Migrant Labour Quotes

They would become the migrant labourers who made the “economic miracles” in Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland,

Although most Americans do not realise it, their nations agricultural system has relied heavily on migrant labourers and slaves from Africa, Asia and south of the border for the last four centuries. The country’s agricultural sector has functioned to varying degrees on bondage and servitude from the beginning, which is no different fro agricultural sectors elsewhere in the world. From feudal times to the present day, the arrangements that characterise agricultural work have been remarkably resistant to change, including in the United States. Laws are passed, awareness is raised, workers protest, and lives are lost - but trafficking for slavery and bondage in America’s agricultural sector remains far more prevalent today than almost anyone cares to admit.

You can’t have an economic structure worldwide whereby capital can move but labour can’t, and if you’re going to follow this, then labour must be able to come to wherever it’s more profitable. These are the people that are being kept out by the Asylum Bill, on the grounds that they are economic migrants and all of that, but of course all the money that’s invested abroad is economic migrant money.

Prior to the introduction of immigration controls, the labour needs of these settler colonies had been served by transatlantic slavery, indenture and transportation. Indeed, it was the movement of negatively racialised yet legally free migrants into these territories in the late nineteenth century that seems to have precipitated the introduction of immigration controls.

capital also instils illusions in our minds – above all, the illusion that, in serving it, we become worthy, exceptional, potent. We take pride in our relationship with it (either as financiers who ‘create’ millions in a single day, or as employers on whom a multitude of working families depend, or as labourers who enjoy privileged access to gleaming machinery or to puny services denied to illegal migrants), turning a blind eye to the tragic fact that it is capital which, in effect, owns us all, and that it is we who serve it.

There are many facets to the decline in fairness and opportunity in American life. Perhaps the worst are the conditions now imposed upon young children born into the underclass and subjected to the recent evolution of the educational system. They are related, and they reinforce each other; their combined result is to condemn tens of millions of children, particularly those born into the new underclass, to a life of hardship and unfairness. For any young child whose parents don’t have money, or who is the child of a migrant agricultural worker and/or an illegal immigrant, prenatal care, nursery, day care, after school, school nutrition, and foster-care systems are nothing short of appalling. And then comes school itself. The “American dream”, stated simply, is that no matter how poor or humble your origins—even if you never knew your parents—you have a shot at a decent life. America’s promise is that anyone willing to work hard can do better over time, and have at least a reasonable life for themselves and their own children. You could expect to do better than your parents, and even be able to help them as they grew old. More than ever before, the key to such a dream is a good education. The rise of information technology, and the opening of Asian economies, means that only a small portion of America’s population can make a good living through unskilled or manual labour. But instead of elevating the educational system and the opportunities it should provide, American politicians, and those who follow their lead around the globe, have been going in exactly the wrong direction. As a result, we are developing not a new class system, but, without exaggeration, a new caste system—a society in which the circumstances of your birth determine your entire life. As a result, the dream of opportunity is dying. Increasingly, the most important determinant of a child’s life prospects—future income, wealth, educational level, even health and life expectancy—is totally arbitrary and unfair. It’s also very simple. A child’s future is increasingly determined by his or her parents’ wealth, not by his or her intelligence or energy. To be sure, there are a number of reasons for this. Income is correlated with many other things, and it’s therefore difficult to isolate the impact of individual factors. Children in poor households are more likely to grow up in single-parent versus two-parent households, exposed to drugs and alcohol, with one or both parents in prison, with their immigration status questionable, and more likely to have problems with diet and obesity. Culture and race play a role: Asian children have far higher school graduation rates, test scores, and grades than all other groups, including whites, in the US; Latinos, the lowest.

The contradictory tension between the demand for low-wage labour and migrant workers and growing xenophobia propagated by politicians and the media in destination states must be challenged ...

Without control over migrant labour, capital could not extract vast profits from investments in the South.

The institution of migrant labour today signifies the defeat of counter-hegemonic forces and the necessity of building and organizing an effective alternative to a system which is crushing lives and the planet.

Migrant labour, encouraged to meet the demands of the colonial economy, systematically drained rural areas of their male workforce. Women may thus have gained some level of social empowerment, but the overall effect was a social and economic weakening of rural society at a time when the vast majority of Africa’s population was still rurally based. Migrant labour and cash taxation was part of a deliberate policy of forcing Africans into a cash economy on terms set by colonial employers. This undermined economic self-sufficiency and led to a dramatic increase in rural poverty. Indeed, it can be argued that the roots of modern Africa’s persistent rural and peri-urban poverty can be traced to the first generation of colonial rule.

Another excluded group were the so-called ‘guest workers’, who are underscored as having played a crucial role in Germany’s spectacular social and economic ascent that was possible for the majority of working people at this time. This ascent ultimately rested in large part on an ‘underclass’ of migrant workers,66 who had been brought to Germany for repetitive and dirty work in a prospering industry, and then later, once the long economic boom was over, were coolly sent back home. Without them, there would not have been ‘normal labour relations’ in the form that we knew.

Fully compatible with ballooning inequality, liberal feminism outsources oppression. It permits professional-managerial women to lean in precisely by enabling them to lean on the poorly paid migrant women to whom they subcontract their caregiving and housework.

Please tell Ma & Pa this knowledge I still held about their sojourn years passed, blueprinting edges of the Arab soil with suitcases and work permits for your first lessons in Globalisation.

Economists, when it comes to immigration, routinely ignore the social costs; would they do the same when measuring, for example, the growth of the alcohol industry or, for that matter, fossil fuels? Open borders — especially while much of the world has high fertility rates — have enormous non-economic effects. So while big business might want an endless supply of foreign labour, since when were the interests of big business put above any potential social cost of their practices? When it involves diversity. And yet the social costs of immigration are a form of market failure, problems created by businesses which enjoyed the benefits but do not have to pay for the migrants' welfare, housing or schools once they are no longer needed.

In the period 1519–1939, an estimated 5,300,000 people, whom scholars delicately dub ‘unfree migrants’, were carried on British ships, of whom approximately 58  per  cent were slaves, mainly from Africa, 36  per  cent were indentured labour, mainly from India, and 6  per  cent were transported convicts, both from India and other colonies. If nothing else, this British endeavour, motivated as always by the simple exigencies of the colonial project, transformed the demography of dozens of countries, with consequences that can still be seen today.

I want to be king King of the society's day labourers King of labourers King of street children King of a mother who lost her son - I Want To Be King