and Socialism - historically not a very good choice!