Tuesday 20 October 2009

who's exploiting who?

ok, so this my first effort at cross-posting, and am a little nervous in putting this one up here, so please can we avoid any nastiness in comments? thanx.

so, another one of the things i was thinking about but hadn't written on was the rt hon winston peters' speech recently about immigration. i haven't read the speech, and have no intention of doing so. i'd much rather beat myself around the head with a blunt instrument frankly!

but. i was having a discussion about his basic approach to immigration issues over the weekend. obviously he is trying to push buttons to generate some media coverage and support. but the problem is that there are serious issues to be discussed about immigration.

the biggest one for me is the importation of workers who will be prepared to work for worse pay and conditions than local workers, simply to avoid the level of poverty they face in their country of origin. i have a strong objection to this type of thing, and i've written about it previously at the hand mirror, particularly in regards to workers in the aged care sector. the two evils of such an approach is that 1) it reduces the wages and conditions of workers in this country and 2) it just adds to the fact that we do little to resolve poverty in their country of origin (through trade or aid).

now, we need to be having some decent and serious public debate about this issue. but we rarely are able to, mostly because of the dog-whistling and underlying racism of the winston peters approach. the fundamental difference between his approach and the one that i would take is this: he sees immigrants as exploiting this country, but i see this country as exploiting immigrants.

of course, it's not just this country - many others do the same. illegal immigrants keep the horticultural industries of many countries viable. as soon as the picking season is over, there will often be a much publicised raid that captures some number of illegals and deports them. but nothing serious is ever done, because economic prosperity depends on cheap labour.

and it never happens that any politician of note stands up and says "our country is exploiting immigrants". because there's no votes in it, of course. it's a reality that no-one wants to hear. but funnily enough, people are quite happy to hear about and absorb the myth that immigrants are exploiting our country and somehow ripping us off. which is why mr peters has been able to thrive for so many years.

4 comments:

jingyang said...

Hear hear.
Also missing from the 'immigration' debate is that the other side of the policy basically involves buying a NZ passport ie: got $X dollars to invest?...then here have a passport.
Not to mention that there has been no debate on how to support the immigrants once they are here: such as resourcing schools to support their children, ensuring that there are actually suitable jobs etc.
A further issue is integration, which I mean in the sense of ensuring that immigrants can fully participate in NZ society, especially since many come from non-democratic societies where government caanot be trusted and elections are meaningless.
There is also a much larger debate (which our 'leaders'have been avoiding since 1984) and that is about what kind of society, economy and future we really want - and where immigration fits into this.
I agree with you that Peters' raise the immigration issue well, and then promptly obscures it with
barely veiled rascism and cheap political points scoring. Unfortunately he also does the same in regard to the issue of foreign ownership of NZ assets...

BM said...

If we're talking about voluntary migrants, why should we pay to support them?
If people have chosen of their own free will to come and live here, then they ought to have done some research before they arrive.

There are more important things our money should be spent on.

Refugees are another matter, we should certainly continue to support them.

People migrate to countries everywhere in search of jobs and wealth; this will not be able to stopped.
I don't think it should be, anyway. We have free movement of capital, there should be free movement of labour too.

Also perhaps be wary of playing the racism card. Sentiments against migration could be being ethnocentric, not being racist.

stargazer said...

Sentiments against migration could be being ethnocentric, not being racist.

and what would be the difference, especially in practical terms? if the result is discrimination, then they're equally bad.

People migrate to countries everywhere in search of jobs and wealth; this will not be able to stopped.

really? i don't know of a country without immigration restrictions. there certainly is no free flow of people into western country that i know of.

If we're talking about voluntary migrants, why should we pay to support them?

i can't see anyone asking you support them. however, having policies to promote successful settlement has major benefits, both to migrants and to the host country. as you say, we'll have immigration into this country. either we put some effort into ensuring positive outcomes, or we will pay the price in other ways. yes, people coming here have a responsibility to find out about the country, but the country allowing them to come here have a responsibility to ensure that they settle well. we certainly have a responsibility to ensure that we aren't exploiting their labour through low wages and poor work conditions.

jingyang said...

"having policies to promote successful settlement" that was I should have said.

"has major benefits, both to migrants and to the host country. as you say, we'll have immigration into this country. either we put some effort into ensuring positive outcomes, or we will pay the price in other ways."

exactly.