EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Bill Keller Wish Snowden Had Just Followed Orders
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- The Terror Con
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
Popular content
Today's Top News
Arizona Memo to Journalists / Editors on Immigration: Drop the I-Word
Two words stood out in the AP news story on Arizona's controversial SB 1070 immigration law yesterday: BREAKING: Supreme Court says it will rule on Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants
Within minutes, "illegal immigrants" headlined newspapers online across the country, such as the New York Daily News:
Thanks for the reminder.
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to take on Arizona's punitive immigration law, it's time for the AP -- and all journalists and editors -- to join Colorlines' campaign to drop the "I-word" and find a decent and more accurate way of framing immigration matters.
The AP correspondent, of course, was simply following protocol. The AP Stylebook notes: "Illegal Immigrant -- Used to describe those who have entered the country illegally. It is the preferred term rather than illegal alien or undocumented worker." But this decision, as author Gabriel Thompson noted in Colorlines magazine, "locked in an industry standard for so-called neutral language on unauthorized immigration -- and it focused on the person, not just the act."
More than five years have passed since the National Association of Hispanic Journalists called on the media to reassess its use of the "illegal" word and "stop using dehumanizing terms when covering immigration." The NAHJ noted:
The term criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering or residing in the United States without federal documents. Terms such as illegal alien or illegal immigrant can often be used pejoratively in common parlance and can pack a powerful emotional wallop for those on the receiving end.
This year, in fact, the Society of Professional Journalists passed a resolution to re-evaluate "the politically charged phrase 'illegal immigrant.'" In October, SPJ President John Ensslin added his own voice to the long overdue I-word change:
My concern is not one of being politically correct as it being precise and accurate.
When police arrest someone on a burglary charge, we don't refer to them the next day as "illegal burglars." They are burglary suspects.I don't see why we can't treat immigration cases like any other arrests. A person under arrest is suspected of entering the country illegally until authorities are in fact sure that they did.
The term is even more offensive when applied to undocumented children and youth, who have had no control over their circumstances, such as the headline framing of this story on "illegal" immigrant students in the New York Times last week.
The U.S. Supreme Court has come a long way since former Chief Justice William Rehnquist referred to undocumented immigrants as "wetbacks." In an opinion earlier this year on another Arizona immigration law, Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. knowingly used the terms, "unauthorized aliens" and "unauthorized workers."
It's time for journalists and editors to take the same step forward.
More than four decades ago, as former New York Times editor Gene Roberts noted in The Race Beat: The Press, The Civil Rights Struggle, and the Awakening of a Nation, his Pulitzer Prize-winning history on journalism during the Civil Rights Movement, writers and editors went through a similar debate over consistent style and word usage. "After discussion that ebbed and flowed for weeks," Roberts wrote, "the decision was made. Individuals of African descent, not the Times, would choose how they were designated for as long as the issue was in dispute."
Journalists and editors would be wise to do the same for all immigrants today.
More information on Colorlines and its campaign to Drop the I-Word is here.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
65 Comments so far
Show AllYes Jeff, lets open our borders to Africa and Haiti as well. Now 48% of the population is not paying taxes and receiving some sort of government assistance. We need more. Bring them on. What happens when we get to 60% of the population not paying taxes Jeff? It took all the taxes my husband and I paid in 2009 to pay for one unpaid for birth. There were over 309,000 children born to unauthorized women. Los Angeles paid out $600,000,000 in social and medical services to unauthorized people. It is estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12,000,000,000 a year on primary and secondary school education for the children of illegal immigrants.
_____________________________________________
In the US. 2005, illegal migrants accounted for about 5% of the civilian labor force, or 7.2 million workers out of a labor force of 148 million. Approximately 19% of illegal workers were employed in construction jobs, 15% in production, installation and repair, and 4% in farming. The Pew report also shows that illegal immigrants comprise 24% of all workers in farming, 17% in cleaning, 14% in construction and 12% in food preparation. Within those categories, unauthorized migrants tend to be concentrated in specific jobs: They represent 36% of all insulation workers, 29% of all roofers and drywall installers, and 27% of all butchers and other food-processing workers.
Yah Jeff, we got plenty of jobs - let em all in.
This post is ignorant and racist.
"Unauthorized people?" Disgusting.
