No Borders is playing into the hands of the far right / BNP

Anyone for a slice of nationalism?

hi

isn't that the point. that we, relatively powerless in the UK, work with other powerless groups to try and alter things for the better. Solidarity is the only weapon we have.

As for playing into the hands of the BNP, I fail to see that. allowing injustice to happen to those without papers is far more playing into the hands of the BNP.

Just a few points!

1. You seem to see us and migrants as different - I have just as much in common with a migrant as I do with my neigbours, and as an anarchist, I stand side by side with all oppressed groups regardless of colour/gender/nationality etc

2. I do not regard my neigbours as racist - except the ones that are actually racist! I don't know why you think that NoBorders activists do consider theri neigbours racist

3. Migrant solidarity is strengthening my community - the global working/oppressed class - the community to which I belong trancends borders. I would not pander to anyone in my geographical community with racist views, although I do not distance myself from my reactionarry neigbours, but try to engage with them.

4. Signing off as 'Durutti' does not make you an anarchist - infact your nationalistic and racist comments are diametrically opposed to the working class libertarian ideals of Durutti.

I've started a list of reasons why your post is crap - lets try and add some more!

Thank you for posting common sense on this issue. I'm so sick of reading the No Borders rubbish on here. I'd agree with no borders in a peaceful world, equal world but as things are, millions would flee to the wealthy areas and it would be a complete disaster.

Durutti02,

No Borders is its own thing, you can't expect people to drop that network for something else without it knowing what that something else is. Unless we create an alternative ithat can undermine and undercut the growth of reactionary politics then we can't be telling others to stop what their doing, especially when they have managed to build strong networks and dialogues with other oppressed groups.

Once you have an alternative then a politically argument needs to be made on why other activity is needed - not to say that at the end of the day we don't fight for everyone. Everyone, regardless of legal status, needs housing, income, ability to organise...etc.

Ask immigrants in this country if they believe in no borders? I've discussed this with some friends of mine from Pakistan and my wife from Vietnam and they don't believe there should be no borders. I don't see many migrants on these no borders demos.

I sometimes think Indymedia should be renamed Anarchmedia as if you dare to say anything against anarchic thinking you're labelled a 'racist' a 'troll', a 'nationalist', etc.

Ruby: "I'd agree with no borders in a peaceful world, equal world but as things are, millions would flee to the wealthy areas and it would be a complete disaster."

I don't see hundred of people leaving Tower Hamlets and moving to Weybridge.

Maybe you would like to close off the Welsh and Scottish border? Can't have all those poor Scots moving south.

What about counties? Can't have poor people from up North moving to posh Surrey.

How about boroughs? Neighbourhoods? Streets?

Fuck, lets just be done with it and build a wall around each person to stop us moving to the space of someone wealthier than us.

Economic migration is one of the things that helps *make* a more equal world. At the moment we can screw over other countries and know that it has little effect on us. If the citizens of those countries started coming here in large numbers we'd think twice before doing it again.

Capital is free to roam around the world at will - that is globalisation. The same should be true for people too.

I don't want any nanny states telling me or anyone else where we can or can't live. You may want to meekly accept their authoritarian diktats, Ruby, but I say fuck em.

True.

> Ask immigrants in this country if they believe in no borders? I've discussed this with some friends of mine from Pakistan and my wife from Vietnam and they don't believe there should be no borders. I don't see many migrants on these no borders demos.

Most of the racists I have known have been immigrants. That doesn't make racism right.

>I sometimes think Indymedia should be renamed Anarchmedia as if you dare to say anything against anarchic thinking you're labelled a 'racist' a 'troll', a 'nationalist', etc.

I would prefer no borders anywhere. I would prefer no prisons too. I think these things are achievable in a generation as these constructs are relatively new and artificial. I don't think they are achieveable aims overnight though and so I do agree with your 'headline' point that this is a self-defeating platitude that plays into the hands of the racists. I say that as both a self-proclaimed anarchist and an admitted nationalist. Truth is found at the extremes of argument but progress is found nudging the middle of the crowd.

