 Brexit-debete har givit, och såg igen på spotlight på frågan om emigration som har varit från timmar till timmar, en stor problem i Britten, tidigare under länets regering, när Blair var i tråd. Och det var mycket om debate om den här frågan, particulär om asylumseekorna. Vi ser att det är lätt när det gäller Brexit-debete, men vi talar mer om det. Det är frima movement. Det är rätt av EU-citizens att move and settle in whatever part of EU that they wanted to, as long as they could support themselves financially. Så... Jag kan inte riktigt revola om Britten här. Men fundamentligen, migration har alltid existerat. Det är som om du är alltid present i politiska debatter som är en helt ny fenomen. Det är en ny sak som aldrig har hänt, iallt om man förbjuder människor. Och också ta det ut av historisk kontext. Migrationen är en typisk fråga, där man inte får en explosiv för vad som har hänt i samhället, hur folk kommer att move mellan olika platser i världen eller i olika landar. Man inte får en explosiv för att få en hel del av numbers and so on, 100,000 here, 100,000 there and lots of accusations and rumors, et cetera. But the reality of this migration has existed, well, as long as humanity has existed, of course, people move from different parts for a variety of reasons. Under capitalism, if we try to focus on that, you've had in the early days of capitalism, the most, there was a very important migration stream that went from the countryside into the cities or from rural areas into urban areas because of the needs for workers in the new industries that were developing. So you have basically landless farmers often, so one of the preconditions of the development of capitalism was the eviction of huge swaves of farmers from their land by landlords, which then freed up this reserve pool of labor that could then be brought into the cities to work in the factories and this migration from the countryside into the cities. But that also in many places was not just a migration from one, within one country, but also from one country to another. So, for example, a lot of Irish migrants would travel to the US, where they eventually wound up being factory workers. Sweden is another example of the whole of Scandinavia, well, not Denmark, but Sweden and Norway in particular, a huge numbers. I think there's about a million people who left Sweden in the 20-year period to migrate to the US. Again, they were kicked off the land. Landlords, there was a number of reforms introduced which consolidated landowning, which meant these people could no longer be supported on land and they were effectively forcibly, they were landless and they were forced to find their means of sustenance somewhere else and a million of them immigrated to the North America in order to find either land or employment in the cities. So, this is the part and parcel of the history of capitalism and hasn't really changed. The US, for example, is notorious for its flexible labor market and its flexible workforce. And every year, about one and a half percent of the entire population moves from one census region. So, if you divide the US into, I think, four different regions, it's quite large regions, one half percent every year moves from one of those big regions of the US to another, which is like moving basically from one end of Europe to another. An additional 1.3% of the US population moves from a state to another. So, in total 2.8% will move between different states every year of the population. And if you break it down onto a county basis, it's an additional 3%. So, in total about five to six percent will move from one county to another, whether that's the neighboring county or on the other side of the US. So, that's a 20th of the population every year in the US that moves from one place to another. And these patterns of migration shift over time as industry moves and develops. So, North Carolina, for example, used to be quite a static population when it was very agricultural based. And it had, in the beginning of 1900, 95% of its population was born in North Carolina. But today, only 58% of the population of North Carolina was actually born in the state. And of those 42%, so nine points, so nine percent of the population of North Carolina was born abroad. 33% had moved from a different part of the US into North Carolina. Then there are other states which are more agricultural based, like Ohio, which actually have a more consistent proportion of population about three quarters of a population which have been consistently born in the state. So, it's a quarter of a population only that has moved in during their lifetime. A state like California was actually far bigger number of, well, it was a bigger number of migrants in 1900 than it is today. So, if you know something about the history of California, it was all the gold rush and the whole of development and exploitation in California took place just at the end of the 19th century. So, there were huge numbers of people moving into California and that was the beginning of California. And even today, still large numbers of people move from Latin America or from all parts of the US into California. Over a five year period in the US, 20% of the population have moved from one state to another. And over, if you think of a lifetime of a person, 31% within their lifetime in the US will have moved from one state to another. I mean, if you could almost compare it to moving from one country to another in Europe in terms of how big Europe, one state, one country in Europe is almost as big as, I guess it's a bit bigger than the states in the US, but it's almost similar proportions, right? Sweden, for example, is smaller than most US states, whereas Britain is bigger than most US states. But it's a bit like moving from one country now and there's a third of a population every year in their lifetime will move from one state to another in the US, so that's massive. That's 100 million people. And this equivalent figure in the EU, in