By the logic of this post, if any of us gave $10 to a person who was down and out - and did not check their papers to see if they were "authorized" - we would be guilty of "ripping off" the "real Americans" such as this poster, since that money should have been spent on "authorized" people.
I don't expect to reach or persuade the person who posted this, but I call on every one here to speak out against this cruel, racist, and vicious mob mentality and the fascist police state it is supporting and promoting.
Soon it may be you, or your loved ones, who are declared "unauthorized persons." Throughout history, it has never been otherwise. It may not happen tomorrow, or next week, but it is coming and it is coming fast.
The people in power will foment and use little people such as this poster, to act as snarling little attack dogs, whipping up hatred, and aiding and supporting the security forces that will soon be turned against all of us.
Human rights do not depend upon "authorization" by those in power nor their police agents.
The poster makes two arguments against "open borders" : 1) illegal immigrants are costing taxpayers a lot of money. 2) illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens and legal immigrants.
Why not contest those two assertions with facts and logic instead of throwing out demonizing labels such as "racist", "cruel", "ignorant", "viscious mob mentality", "fascist" etc.? Such hyperbolic ad hominem attacks are counterproductive; they simply make you look like you have no rational arguments at your disposal.
"By the logic of this post, if any of us gave $10 to a person who was down and out - and did not check their papers to see if they were "authorized" - we would be guilty of "ripping off" the "real Americans" such as this poster, since that money should have been spent on "authorized" people."
Nothing in the post addresses *individual acts of charity*, so you appear to be putting words in the poster's mouth to make a transparent, counter-productive "strawman" argument.
"Human rights do not depend upon "authorization" by those in power nor their police agents."
There is no human right to immigrate into any country one wishes to. There is no basis in international law to demand that every country have open borders. At no point did the poster call for the violation of the human rights of illegal immigrants. So once again, you put forward an obvious, counter-productive, "strawman" argument.
Thank You ProgressivePopulist. I don't hate anyone. As you mentioned, I am worried about the financial sustainability of caring for everyone who steps over the border.
Immigrants are neither "costing the taxpayers money," nor "taking jobs from Americans." These arguments have been extensively examined and discussed here, and utterly refuted.
The anti-immigrant arguments being used here do in fact, in the real world, translate into the the violation of the human rights. There is no other outcome possible.
You are incorrect about the individual acts of charity, since the fact is that giving a person a meal, offering them a ride, putting them up for the night in your home and other acts of charity are now felonies.
Facts are Facts!
Class warfare is class warfare, and it respects no borders - borders that were created by and for the benefit of the ruling class.
Our antagonists are not other poor working class people. It is the bosses who are our antagonists.
You cannot be on both sides at the same time - supporting working class people in some circumstances, and the bosses in other circumstances.
I am for the workers and citizens, and tax payers of this country. We will never be in a position to help other countries if we are bled dry - if we have to take teachers and money out of Advanced Placement and put it into interpreters, if we have to pay for more than 48% of the population to live here. Why would you want to import more poverty and unemployment?????
When immigrants come here, we are not helping other countries, the immigrants are helping us.
Were that not true, than the borders should have been sealed a long time ago and the population held to a few thousand.
Immigrants coming here means less poverty - obviously - not more. Why do you think people move? To get out of poverty.
Management - the capitalists, the 1% - are bleeding us dry. I would think that would be clear to everyone now. Management wants us to blame other workers for the suffering caused by management. That should be crystal clear as well.
This is the essence of our differences. They are not helping us. We can not allow other countries to define our immigration law. How can you look at the stats and say they are contributing anything other than union busting cheap labor and children they are unable to support or educate. Again 16% of the population is Hispanic and they produced 42% of new births. 48% of the population does not pay taxes. How many more jobless people do you think we can absorb?
Do I have to go through all the facts again???
You are unable to assimilate and associate facts.
"Immigrants are neither "costing the taxpayers money," nor "taking jobs from Americans." These arguments have been extensively examined and discussed here, and utterly refuted."
No they have not been "utterly refuted".
ClaudiaL quoted these statistics:
"Approximately 19% of illegal workers were employed in construction jobs, 15% in production, installation and repair, and 4% in farming."
Those illegal immigrants in the construction industry have certainly displaced U.S. workers (including legal immigrants), have hugely undermined construction industry unionization, and have forced wages downward across the board.