Economic migration was jolly good for blighty after the war especially in between 1971 - 1981 when more people were actually emigrating) but in this day and age with population growth expanding into a terrifying scenario of magnificent proportions.. we do need and must have Zero net migration.. anything less is simply not environmentally sustainable.

1997 Net inward migration = 48,000
2007 Net inward migration = 237,000

Total over decade 1998-2007 = 1,812,000 (net*) nearly two million in less than ten years!

If an ecological sustainable population is to be realised UK population numbers must be reduced by 32 million. Awareness of the detrimental effect over population has on the environment is cause for concern for everyone whatever the political background they claim to be from.

Like it or not immigration needs to be capped and if you really do have any serious viable alternatives to suggest otherwise, then maybe you should start lobbying them to those who's job it is too listen... instead of ranting and raving much about nothing outside embassies.

So lets all lobby for a sensible immigration policy and not place irresponsible demands for no policy at all (which is never going to happen), and just maybe together we can unite on a common cause and make a difference.

* Zero net migration (balanced by allowing the same number of people into the country as the number who leave each year)

There is a division between the rich, who are allowed to migrate, and the poor who face restrictions. We don’t generally feel like there is anything wrong with western people being allowed to migrate to poorer countries. So shouldn’t the poor be allowed to move here?

In the free trade model currently dominating the global economy, there are few restrictions of the movement of goods but vast restrictions on the movement of people. Our corporations are allowed to exploit the workers and natural resources of poor majority world countries. Lax regulations of workers rights and the prohibition of trade unions are common in a bid to attract western corporations.
It is western countries that first became industrialized and contributed to climate chaos. Our rampant consumerism is destroying the planet yet it is the world’s poor with less access to shelter and proper medical care that will pay the price. Climate change will probably cause many more seek asylum here in the future.
In 2008, the UK exported weapons to 11 of the 21 countries identified by the Foreign Office as ‘major areas of concern’ with respect to human rights. In 2007 we sold arms to 11 countries identified as being involved in at least one major conflict. [  http://www.caat.org.uk/resources/facts-figures/arms_export_data/] Arms exports prolong conflict – in modern warfare the casualties are overwhelmingly civilian.
Considering the damage western corporations cause to the global south , it’s hardly surprising that so many people seek to leave their country or origin.

Bear in mind there are more British emigres than immigrants. There are more first generation English immigrants in Scotland than any other race (8%), so nationalism is a double edged sword that once wielded can't easily be sheathed.

The Scottish diaspora is far bigger than the Scottish population, and I personally would rather have neighbours who want to live here wherever they came from than people who chose to leave here for whatever reason. Borders are nonsensical and should be opposed but to collapse a few of them overnight is a recipe for disaster. Knocking down walls is a process that is only painless when it starts with the highest bricks, not the lowest bricks. Unmanaged mass migration is a capitalist wet-dream but a social disaster.

.. A Copper

& scientist in me looks at knotweed,swine flu or wmds which need definite borders, I think most people would agree with this as IMC activists are often very actie encouraging borders on these things.

Rich people with 2 homes in other countries should be made or encouraged to have one in the least populated. People should be offered rewards to emigrate to depopulated areas of the world or EU with eu grants," transitional" Fair share migration".
No borders is a very vague campaign title, in a age when many people are justifyably worried about diseases & WMDs spreading mainly due to our dodgy system, it could be called a almost suicidal title, why not call it "no borders for justice"please!!!!!!!

I would defintely be up for doing ""Fair share migration"" myself if others in my family & community + communities taking people in were given fair grants to do so. To areas of scotland,cornwall,eastern europe or north africa that are underpopulated.

Areas which do or have had alot of immigration should get alot more grants that arent given in a divisionary manner.

Most of all we definetely need more social & economic democracy from local to global, not fake democracy that stops at national border. Anarchism is about constant universal direct democracy from local to global, from ancient athens to New york, London&.beyond. A world or universal parliament that moves from country to country maybe, lets get ourselves,anarchism & democracy out of the ghetto!