spite of all the attempts to put freedom of movement and so on, to create a more flexible workforce, a more migrating workforce that will move between different countries. The equivalent figure in the EU is only 30 million. So you can see there, and then EU has twice the population, I'm not quite, but like it's almost twice the population of the US. So you can see the differences in the US labor market, how it works, and the amount of migration it takes place, if you're not talking about international, but within the same nation state, you have a large, huge numbers of people moving across. And it's part of the key to the economic development. The reasons that migrants cite for moving from one state to another in the surveys, 41% say it's because they're looking for a new job, or they're looking for a job. So they're moving because they think they'll get a job in another place, or because they have found another job. On top of that, another 21% cite what is a rather bad category is other family reason. But I suspect that other family reason probably includes your spouse, your partner, your wife, your husband has found a job in a different place, and you're following them. Because that wasn't part of the questionnaire. So I suspect that a lot of people, so probably around half of the migrants basically move in order to find a job somewhere else in the US. So this is what this mobile workforce is part of what I call economic miracle in the US, or the development of the US economy, which has allowed also the capitalists to move industries around the US, exploiting parts of the US where there isn't trade unionized workforce. So typically in the north, in the northeast, there was well unionized workers in the 1950s and 60s. We've worked good terms and conditions, but so in order to undermine that, to find cheaper labor, they move the industries first to the Midwest, and later on to the south. And so they move these industries around in order to try to find new workers who will be easier to exploit, to be able to get worse terms and conditions. And obviously part of that is also the ability to suck some of the workers from different parts into these new industries that were built. In the UK, just over one million people moved from one region of another of the UK, and these are quite large regions. So Wales is one region, for example. Scotland is one region. London is one region. So about one million people moved from one region to another in 2010, which is the year of the last census. There's another one coming out soon. An additional 700,000 people came from abroad. So even within Britain, which is one of the higher rates of migration in the EU, it's still, that works out around 2% if you add those two numbers up, which is still far below the 5% to 6% that you have in the US. So the US is quite unique in this context. So the key to understanding migration lies in understanding the capitalist economy, first and foremost. If you look at the big flows of migrants globally between countries, within countries, these are based not on refugees, but on people migrating for economic reasons. The largest streams of migrants come from India, Mexico, Russia and Bangladesh, none of which have particularly significant political problems or wars. And they together account for 60 million migrants. The number of migrants from Syria, which is very large, but it's only 7 million. So if you compare the 60 million to the 7 million, you can see the difference. I think, yeah, I actually have the figures for India here. In one sense, it's not surprising, because India is the largest, most populous nation in the world, so that they have the largest number of migrants, it's maybe not so surprising. But there is also Russia, it's the third largest source of migrants with 10 million, and China is the fourth largest. So it's the biggest nations that produce the most migrants. Syria and 7 million, as I said, Afghanistan is 5 million. Now for those countries, obviously this represents a huge devastating impact of the wars in those countries. As a proportion of the population, we're talking about almost more than half or half of the population, which is extreme, and obviously the dislocation, the anguish, the misery that's been caused in this country by imperialist war is tremendous. But if you compare it to the number of economic migrants, it's the smaller figure. Europeans and North Americans often think of themselves as being the only destination for migrants. Everyone just wants to come here, and that's it. But 80 million of migrants reside in Asian countries, and it's not just Japan. In fact, Japan has relatively few. Compared to 78 million in Europe, and within the 78 million, 30 of them off, well, actually more than 30 maybe, are quite substantial portion of those 78 million off within Europe itself. 58 million are in North America, many of them, well, the bulk of them from Latin America and Central America, Caribbean and so on. Africa has 25 million migrants. And out of those 78 in Europe, 11 million are in Russia. So actually Russia is the biggest destination for migrants in Europe, which probably most people don't know. Coming from Ukraine and Kazakhstan. But obviously the point being about economic migration is you tend to move to the richer countries because that's where the jobs are, effectively. So in general, obviously North America and Europe are overrepresented in terms of the number of migrants that move there because that is where the jobs are. That's where the needs of a capitalist economy, where these workers are needed. One stream, large stream of money, sorry, migrants in the last few years have been the Gulf states. And it's really, these are very peculiar states where you have a very, relatively small population that suddenly had a large influx of money through oil and gas. And this has created a very peculiar situation. So in UAE, United Arab Emirates, 88 of the population who are actually border-broad, 74% in Kuwait, 76% in Qatar, 