So no discussion of why migration occurs? Why the uk has had several million migrants over the last few years. What the function of migration is in a neo liberal society. How business already has for itself - no borders - for the working class the issue is power where we live and work . We need to be aware of how migration is used t

. . why the bnp are doing so well! If you ignore how immigration is being used by the bosses, how immigration impacts on people then you allow the racists in the bnp to control thedebate

I strongly suspect you are savvy BNP trolls, but nevertheless what byou are saying is sound. The debate though, must be had; if capitalism uses migration against us in the class struggle, what should our response be?

I'll be attending a similar conference to see what the answer is. Apparently there is a strong, class based argument for abolishing controls - not out of a self sacrificing liberalism.

If you are genuinely asking, attend the event or write to the organisers with your criticisms. I'd like to see what they say.

no ellen they were genuine posts .. with a fake name to get people to read them ..

i honestly think most people involved in migration issues are taking a moral stand not a political stand and have failed to think through or analyse why migration is such a core part of neo liberalism .. nothing in this conference meeting seems to in any look to comprehend the function of migration in neo liberalism, which is clearly to provide cheap labour.

that said yes migration is a fact of life under neo liberalism, and we must do all we can to stop people blaming migrants themselves for their passive role in the process, just as we do not blame sweat shop workers for their role in sweat shops.

i theoretically support the concept of no national borders, and oppose migration controls, but we need to supplement this by a clear message to ordinary people that we support their right to control where they live, over housing allocation and work allocation, as much as we support the rights of individuals to migrate. these, two contradictory positions, community and individual rights, will need to be resolved amongst ourselves.

the concept of no borders to labour is key to neo liberalism and where neo liberalism is dominant we see cheap labour at it's worst, e.g in the US where there are millions of illegal migrants, and the UK. Borders and immigration controls are simply not relevant to capitalism wishing a flow of migrants. They do however play a role in disciplining all of us as the recent raids at SOAS illustrate.

hope this makes sense

I wonder how many people would vote for "no borders" in an election? Not many I should imagine...

In fact I think the embalmed corpse of Mao Zedong would get more votes.

"I wonder how many people would vote for "no borders" in an election? Not many I should imagine... "

But loads would vote FOR the death penalty. Should we then accept closed borders and the death penalty? - or perhaps the answer doesn't lie in elections at all.

Perhaps anarchism isn't about elections.

Activists from No Borders speak from a constituency of how many? I suspect substantially less than the 1 million who voted for the BNP in recent elections. The issue of no borders is of course given disproportionately more weight on Indymedia than alternative perspectives because left-wing politics and analysis has swallowed whole

I am absoultely not a supporter of the BNP, but I do recognise that there is a serious immigration issue here in the UK; ie: that we are at the limit of population numbers now in the UK. However, since the "push" factors of migration due to neoliberalism mentioned by others above are likely to continue into the future, irrespective of the "pull' factors of the economic benefits of getting work over here, then we can safely assume that the issue will remain, as it has done for many years, one of controlled borders and quotas and possibly a more robust points system and right to asylum becoming even more difficult to attain with stricter border policing.

What is the alternative? Well, how about this? The Queen owns loads of land across the planet. How about if reaccomodating failed asylum seekers in land overseas so that they are not forced back to the country they have fled from? (after-all, think you'll find the historic root of the problem of 'third world' underdevelopment can be traced back to the execution of imperial power in past generations!) All asylum seekers should be given all their rights for stay as soon as they make their application for asylum and given a free phone number for access to independent legal advice (well, that's not gonna happen, is it!)

Back to reality of course, it is concerning that prince Andrew has been touring the world speaking on behalf of SERCO to encourage investors to invest in their business. SERCO, the future providers of internment camps across the world! If that is the intepretation of reaccomodation, then that would be a particualrly nasty prospect and not one which I was advocating at-all.