One of the claimed consequences of the European project was always heralded as an even playing field for businesses that would make goods and services cheaper. This was to be done by making it easier for businesses to move around Europe. At the same time, businesses have a vested interest in making it harder for individuals to move around. The Economic migration of capital being seen a good thing but of persons as bad thing. The sound business reason for this dichotomoy being that business can control wages if they can control individual movement.

No Borders, far from being some bizzare, looney left, anarcho-madness affection is simply a campaign of returning the free market to the individual. Granted, not the standard view of No Borders. But if free movement of capital and business is an economic good then the free movement of people is too. After all, capitalists claim that "our people are our greatest asset". The activities of No Borders are, by that argument and by many other economic claims, strengthening the Free Market by allowing skills and workers to find the best return for their activities in a capitalist economy.

For those claiming that No Borders are somehow destroying the country by proposing free movement, what about the free movement of capital? The free movement of politicians and business leaders? Denying people free movement is a dangerous, anticompetitive practice that the World Trade Organisation would reject for businesses. Insisting that people ignore everybody except their immediate neigbour is, similarly, rooted in anticompetitive and outdated business practices.

Which falls in with the known demographic of the BNP.

For fuck sake. Why are you posting on an alternative media site? Just trot along to some mainstream swallow-fest with your 'let's never change anything while it keeps me in clover' views. Lobby who exactly? Oh, you mean the arses in charge who profit from spreading hatred and mistrust of anyone from another country, while happily raping and ripping off those countries?

& scientist in me looks at knotweed,swine flu or wmds which need definite borders, I think most people would agree with this as IMC activists are often very actie encouraging borders on these things.

Rich people with 2 homes in other countries should be made or encouraged to have one in the least populated. People should be offered rewards to emigrate to depopulated areas of the world or EU with eu grants," transitional" Fair share migration".
No borders is a very vague campaign title, in a age when many people are justifyably worried about diseases & WMDs spreading mainly due to our dodgy system, it could be called a almost suicidal title, why not call it "no borders for justice"please!!!!!!!

I would defintely be up for doing ""Fair share migration"" myself if others in my family & community + communities taking people in were given fair grants to do so. To areas of scotland,cornwall,eastern europe or north africa that are underpopulated.

Areas which do or have had alot of immigration should get alot more grants that arent given in a divisionary manner.

Most of all we definetely need more social & economic democracy from local to global, not fake democracy that stops at national border. Anarchism is about constant universal direct democracy from local to global, from ancient athens to New york, London&.beyond. A world or universal parliament that moves from country to country maybe, lets get ourselves,anarchism & democracy out of the ghetto!

F t b . . Nationalism? Who mentioned nations? I an totally opposed to nations and nationalism. This is about how to best build a movement that one day can real support to migrants

'Person' said this is about building solidarity. But you are not. If any it is fleeting and without power. And you have not helped these people, and you have built no power. It is tragic that people do not seen to understand that without power we can do nothing

1 yes i do regard people who do not live where i live as different. Not racial or nationalistic just simply how can create power for real change? You can only create power for change where you live and work 2i support migrant solidarity as part of creating strong communities , tip issue and no borders is isolated 03 durruti 0understood power and that without power we are nothing ;)

It is quite clear what an alternative is, that is building strong communities, inclusive not exclusive. And that will include migrant solidarity. And you say everyone should have rights? well of course but this issue does not help create the power we need to actually a do that . . That and that alone is the issue all the complaints about how unfairthis is are useless

Instead of demanding change, be the change you wish to see in the world, set by example. If your way is truly feasible people will follow suit, it's a proven fact throughout history, people do what they believe is the right thing, in practice show it to them. In order to have no borders you need both educational and economic reform, you have to create a workable, viable and ecological sustainable destination and only then can you create a walkable path towards it, people generally do not desire to leap crevasses so build bridges, think community and diversity.

All this nonsense about Scotland, come on Dannyboy, you just like to trip people up then laugh at them falling over, we all know of the role you and the many other agents are playing... It doesn't matter Danny who you work for, you can be change if you wish it so lets get people real with the situation that humanity is facing today and be that change now!