51% in Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia has 30%. So in these countries you got like a narrow cross, narrow fin layer of the top of natives and the whole of the working class almost entirely is made up of migrants who work in construction, domestic work and so on, all kinds of positions. Drawn in from countries like India, Egypt and Pakistan, obviously by the oil wealth, which enable these countries down to create like whole very peculiar, these very peculiar economies. They have a special system for migration called kafala. And it's the most extreme form I think about migrant exploitation exists in the world. But you can see also that some of the elements of that is what has been introduced in US and in Europe or has been introduced over the past few decades. And the migrants visas are tied to a single employer. So if they lose their job, they're out, they have to send home. They're not allowed family reach unification, basically not allowed to bring family members from where they come from, which is otherwise standard. They're not allowed to marry local. So it's not allowed to marry natives. So it's a big, there's a racial segregation. In fact, Denmark has introduced a few similar things over the past decades and they have restrictions on their movements. So these try to rise to clear sharp wedge between the native population or the native working class in the sense that in those places where exist and the migrants who are completely derived of all the normal rights that you associate with being a citizen or a resident of a country. And this is like, you know, this is managed migration or immigration and border controls in the most pure naked form. This is the most ripe that migrants can be for exploitation in these kind of situations. So obviously these migrants are part and parcel of the world market and the world economy. They move these workers across the world, labor market, as they call it, move them across the world in order to be able to fit different positions of the capitalist system. The work that's being opened up in new industries or in domestic work and construction or whatever. And so you're bringing these migrants from different parts of the world in order to fill these tasks, and particularly the low paid, obviously. There are some, we're going to go all out. There's also, if you call that, there may be the pull factor, that is sort of attraction of moving to another country that's something that's needed in that country and they need those migrants for work. But there's also a push factor, of course. Wars and calamities are part and parcel of the class society and the capitalist system in particular. And you often see and present it in the press as something that is like a fact of life. It's something natural. Wars just take place. It's just because people are bad, sinful people, they're evil people in the world and therefore you have wars. But in reality, if you look at all the major sources of conflict in the world and if you look at the major source of migrants in Syria or refugees in Syria and Afghanistan, you can see that it's not just someone who's got some bad ideas in their head or someone who happened to be particularly evil. But it's actually the meddling of imperialist powers, the regional imperialist powers that are the source of it. So the war in Syria, it's a proxy war for all the imperialist powers. It's the poor people of Syria who are basically subject to all the interventions of every single major nation in the world. The European Union is there, the Russians are there, the Americans are there, but not just the international, the global imperialist powers but also the regional ones, the Saudis who were there, backing Japan al-Nusra in the past. You had the Turks there backing ISIS and now they're backing some other Islamist nutcases. They're obviously intervening themselves with bombs and even tanks, now against the Kurds. You have Iran which is present there. You have also Israel who's been bombing although not present on the ground but it's almost the security services who've been involved. So you have all the, and they're all fighting a proxy war for control over Syria and obviously the people that suffer from this is not the rich and the powerful but the workers and peasants of Syria who have had their lives absolutely destroyed. And this is what this migration stream comes from which then moves towards Europe which is a place of relative safety and where they can possibly find some work, etc. and housing. But the European Union very graciously pays Turkey some billions to keep them locked up in refugee camps in the state of misery. So, and the same goes for Afghanistan which obviously started with the misery in Afghanistan started with the US intervention to crush the Saudi revolution where they supported people like Osama bin Laden and others, the so-called freedom fighters. And then have continued since the withdrawal of the Soviet Union by various, by a proxy wars between regional powers, India, Pakistan, Iran, China, US of course. Russia I think has not been so much involved but they're all, all these regional powers as well as the US have been involved in these wars in Afghanistan and which has caused tremendous misery for the population for now, ever since the beginning of the 1980s. Now, so if this is migration, right? This is the migration on the capitalism. If you understand that this is the source of migration in the capitalism, the reason why we have migration. What should our attitude be? Well, we have to say that in the social society the question of migration would be posed quite differently. There would be no need for workers to travel across the world to find jobs. Why on earth would you create, build a factory in one part of the world only to force people to move all the way across the world in order to work in this factory? Why don't you rebuild the factory or build, create the jobs in the places where people already live? And this goes for