There is NO economic theory, from the left to the right, from Marxism to neoliberalism, that doesn't recognize the fact that an increase in immigrant labor will put downward pressure on wages, subvert unions, cause divisiveness in the "working class", be vulnerable to exploitation in the interest of "super-profits" , and help create the "reserve army" of labor capitalists so dearly desire.
The burden is on YOU to challenge those statistics. Unsubstantiated assertions will not do.
Immigrants are joining unions at a much faster rate than non-immigrants.
Those "statistics" tell us nothing, and need not be refuted. They do not support your assertions even if they are true. They are irrelevant. You made the assertions, and the burden is on you to support them, not on me to refute them.
Management would much rather hire people south of the border at a $1 a day then pay $10 a day here for the same work. That is why people come here. Wage increases for any of us mean wage increases for all of us. The entire international working class is a "reserve army" of labor for the capitalists. That has noting to do with immigration. That reserve army is much easier to exploit if people are kept in totalitarian countries and restricted from moving.
If immigrants take jobs, then why should not the population in the US have been restricted to, oh, say 20 million? We should have long since run out of jobs by accepting immigrants past the point of a 20 million population by your logic.
This tells us that human beings, working class people, are not a drain, not a burden, not an expense - despite the frantic attempts by the right wingers to convince us of that.
Each job taken creates jobs, far more so than anything management ever does, since management's motivation is eliminating jobs.
Clearly, in the history of settlement in this country, when new towns were founded more immigrants coming into those towns did not eliminate jobs, it created more jobs. Otherwise, why would not the first 100 people to settle a town have "taken" all of the jobs? Why not out a wall up - "no more jobs sorry" and keep every town at a population of 100?
Actually "no jobs" signs have been put up over the years outside of towns, but those were always designed to keep out "undesirables," especially people of color.
Increased population does not decrease jobs, it increases them. Always has, always will. It is the actions of management - and the movement of rich people across borders - that eliminates jobs, not the movement of working class people.
"Immigrants are joining unions at a much faster rate than non-immigrants."
But union membership is at a very low level. Real wages have been stagnating or worse.
Wealth is being redistributed upwards. Surely, you must realize that having a large class of workers that are in the country illegally, swellling the ranks of job-seekers and subject to super-exploitation, is not good for unions or labor in general.
"The entire international working class is a "reserve army" of labor for the capitalists. "
That is false. There are many jobs that can only be done by workers IN this country. Construction work, to give just one of many examples, cannot be outsourced. The supply of labor IN the country directly effects the level of wages for that kind of work. Immigration increases the supply of labor putting downward pressure on wages and making unionization more difficult.
"That reserve army is much easier to exploit if people are kept in totalitarian countries and restricted from moving."
Which "totalitarian" countries are you talking about? Mexico, for example, is NOT a "totalitarian" country, whatever you may think of it. So your statement is very poorly conceived, with all due respect. If Mexican "totalitarians" really wanted to exploit penned in workers, as you suggest, why then do they do Mexican leaders push for open borders with the U.S? Your argument just makes no sense at all.
If Mexico didn't have the escape valve for excess labor (i.e. labor unneeded by Mexican capitalists), social pressures would rapidly build and force Mexican elites into different forms of class compromise.
Neoliberal globalization, on the contrary, has undermined national class compromises all across the globe. This is a historical fact recognized by all progressive thinkers.
"If immigrants take jobs, then why should not the population in the US have been restricted to, oh, say 20 million? We should have long since run out of jobs by accepting immigrants past the point of a 20 million population by your logic. "
Argumentum ad absurdum. Everything depends on the historical juncture. In times of economic stagnation, recession or depression, an increase in the labor supply will lead to greater unemployment and downward pressure on wages--THAT is my logic, nothing more. I would amicably suggest that you not put words in people's mouths and create obvious "strawman" arguments.
"Each job taken creates jobs" Please explain that sweeping generalization-- and prove it. When an economy is stagnant or contracting and unemployment is increasing, your statement is downright silly.
"Increased population does not decrease jobs, it increases them. Always has, always will."
Again, that is historically false. Overpopulation can and has lead to starvation and death. Everything depends on the economic, social and ecological circumstances.
In any case, I think most people are interested in *quality of life* not the sheer number of jobs. There are a lot of "jobs" in the world's exploding megaslums.