It would be easy to dismiss your post as armchair uninformed wank. However, I do share a concern that our actions in Calais could play into the hands of the fascist (I do not use this term lightly) police and local and national government in their desire to cleanse Calais of migrants - people in the 'jungles' were a lot more visibly nervous about the prospect of a mass clearance, although it seems now like an ongoing target on Afghans with a deportation flight scheduled for tomorrow, from UK then onto France and Afghanistan. The clear indication from every Afghan we spoke with was that a return to Kabul means death for them, the same said by Iranians who have recently fled after the Iranian elections. So yes, the actions in Calais could play into those right wing agendas and we are aware of that.

But do not dismiss the work we have been doing with migrant activists. Do not imagine that we are in Calais FOR them, we are WITH them, it is direct aid and it is practical solidarity, and we are building on this. And do not be so fucking ignorant of what I do in my community at home. And do not draw lines between migrant and activist – we're not all one or the other! A lot of what has made going to Calais work so well this time round is that it fills in some of the jigsaw for me from the stories I have learnt from migrants and asylum seekers I know and work with at home. It adds context to the struggles they describe. And it provides points of clarity that help us work out more informed actions to take in the face of this huge issue. So less of the slander, eh?

As for the environmental concerns, this now reflects people's reactions to the global ecological crisis we are in, namely retreating into fear. Let's not let that happen. I remember years ago being introduced to the idea of eco-fascism (I'm not throwing the label at anyone who has posted to this comment) where the ecological pressures will make people retreat into 'looking after their own'. We can see this from the rebranding of the Tories into the party that protects the environment, and we can see it in arguments that we cannot be 'overwhelmed' by people as they flee war and ecological crises in their own countries. The implicit racism in these arguments is so blatant, a bit like the suggestions that we cover Saharan Africa in solar panels to keep the lights on in Europe – maybe Africa would like that power, maybe we should use less, maybe we should stop and consider the parallels with the resource grabbing that has existed since colonialism began. So think a bit more before you chuck these thoughts in. Reflect on what would be JUST responses to the crisis we are in and the responsibilities the 'developed' economic countries of the world bear.

The politics of 'no borders' IS challenging and it's meant to be. It has been challenging on the ground in Calais where many of the humanitarian associations there won't work with us because of the very name we have used of No Borders. So we use another name and they talk with us, it's fine. It's good to see people discussing this, but maybe get out of your armchair and away from your computer and offer practical responses that take on all this complicated shit. For me I keep imagining that this must be something like what people experienced in the 30s – the rise of fascism (Italy, Greece, euro elections), economic austerity, politics of fear, war (then in Abyssinia and Spain, now externalised way beyond Europe's borders).

And you try telling kids from Afghanistan they should fuck off home cos we're full when we get told that if returned to Kabul people have to answer to the bloke who lent them the money to get to Europe, and when unable to produce it become bonded labour or sent to a madrassa to prepare for martydom as a suicide bomber, fuelling the wars so many of us tried to mobilise against. It's not religious fundamentalism driving all this madness, it's the old story of people trying to get power over each other, whether they're a cop, politician or people smuggler, or even an armchair activist.

Come to Calais and make your own mind up.

"Just got back from Calais", so how did you rush back from Calais by Plane, Train (eurostar?). Car, Coach or did you do the ecological responsible thing and return by bicycle or even bother to walk?

"Just got back from Calais".. what is the meaning of this and just what are you trying to imply here? Personally I believe you are flaunting the word Fascist very lightly indeed, In fact I know you use this derogatory 'name calling' every time some disagrees with your ill informed and irresponsible attitude towards immigration.

The very action of calling an asylum camp in Calais a 'Jungle' could easily be misconceived as racist if people didn't frown upon you as being so fickle, ignorant and most obviously stupid.

