Analysis of the necessary position on immigration

In the 21st century immigration has become a centrepiece issue in liberal democracies, many politicians campaign on different immigration platforms and an increasing amount of the worker voter base votes on these platforms, thus it is necessary for the Marxist to provide a theoretical basis for the needed stance on immigration rather than keeping it fragmented amongst different leftist spheres. Throughout this analysis I will provide two positions, which is up to the individual Marxist to choose. I will also provide thorough critique of both whilst simultaneously branching off existing Marxist theory and identify the ideological liberalism that has infiltrated the Marxists positions.

Predominantly in the west immigration has risen to numbers never seen before which both the Conservative and Liberal have very differing stances on but simultaneously very reactionary intentions. The popular Conservative stance mainly centres on issues such as integration, religion and the expansion of the welfare system to cater for immigrants however when pushed further the alt-right position is the superiority of their race, culture and people and the introduction of non-white immigration threatens this greatly (Grežo Et Al, 2024, Palliative and hegemonic dimensions of conservatism). The reactionary base of the Conservative remains clear, increased immigration creates a rapid amount of social change the reactionary is not accustomed to. The Conservative pulls the worker to the anti-immigration position by capitalising on the economic effects of immigration as the economy still remains the most major salient issue for the voter base. The worker is told immigration is the reason wages remain stagnant in the face of inflation and unemployment remains high, really these are the issues with capitalism, but the Conservative elite uses immigration as a scapegoat to prevent the liberal expansion of the welfare state or even a revolution by creating a "moral panic to distract from the crises of capitalism" (Hall Et Al, 1978, Policing the Crisis). The conservative position supersedes the liberal one as the presence of a scapegoat is more attractive to a worker than admitting the system in the country that they feel patriotic about is flawed and need to be replaced whilst also being fearful and uncertain of the rapid change of their environments, culture and people. This helps identify the scientific flaw the conservative elite use to their advantage, people are inherently fearful of things they do not understand or know, (Raub, 2021, Knowledge fear of the unknown, opinion, and the pandemic) the average immigrant from Pakistan has wildly different values, morals and living than the average British person thus the Brit fears the immigrant as he does not understand him, yet the Pakistani is less fearful depending on levels of integration and consumed media.

With the consideration of these reactionary values, it seems clear it is only sensible for the Marxist to oppose the Conservative approach on strengthened border controls due to the need to demonise the foreign worker and the alt-right need to categorise the foreigner as subhuman, these very actions contradict the fundamental beliefs of the Marxist and plays right into the bourgeoise desire for a divided proletariat. However, the Marxist should not completely ignore the benefits of reduced immigration to the revolutionary struggle, though the Conservative has reactionary intentions he is right about the conflicting norms and culture. The vast majority of immigrants tend to be from countries with even stronger reactionary values than the ones in the west mainly due to their religion, usually Islam, that of which preaches strong anti-communist sentiment.

The best country to use as an example for this would be Afghanistan, a country largely seen by westerners as the most prominent Muslim caricature in the middle east. Before the Taliban's fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia, the country was under heavy Soviet influence which in turn birthed the western backed Afghan mujahadeen (now the Taliban). After the withdrawal of Soviet troops, the assembling of the Taliban and the conflict with the original western financiers the Afghan is left with a lengthy anti-western anti-communist history and a life governed by Sharia, the Afghan then immigrates due to economic turmoil in his own country but brings his reactionary values with him which doesn't make him an asset to the domestic revolutionary cause in the country he immigrates to, but rather a threat to it. This is where the infiltration of liberalism, as previously mentioned, begins. The Communist accepts the Afghan and in fact advocates for his right to be there due to his own naive black and white thinking, the Communist sees the persecution practised by the Conservative and chooses to infantilise the Afghan and act as a "saviour", a common mistake amongst native western Communists. -UNFINISHED ESSAY-

Sources (in order)

01- https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1308990/full

02- https://dokumen.pub/policing-the-crisis-mugging-the-state-and-law-and-order-2nbsped-9781137007193.html

03- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8385894/