" Using conservative definitions by the United Nations Habitat office, there are today 1 billion people living in slums globally. A slum is defined by substandard housing with insecurity of tenure and the absence of one or more urban services and infrastructure—sewage treatment, plumbing, clean water, electricity, paved roads and so on.
While only 6 percent of the city population of developed countries live in slum conditions, the slum population constitutes a staggering 78.2 percent of the urban population in less-developed countries—fully a third of the global urban population."
(Mike Davis, author of "Planet of Slums").
Seriously, the simplistic notion that "population means more jobs" is profoundly wrong-headed.
How many people do you want to come into the U.S.? How large a population would you like to see here? Would a billion people be too much for you? If so, why?
Do you want open borders and the dropping of all visa requirements and the massive influx of tens or hundreds of millions of people ?
Do you want the U.S. to become a nation of ultra-rich gated communities surrounded by pathology-ridden-mega-slums?
Would the fact that there might thereby be "more jobs" make that a positive development for you?
Pure Logic. Thank You
It is not "Racist" it is factual. And that's what makes you so upset. If the US goes down the tubes, we won't be able to help anyone. I see waiting on line is not your style - push in front of the guy ahead of you. Talk about rights...... the people that live here and pay for all the social services and education have the right to control immigration not the people sneaking in. They came here for jobs. Well! Now there aren't any more jobs.
When my grandparents came here thay waited on line, learned english, went through immigration and at that time there were no "Social Services or Social Security" They paid the doctor for the birth of all my Aunts and Uncles.
"We" are not helping immigrants, they are helping "us."
Very few people are "sneaking in." There are no legal channels available, and all sane and decent people will do whatever it takes when the survival of their family is on the line. All sane and decent people will see that this is what is happening,
Immigration goes up because US firms are outsourcing jobs to the countries the immigrants are fleeing from, and the devastating consequences to villages when US corporations move in.
Capital - which means wealthy people - move freely across borders for the purpose of exploiting labor and resources. That works against the interests of all of us. Labor - which means poor working class people - moves across borders in response to that.
Capital seeks cheap labor. Labor seeks higher wages. As working class people, we should always support workers moving to higher wages and oppose management seeking lower labor costs.
.
"As working class people, we should always support workers moving to higher wages and oppose management seeking lower labor costs."
I totally agree and you are correct when you say the minimum wage should be higher than $12 an hour. Australia has the highest minimum wage in the world. I'll find out how much it is.
If you agree with me that "as working class people, we should always support workers moving to higher wages and oppose management seeking lower labor costs" then we have no disagreement at all. That is my position in its entirety.
Indigenous people from south of the border are "workers moving to higher wages." Bosses moving farming and manufacturing to Latin America and destroying communities and supporting police state dictatorships - which is why people flee and come here - is "management seeking lower labor costs."
Why should we support wealthy bosses moving across borders to exploit people and enrich themselves, and not support poor working class people moving across borders in order to survive?
We have about 30,000,000 undocumented people living here. That is not a few people. If you are for higher wages than you would stand on the corners where day laborers stand and arrest and deport them.
/
It is important that we all hate and that we identify and then blame scapegoats. The growing fascist police state will require a lot of participation from the everyday people, and hatred and scapegoating are the way people will be motivated and recruited.
Hate and blame the impoverished indigenous people, refugees from the South - "illegal aliens!!"
Hate and blame Moslems and Arabic speaking people - "terrorists!!" and "Islamo-fascists!!"
Hate and blame GLBT people - "the gay agenda!!" and "they are destroying marriage!"
Hate and blame the Black people - "drug gangs!" and "welfare mothers!"
Hate and blame Union workers - "thugs!"
Hate and blame the Occupy people - "unsanitary conditions!!" and "they have no demands!!"
Hate and blame homeless people - "mentally ill!" and "drug users!"
Hate and blame Jewish people - "Zionists!"
Hate and blame blue collar workers - "WalMart shoppers!!" and "TV watchers!!"
Hate and blame all of humanity - "over-population!!"
It does not matter so much to the rulers whom you hate and blame - so long as they are from the 99%, and the less power they have the better. But it is essential that you do hate and blame scapegoats. If there is hatred in your heart, that is all the police state asks of you. They will use your hatred to steer you, to control you.