the north of England which has got very few jobs compared to the south of England, right? This goes much for that as it goes for globally, right? Why would you create all this, build all this industry so to create all this jobs in Europe and North America rather than actually making them where people live and where they have their families and so on? Which is probably where most people would prefer, right? Don't want to move all the way across the world in order to find decent job and decent living conditions. They much prefer to continue to live in the communities where they grew up. So this is, in a sense, this is part of workers' control. Workers' control of industry. We control where the industries are built. We decide, we create, build the industries not for the purpose of creating profit. So we don't put the factories where we create the most profit but for the needs of mankind, right? So we build the factories to produce for mankind but also in the places where they are most, where people already exist. So the machine and the industries serve the worker rather than serving the needs or rather than the worker being there to serve the needs of the machine which is the case under capitalism. And yeah, as I said, this also applies within countries. You don't have this absurd situation which has taken place particularly in those countries which have been deindustrialising like Britain where you have all the jobs created in a few metropolitan cities and so everyone has to move into these big cities creating massive problems of overcrowding rather than building, creating jobs across the country where so people can stay and live in the communities where they are already relatively well provided with housing and so on. And obviously we would, in the social society in advanced capitalist countries they would invest in what they call the global south or the developing countries in order to act in solidarity but also as a means of cooperating in order to jointly create more and more wealth for humanity. So there wouldn't be this need there wouldn't be this competition of like seeing that we have to put the walls and barriers for all these poor people that wanna come here and take away all our wealth which is how it's been seen, presented in the capitalist press but actually we would create that wealth in the south or all the poorer countries of the world and we build up those industries and create the wealth which also will benefit us because in various ways whatever they produce in those countries they're engineering all that creativity which exists in the talent that exists in those countries could be brought about also to enriching the lives of people in the presently richer world. Of course also there would be freedom of movement across the world and people would be able to move if they wanted to to move to change for because they wanted to change of scenery essential climate or they wanted to work in a particular industry which are only part of a certain part of the world or they wanted to do research if they were scientists or whatever all that stuff would have complete freedom of movement so people could move and settle where they wish to but such would be the case in the social society obviously we're not there at the moment so we also have to discuss how we pose things under capitalism and I don't know if you noticed I don't know if anyone knows how much does it cost if you're really rich how much does it cost to get these at the Britain So am I having a clue? 800 pounds 800 pounds? No, no, no I think too many people will be able to afford 800 pounds I'm afraid it's the figure is 50,000 pounds if it's a start up now if you start a new company like a start up if you're an entrepreneur then you're 50,000 pounds you have to invest if you're not really very creative you don't really have a new business plan a business idea or anything 2 million pounds would suffice so if you have 2 million pounds you can buy yourself a permanent right to remain in Britain and most countries have this kind of system in one way or another either informally, as in you nudge nudge, you talk to the right people the government will grant you a visa or formally as in the case here 2 million pounds, welcome a lot of tax same incidentally have similar systems which are sometimes a bit cheaper than 2 million but anyway, if you want planning of migrating to a tax haven but basically when we're talking about these kind of systems exist for rich people I've told also that if you're moving from private airports between different private airports so you're not going through so you have a private jet and you're flying to different private airports they don't usually don't check passports so you can really move quite freely between different countries as long as you just have a private jet which obviously most of the population don't so obviously you don't want to interfere with these people the important people, their time is valuable and so I don't want to bother them with passport controls and things like that so I think that's so for rich people freedom of movement across the world really already exists they basically have no restrictions to their freedom of movement unless for some reason they fall foul of the US or something like that so when we talk about restriction and migration it is always about poor people or workers that's always, that's what we're talking about it's the poor people are the problem and that has to be dealt with whereas rich people are an asset they come here and they bring money to invest well, questions whether you want that money but anyway so they're always seen as an asset they're something good they contribute something to society unlike workers this is the case so I'd like to go for a little bit historically as well how labor movement has dealt with this question and how they dealt with it in the correct way primarily and there's always been this discussion it's a long discussion which has always existed labor movement