Immigration: the great debate. posted by Richard Seymour

Superexploit them or lock them out? This is the nature of the debate often espoused even by liberal commentators such as Polly Toynbee, who insisted that the free movement of labour was just a recipe for exploitation. The discussion for her was between the hard right bigots who simply want to shut borders, and the super wealthy who wish to avail themselves of cheap labour. It's not that simple, as Alex Callinicos notes:

Last Sunday’s New York Times cited a senior executive, coincidentally enough at a Dalton carpet firm, who “did not find many of the provisions of the Senate bill practical, particularly those that would have required long-time immigrants to learn English and pay fines…

“Many employers, too, oppose any provision that would penalise them for hiring illegal workers, knowingly or not. Some expressed concern about the provision that would have granted citizenship to immigrants who had been in the United States for at least five years, saying it might have encouraged them to quit or be less productive.

“‘The illegals are probably better workers than the legal ones,’ said Mike Gonya, who farms 2,800 acres of wheat and vegetables near Fremont, Ohio. ‘The legal ones know the system. They know legal recourse. The illegal ones will bust their butts’.”

In other words, the interests of capital are best served by controls that are weak enough to allow immigrants in, but strong enough to keep illegal workers vulnerable and therefore easy to exploit.

They need to be scared to death in other words.