Free-Market Capitalism And Communism

Immigration is one of the contentious issues that continue to elicit mixed reactions from different parties. In most western economies, debates on immigration policies have been on the rise in the recent decades. Whereas the international human rights have confirmed that freedom of movement is one of the basic human rights and hence no one can be deprived, most governments have put restrictions on immigration. Furthermore, the enactment of open immigration policies in various countries continues to raise mixed reactions with proponents and critics of the policies contributing to the debate. Immigration policies usually vary from country to country and within states with both, either opting for open or closed immigration policies. The impacts of illegal immigration and open border policies have been central to the above debate. This paper explores the issue of open border policies and illegal immigration and its inherent dangers.

The source shows that within society there are those who have the heart of a capitalist which is generous and those who have a communist heart which is greedy. The ideological perspective in this source is that of a capitalist, because it speaks positively about capitalism and negatively about communism which is its polar opposite. Furthermore the source specifically describes the differences between capitalism and communism that can also exist within a christmas party. For instance, in a communist society government controls all aspects of society and limits the actions of individuals and corporations. Furthermore, individuals are encouraged to pursue their own self-interests in a capitalist society, because it is believed that individuals’

The economic and social system of communism is derived from the writings of Karl Marx, who defined it as “the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution” (Marx & Engels, 1848). However, many economists would simply describe it as the elimination of private property. Essentially, in the ideal communist system, the government owns everything and distributes the resources to the people. Though a large group of philosophers and economists have theorized many systems that can be considered communist, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’s Communist Manifesto is usually considered the basis for the economic system. Engels was not a deeply religious man, nor an atheist; however, he considered himself a Pantheist (one who believes that God is the entire universe, that he is one with nature). Karl Marx in contrast, was a staunch atheist, stating “The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion” (Marx, A Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Law , 1844). But even with different religious beliefs, both men believed that the natural state of man is one of virtue, a belief that shaped communism.

When immigration policy is discussed, typically, it is discussed within the confines of egalitarian notions and sentiments, and inside the boundaries and parameters set by generally Marxist-influenced social democracy. Characteristically, it is not discussed pertaining to the concept of a social order built on the rights of property owners, sharers, and contributors to and of the common stock- which at their discretion- may exclude bad apples, lazy contributors, rotten characters, trespassers, and terrorists. Once egalitarian sentiments and notions are rejected full-scale- (only giving credence to those that have empirical weight or logical consistency) more proper, more substantive interdisciplinary analyses may reveal that the current investigative techniques employed by current mainstream political theorists are- in the context of reality, incorrect, superficial and quite shallow.

Giving into the demands of upset citizens, different political parties began to campaign with planks in their platforms dedicated to legally destroying immigration. The Austrian Freedom Party, for instance, campaigned to increase the amount of laws that prevent immigration and to make it more difficult for non-Austrians to live and work amongst the Austrian people (Doc 6). By creating a platform to change a country’s laws, it is clear Europeans were so upset with immigration that they wanted to make fundamental changes in their governments’ policies. People were unhappy with how their society was transforming and they wanted to put official rules in place that would allow Europe to return to its former state. Enoch Powell, a member of the Conservative Party, brought this common desire to light by explaining that people did not want to live in a country filled with immigrants, so action needed to be taken in order to curb the high immigration levels (Doc 2). The fact that many Europeans wanted politicians to take a stand against immigration shows how upset people were with the rising numbers of immigration, which became roughly 500,000 immigrants per year. By involving the government, European citizens were able to project their anti-immigration sentiment into the rest of the continent. Involving politicians and political parties shows how adament some Europeans were about keeping foreigners out of

“Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.” John F. Kennedy, September 25, 1961

The U.S found itself confronted to new challenges that they didn’t think of before. This new challenges led to a shift of American attitudes towards immigration. This was due to the high influx of the immigrants coming from Europe and of the liberal paradox related to immigration (Tichenor 2002, 51). The United States found itself caught between two stools where immigration benefited the economy but the on the other side its obligation to set limits regarding social and publics welfare available to the new wave of immigrants.

For immigrants, this is especially important. However, instead of acknowledging that they do not have every single freedom in the world, some join the left wing movement in rallies and protests that ultimately divide the country instead of uniting

Contemporary study on political opinions concerning immigration frequently pits points of view highlighting economic self-interest versus cultural or ideological rationalization. They (studies) are also based on the particular immigration policy at hand at the time, therefore, addressing only the power of that particular policy.

The unwavering commitment to economic growth has seen an agreement, a continued bipartisan consensus on the topics of immigration and national security. Essentially all parties have remained committed to necessary population expansion whilst believing that judicial power and governmental control over the acceptance or entrance of new peoples must remain to ensure that the country and it peoples welfare is ‘secure’. Despite this consensus however, all parties have repeatedly used political arguments and tactics to make it appear that another party is failing where they could succeed.

The economic impact on immigration is a controversial topic in the modern political climate. In the United States, a candidate was elected even after he called Mexican immigrant rapists and criminals. Great Britain voted to leave the European Union on the precise of taking back who was entering the country. In the French Presidential election, a far-right nationalist candidate went to the second round of the presidential election and was able to capture 30% of the vote. Europe has seen the rise of far-right populist parties that have sought to force immigration reduces. However, the rhetoric of politicians have caused immigrants that would do agricultural work to leave which has put American farmers at a disadvantage.

The views between Communism and Capitalism may sound very extreme when placed in an argument for an ideal society, but the core attribute for both comes down to quality of life. We can assume this is an argument between which is better for society, the Kitchen Debates

Within a neoliberal perspective, David Bacon’s The Right to Stay Home argues that immigrants became an economic tool rather than seen as human beings. The creation of drastic economic situations forces migration. Migrants are an essential component of neoliberal economies that seek a fast-paced growth without many questions asked (Orr, 2014). The amount of questions not being asked from “ordinary people,” the amount of “ordinary wages” not paid to foreigners and the constant supply of foreign labor cheap seems to be a strong incentive to maintain certain migration policies that aim to keep the inflow of foreign workers. In these terms, neoliberal globalization allowed states to have a hand over the masses of labor and allowed corporates to

Limiting the free movement of immigrants and strengthening border control is a controversial idea that can be detrimental to the multiple relationships around the globe. In the last few decades, we have seen a remarkable rise in xenophobia and conservatism in the United Kingdom (UK). Before the Brexit decision was made, xenophobic parties failed to even pass the 5% of votes needed to become an official government party. If the ideas of xenophobia and other hateful rhetorics are prominent, it will promote an environment where discrimination against a culture, religion, or sexual orientation is okay which it is absolutely NOT. Recently, with the current the United States (U.S.) election, xenophobic and isolationist ideas have grown even more popular. America is symbolized as the land of opportunities with diversity and immigration rooted in its foundation. Immense power comes from the diversity which provides the various types of thinking and perspectives that help our country as a whole. If this hateful rhetoric is prominent, this diversity will disintegrate and discrimination will prevent the diversity to bloom to its full potential. This is the biggest consequence from

To understand free market capitalism, you first have to know what the root word means.