and any attempt to pretend that this has a new problem a new phenomena that has never existed before which you get sometimes it's complete nonsense exactly the same argument exactly the same positions that we put forward and in Marxist days in Britain the main problem was the Irish migrants or problem as it was perceived who were brought here from Ireland as you might know the potato famine happened in the 1850s and like 2 million people moved to Ireland the fact the population before the potato famine of Ireland was larger than it is today still and a lot of these people wound up in Britain inevitably and they brought here and they were they were given worse terms and conditions to work for in Britain than the people who were born in Britain and this caused friction between the Irish and the British workers om jag förlåt mig att tränka på pippen så så Marx ford för adoption i den brittiska labor movement i particulär den första internationella som hade många brittiska unions trade unions atta till det han ford för adoption av internationellist approach till den frågan och så han analysade problem han sa owing till den konstant övriga koncentrationen av de sommer i landskonsten sen ser en surplus till det engelska labor market en dess forces down wages och lois de material moral position av det engelska working class och mest importen av all evra industrial en kommersial center i England och possesses a working class divide in the two hostile camps engelska proletarians och irish proletarians så basic analysis problem creation of two separate parts of working class with different terms and conditions which have been pittit against each other i färre mor describe the attitude which brings about the situation ordinary engelsk worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers the standard of life in relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation in consequences he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats en capitalist against Ireland but bus in strengthening their domination over himself he cherishes religious social and national prejudicis against his Irish worker his attitude towards him is much the same as that of the poor whites to the negroes in the former slave states of the USA the Irish man pays him back with interest in his own money he sees in the English worker both the accomplished and the stupid tool of the English rulers of Ireland and he also points out that the capitalist class is deliberately keeping this division alive this antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press the pulpit, the comic papers in short by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class despite this organisation it is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains his power and the latter is quite aware of this so he basically explains precisely the situation we have today of our own smaller scale to some extent where migrants are constantly behind in the press being born to be the culprits of all kinds of bad things that are taking place in society housing shortage, short hospital beds bad schools, lack of schools terrorism, you name it anything bad, knife crime of course all the bad things in society all the faults of migrants and not of the capitalist class and this kind of thing still continues till this day you have and so there was at that time as much as there is today and a layer of the labour movement to adapt it in particular to trade unions to adapt it to a certain wing of the capitalist class and they allopted the collaborationist position on this question what does that mean? the basic idea is that the state should restrict the numbers of workers coming from abroad in the back of the day from Ireland this will create a smaller pool of workers this is the argument today if we are going to the EU if you have a smaller pool of workers then it makes it easier for trade unions to negotiate the contract because you have a smaller pool of workers that's the demand and supply and so on or if you put in more crudly they would ask the state to stop poor foreigners coming in or even send them home from abroad look at that I should start giving me a minute before so the point that Marx makes is basically this is the Achilles heel of the British labour movement this is a secret to the weakness of the British working class and so the question is then how do you resolve this problem now the funny thing is recently the new stall list or neo-stall list that we are going to call them they have taken the quote in this passage which I just read out as an argument for that we should restrict the numbers of EU migrants into Britain which is rather peculiar way of twisting and turning the words of Marx I mean, if you look at what they write and then you look at, you realise that what I have done is they found this quote in someone else's writings and they just copied and pasted it without actually reading the original text in full what comes before and what comes after that's the only explanation you could possibly have it there's another quote as well which was quoted by Len McCluskey got a little bit further on in one of the articles in the Morning Star Morning Star takes precisely this position by the way the British Communist Party of Britain and they take a little quote, out of parades like one sentence out of a whole paragraph and then they say oh look at this Marx says there's a problem with migrants therefore we must close the borders and it is completely absurd and you realise if they're not completely disingenuous which is of course a possibility I think more likely they're just completely lazy and they can't be bothered to read even the whole paragraph in which they've taken this quote out of just basically googled something and then found the little sentence they liked and take it out and say oh look this is what Marx thinks but the position they develop is basically we need to close down freedom of movement because this will strengthen the British working class