Borders are important factor in maintaining a succession of responsible ecology on our planet (perhaps we should dissolve borders such as 'green belt' or even get rid of 'nature reserves', dear.. humanity no longer lives naturally or in a sustainable way so things have to be managed and yes, this does include the capping of immigration and taking a sensitive approach to this delicate issue.

'Jungle" is the word used by the people who are forced to live there to describe their camps. You are right, it can be easily misunderstood.

Yes, borders can be great for ecological restoration, as with the former east/west european border, especially where the wall/fence went through divided Germany, but that's not what borders in the sense of 'the UK Border in Calais' are about. Ecological benefits of borders in the 'state borders' sense are incidental, not purposefully created.

'Fascist' is not a term I was throwing at anyone making comments here, as I made clear, but I do think some of the arguments that talk about responses to ecological crisis involving limits on migration a bit tunnel vision and themselves play into far right attitudes as the original post was saying No Borders actions do.

As for transport, yes a great big stinkpot ferry was involved, full of lorries and cars. It's shit isn't it? If only life were simple (or simplistic?) and we never had to make difficult or contradictory decisions.

"In order to have no borders you need both educational and economic reform, you have to create a workable, viable and ecological sustainable destination" - well, not sure about the 'reform' bit, but broadly agree and who are you to assume that's not what I'm involved in doing? And that people arriving in the UK as migrants don't have useful skills to help us get there. Where I've lived before some of my Pakistani neighbours very much wanted to put the subsistence farming of their previous generations behind them, concreting over their gardens, but Bangladeshi neighbours crammed their small yards with vegetables and herbs, a perfect practice of moving towards sustainable living.

"you as being so fickle, ignorant and most obviously stupid" - are we in a playground?

You can 'cap' immigration all you like but it won't deal with the root causes, which are inextricably linked with the root causes of the ecological crisis. And 'cap' is a bit of a coy term for brutalising people with riot police (the stick) or luring people back to oppression with IOM cash handouts to return (the carrot)

...to see to what extent the anti-immigration and nationalist consensus has been able to even take hold of the 'radical' indymedia readership if posts/rants can openly proclaim that controlling migrants is the only way to avert ecological disaster or the far right threat!

Large numbers of immigrants almost always create tensions and anti-immigrant feelings and this is not by any means confined to the 'First World'.

Remember, for example there was widespread anti-immigrant violence and rioting in South Africa last year. Residents of townships attacked Zimbabweans, Mozambicans and others, killing dozens and forcing tens of thousands to flee. It was far, far more violent than anything Western Europe has seen in recent times.

In 1969 El Salvador and Honduras went to war over the treatment of Salvadoran immigrants to Honduras (Honduras is sparsely populated compared with El Salvador so many Salvadorans moved there in search of land).

The only question is: why?

"No Borders and the Calais campaign activists are prioritising the rights of people who don't live here, while people who do live here, of many different backgrounds, are struggling."

What a load of crap. Activists are not prioritising the rights of migrants over 'non-migrants', they are prioritising the rights of migrants AS MUCH AS the rights of 'non-migrants'.

Lets all pull ideas out of our arses that don't exist shall we?

There is a feeling in the UK that migrants (which is a catch all term for any non-white, non-british) has more rights than most and are somehow scamming the system. This is because it makes good headlines and plays on peoples fears and insecurities -- a good way to keep people in line btw.

For durruti02 to say that No Borders people care more for migrants who don't live here plays into to this. Just because No Borders is a group specifically set-up to show solidarity and migrants it doesn't mean that the luck migrants are again getting one over whitey. Its about saying people should be treated equally no matter the difference in immigration status, and the states ability to treat people differently is what divides us. They would give so and so community this amount of money, they will play one lot off against another, they are very clever and have complex ways of segmenting the working class and making sure they manage all conflict as soon as it arises -- either through policy changes, funding or media propaganda.

The working class in the UK is potentially one of the most powerful in the world due to its creativity and productivity, keep it from recognising its own power means undermining any attempts for people to see a commonality. Supporting migrants, breaking down the barriers, myths..etc should and can be apart of this process. Problem is there are many more barriers between natives.