because they'll have a better negotiating position and this is quite contrary to the methods that Marx adopter because when he talks in the following paragraph Marx tried to come up with some solutions to this problem of attempting to unite the British and the Irish workers and he says the following it is the special task of the central council of the first international place in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or human sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation basically that the British labour movement should argue for the independence of Ireland in order to win over the Irish workers who are residing in Britain they should prove to the Irish workers they are on their stride against British imperialism and British capitalism and that will open the door then for a united struggle against the British bosses och det var det en avsäkterning som Marx avskattade som du kan säga är en internationell upplevelse det är också en klassisk upplevelse som visar att vi ska unika den arbetslösheten inte att försöka divide, segmentera och sådana men att hålla på en del av den Irish och den här delen av den här delen och den här delen av den men att unika den workers insiderkontrider som kom från bråder som var borna här men också krossbordare som vi kommer att ta det är en simulat debatt som rör sig lite längre i den USA bara efter det och den USA-lösheten men den AFEL adopterade som konstruktionen som supportade den 1882 Kina Exklusion Act Vilket är plötsligt rasiskt. Pisa lösningen som var introducerade i U.S. As you know, a lot of U.S. migrants came from Europe, but they are there for various reasons. They took exception to Chinese migrants, so they basically banned all migration into the U.S. By Chinese. They also banned them from taking up jobs in certain industries and so on, which was basically a recipe for creating an underbellig of workers with no rights whatsoever, who would be able to be super exploited by the capitalist and they were super exploited by the capitalist, particularly in the building of railways, which was a big industry at that time. And so this question was raised at the Congresses of the second international and there was a delegate called Hilquit was particularly right wing element in the U.S. labor movement and he raised, which will resonate lot. He put it more crudly, but it's basically the same argument as we hear today. The capitalist import such workforces by that by nature must be cheaper and in general serve as unwitting strike breakers and who are dangerous competition for native workers. Nowadays these workforces are Chinese and Japanese, the yellow race in general. We have absolutely no racial prejudice against the Chinese, but we must state that they are completely unorganisable, right? So this is precisely the kind of arguments here in the British labor movement about Polish workers, for example, they're completely impossible to organize. You can't organize Polish workers as impossible and so on. Basically it's a racial prejudice, but they won't admit it. It also is lazy because they don't want to go out there. They want to translate some leaflets into Polish. They want to go out there and try to organize these new workers that are coming in, but rather they just lazily think that the capitalist state will solve the problem for them by just restricting the number of workers that are coming in. And this was, these arguments were answered by a number of people. I can't go into all the quotes. You can read the article, there are more quotes there. But one of the Italian delegates argued against it. He says, one cannot fight migrants, only the abuses which arise from immigration. The Italian party and trade unions are always mindful of this. We are against controls of migration because we know that the whip of hunger that cracks behind the migrants is stronger than any law made by government. That is, whatever immigration controls you put in, the whip of hunger always is stronger than any laws. You're not going to stop migration, even if you ban all migration. It's not going to stop migration because you always have people because of the situation. The needs of the capitalist economy in those, in the vast capitalist countries, as well as obviously the hunger and poverty that's created in other parts of the world. So you always have the streams of migration. The question is not that, the question is what rights do these people that come here have? What ability do you have to organize them? If they have no rights, it's going to be far more difficult to organize them. The right examples of this, I know from fact the cleaners when they organized against UBS Bank. UBS Bank had outsourced their cleaners to MITI. So MITI then had the thing and some of the cleaners were illegally, some of the leaders of the strike didn't have proper legal status. And so the company was aware of this, didn't care anything about it. They were quite happy with this situation until of course when they went on strike. Then they called in the one cleaners for an interview or discussion with the management, which is, you know, these things happen when you're working. You have to go and talk to the management. And what do they find when they arrive immigration officials? So the management called up the immigration officials saying, hey, we got this person who's not illegally, would you come and arrest them? And immigration officials very kindly turned up. And this is what creates this kind of situation, which created for migrants if they don't have proper legal status. So you're always under threat, basically. If you stand up for yourself, if you stand up for your rights, you have trace the threat of deportation. And this can only weaken the labor movement. So the second international artist meeting in 1907, they actually adopted a resolution which ran quite contrary to the attention of Hilgritt and his like. And they said that they regarded all migration controls as reactionary by nature. Fairly straightforward, clear what they meant. That's a little explanation here what you said when you have presentation, but you have humor, clarity and examples. So I'm trying to work according to this clarity. And there you have humor as well. I managed to get a few laughs. And then they had a series of measures to counter the strength of labor movement in the recipient country, where the place where the migrants removed to a ban on the export and import of those workers who have agreed on a contract that deprives them of their free disposal of their labor pound wages. Basically, all the workers must have the rights to remain. They must have the right to choose whatever employee they want and so on. So there can be no kind of slavery contracts. That should be banned, which is fair enough. Statutory protection of workers by shortening the working day, introducing a minimum wage, abolishing the sweat system and regulating homeworking. Abolition of all restrictions will prevent certain nationalities erasers from staying in the country or which exclude them from social, political and economic rights of the natives or impede them exercising those rights. Extensive measures to facilitate naturalisation. Basic attempt to join up to create unity and give all the rights to all the migrants that come there because that will strengthen and facilitate their involvement in the labor movement of the country, which they arrived to. All additional trade unions must remove all restrictions of migrants becoming members, which should be fairly obvious, but historically it hasn't always been the case. And this will start to strengthen the trade union movement by uniting the migrants and the workers, native workers, if you will. Lenin spoke in even harsher terms about these kind of tendencies who want to restrict migration. He said that he called it, this is the same spirit of aristocrats. Aristocraticism, that one finds among workers in some of the civilised, inverted commas countries, who derive certain advantages from their privileged position and are therefore inclined to forget the need for international class solidarity. And he said the resolution of the second national fully meets the demands of revolutionary social democracy. So he actually explained this as a narrow minded labor aristocratic attitude that is reflected in these demands of restricted migration. He also insists that migration in fact was progressive. The bourgeois insights the workers of one nation against those of another in the end of a to keep them disunited class conscious workers, realising that the breakdown of all national barriers by capitalism is inevitable and progressive, are trying to help to enlighten and organise the fellow workers from the backward countries. So this is the attitude of Lenin. Basically the breakdown of national barriers is inevitable and progressive. So you have the Stalinists who are often the proponents of these migration restrictions as well as reformists of course, who have completely abandoned all internationalism and they see the nation state as somehow something progressive, but it's not at all. It's actually the breakdown of nation state which is the most progressive thing and the movement of people actually serves to help that process along, removes cultural prejudices, religious prejudices. Basically if you have a neighbor who is Muslim or Jewish, you're less likely to be prejudiced against such workers than if you didn't have that. Right. And in terms of international solidarity, obviously the presence of large communities in Britain or from various parts of the world makes the case the ability of British imperialism to engage in wars and imperialist warfare in those countries also more difficult. So the issue uniting or the working class, the moving of different people from different parts of the world actually serves to strengthen the revolutionary movement. Now I do not have time, I might go into it later, but to go into the position that the British government adopted of late suffice to say that actually it's quite interesting to have what happened at the Labour Party Congress. On the last day of the Labour Party Congress, a lot of the delegates and a lot of the trade union leaders and whatever had left because the parliament was going to reopen and everyone was really happy because the parliament was going to reopen. No one else was. But yeah, and then on that day there was the resolution on migration, homelessness and a number of other questions and they actually adopted the programme, which was, I mean it wasn't complete, but actually the basic principles were correct, was the adoption of the maintenance of freedom and movement for EU citizens and the extending of it to include other people as well, which I think is the correct position. I mean it's not the complete programme, but it's a very good start. Also an addition extension of the right to vote to people who are living here but are not British citizens, which is perfectly correct as well, perfectly in line of what second internationalist resolution. Now I know part of the reason behind that is obviously these people hoping that these EU migrants in Britain will vote for remaining in the European Union in the future second referendum or whatever, but basically the principle is correct anyway. That's why it's almost worked here like myself. I've been here for 13 years or something, but I haven't got the right to vote because I haven't paid 1,700 pounds. They cost to apply 1,500 pounds. They cost to apply for British citizenship. So because of that, I don't have the right to vote, don't have full rights to participate in the political life of Britain. Now personally in that situation, why on earth would they not allowed to vote, right, where some expats in southern Spain, who has very little to do with Britain, they see smiling here, but why do they get the chance to vote? They should vote in Spain, they shouldn't be voting in Britain basically. This is the logic. I mean you can also talk about the expats, the Swedish expats, always both for the Tories who live in London. There's a tax dodgers, there's a community of tax dodgers in London basically, 20,000 of them or so, who are escaping Swedish taxes, enjoying the wonders of the British tax system with the non-dom status and whatnot. And so they live here and they always vote for the Conservative Party. The only party that sends election materials to London is the Conservative party in the Swedish elections. Anyway, that's by the by. Eh, this fellow international also adopted a resolution on the question of this section in the resolution on the colonial question, which deals with migration. And it's also again, I mean, the Stalinist just haven't read any of the stuff. It's quite obvious or if they've read it, they must. It says the communist parties of the United States, Canada and Australia must wage a vigorous campaign against laws that restrict immigration and explain, blame to the proletarian masses of these countries that they too will suffer harm because of the race hatred stirred up by these laws. The capitalist opposed such immigration, anti-immigration laws because they favor free importation of cheap colored labor as a means of driving down the wages of white workers. So that's the argument basically of a lot of these people that are well importation migrants drives down the wages and so on. But this is, this is not that the first national, the second national didn't know about this thing, but they just about the measures that they deal with it. That's the question. There's only one way to successfully counter the capitalist intention to go over to the offensive. The immigrant workers must be admitted into the existing trade unions of white workers, this particular problem in the United States. At the same time, the demand must be raised that the wages of the colored workers be brought up to the same level as the white workers pay. Such a step by the communist party will expose the capitalist intentions and also demonstrate clearly to the colored workers that the international proletariat does not harbor any racial prejudice. Basically, this is the way to unite the work, the workers, the migrants and native born into common struggle against the capitalist class is ensure but they get all the same rights to fight for all the same rights for the migrants as already existed. And the precisely the opposite will happen if you start into playing around with this migration controls and so on precisely the opposite will happen. You will drive a wedge. Basically the capitalists will continue to import migrants, but they will say to the migrants that come in and say, look, we'll protect you against these white workers or the native born workers, right with their rights and so on. They want to kick you out of the country and so on. We don't want that. We want you here. I want to give you jobs, etc. And obviously that argument will have some truck if all the white workers of the main labor movement, if their program is no more people will allow to come in, no rights, no citizenship rights, etc, etc. So certainly this is the way forward. It's always been in the traditions, the best traditions of the international labor movement. This has been a position that has been put forward. It is the best way of strengthening and unifying the labor movement against in the struggle against the bourgeoisie. I don't have time for that either. And also, it is also a way of fighting against this idea, which has been put forward. De har, both in Britain and the United States, you have this kind of like this kind of, I guess in all countries, but particularly in Britain United States. I have a wing of a bourgeoisie who like to present themselves as somehow progressive. You got the Hillary Clinton's of this world or in the Britain, the pro remain. So the Joe Swinson's or whatever, who talk a lot about being in favor of nice things, rights of migrants and so on. But in reality, they're not in favor of no such thing at all. But what they want to do, well, they have a minor difference with people by Trump in that they like some of the methods of Trump and how he, he, some of the harshest measures they think are a bit too harsh. They want to let in a little bit more migrants than maybe Trump wants. Or in Britain, the remain crowd, a lot of them are in favor of restricting freedom and movement. They just don't want to abolish it completely, right? Because they understand that British economy needs these workers who work in the picking strawberries or whatever. They need these workers, low paid workers, and they continue to need them even in the future. So it's not a question. So they and their attitude is to have a little bit more restrictions or bring in some of migrants, but no, none of them are really in favor of giving full rights to migrants, giving citizenship rights to migrants or allowing anything close to open borders. So in reality, the policy that we always been put forward by the revolutionary wing of the labor movement, it's always been not just directed against the right wing of labor movement or the sort of Nigro forages av this world, but also directed against this liberal wing of Warsaw tries to present themselves as some kind of friends of the migrants or friend or internationalists, as I like to call themselves. And in the future, with the hardening of the class struggle, inevitably, this divided rule tactic will be used again and again. It's our essential duty to maintain a clear position of class independence on this question, no alliance with either the so-called liberals or the Nigro forages av this world. We do not side with the bosses who are pretending to be a friend of an 80 worker by walking in for one nor would do with the one who pretends to be the friend of the foreign worker by advocating a more permissive migration policy. Our policy is for class unity and internationalism, and on that road lies the success of our movement.