Once you have chosen your scapegoat, then it is time for the most essential form of hatred of any. You must hate and blame women. Hate and resent and blame the hand that rocks the cradle, the ones who change the diaper, prepare the food, nurse the sick and ill, comfort the afflicted. For women are the symbol and the embodiment of cooperative, communal human society. All of the other hatreds are of no use to the police state without the necessary aggression, violence and torture that will be needed to see the coming catastrophe to its conclusion. This means that a perverted and exaggerated masculinity must rule, so that all can become as adolescent boys, fighting for their independence from the apron strings.
BOY! DO YOU HAVE IT WRONG! Some of my best friends are Gay and Jewish and I love the indigenous people and think we have wronged them but will use the same excuse that gate crashers use when threatened with deportation, “I can’t be held responsible for something my parents or grandparents did.
My husband is a Merchant Marine and a STRONG union man. I once helped put a union in a car parts factory where half the workers were Spanish Speaking and lost my job for it. I love OWS movement and was in the biggest sit in against the war in Vietnam, on the Boston Commons (over 500,000, people).
I love TV but do not shop at the Great Wall ...............Mart because my husband’s job depends on American shipping and I do not wish to support SLAVE LABOR.
If you put as much effort into upping the minimum wage to $12 an hour instead of yelling names at me you might actually contribute to a solution.
Now don’t you look silly?!
You must not have read my post very carefully.
I find it interesting that latino folks and others have been coming into the country, in many cases in less than legal ways for a very long time, maybe generations? Then all of a sudden immigration became a hot button issue around the same time the economy really started tanking because of all the jobs that had been off-shored for decades.
It was almost like the immigration issue was being used to divert peoples attention away from some of the real issues effecting the economy. Thankfully this the USA, a propaganda free zone, where our politicians would never lie, or mislead us and we can always unquestionably believe with they say.
Great point. Every time there is a danger that working class people will resent the ruling class and fight back, a scapegoat is offered up to serve as a lightning rod for people's anger and frustration.
"Then all of a sudden immigration became a hot button issue around the same time the economy really started tanking because of all the jobs that had been off-shored for decades."
Actually, immigration has been a "hot button issue" on and off for well over a century. That's not to say that economics hasn't been a crucial factor in anti-immigration sentiments.
Anti-immigrant hysteria has been omnipresent in US politics all along, and has always been about racism and bigotry.
It becomes a "hot button" issue when the ruling class needs it to become a "hot button" issue, and when politicians need it to garner support for their candidacies.
Are you capable of making the important distinction between "anti-immigrant hysteria" and thoughtful policies combining a reduction in immigration and an increase in immigrant rights and protections (including some form of "amnesty" for illegal immigrants")?
Or will you insist viciously demonizing ANY person that thinks there should be a reasonable reduction in immigration at this time, using such labels as "racist", "fascist", "anti-immigrant", "hysterical" etc.?
The anti-immigrant sentiments are most definitely racist, and they are supporting fascist actions by the authorities. I say "anti-immigrant" because all people from south of the border are suspects of being immigrants and because it has nothing to do with the status of people. I am labeling the arguments people are using, and the actions the authorities are taking. That is not the same as labeling the people. Many people make racist arguments without realizing that they are, and there is no way to tell whether or not a person "is" racist. I say "hysteria" because the anti-immigrant sentiments are emotionalized and irrational.
I oppose the anti-immigrant hysteria and the actions the government is taking. I deny that immigration is a problem. I deny that it has anything to do with "legal" or "illegal." It is the government that is acting outside of the law.
No, I do not think "there should be a reasonable reduction in immigration at this time." I think people should be free to move across borders to survive and to save themselves and their families. Rich people move across borders freely, mostly to take. Poor people contribute to society, far more than rich people do, and they should have as much freedom as rich people do.
I do not think that "thoughtful policies " of any kind are possible in this hateful and emotional climate.
I am 100% in support of immigrants from Latin America and poor people from other countries, period, and 100% opposed to those who want to restrict or interfere with them in any way.
" I think people should be free to move across borders ..."
That is exactly what exploitive capitalists want: open borders. This is exactly what the ideologists of predatory neoliberal globalization want: open borders.
Open borders in the U.S. would lead to a truly massive influx of people. The wealth disparity, already acute, would become extreme. The middle class would shrink into even further.
An even more intrusive police state would be required to watch over and control the masses of poor.
Megaslums would appear across the nation will all there attendant pathologies. The U.S. would start looking a lot more like India.
You would have us take down national borders; but NEW borders would immediately spring up: borders within the U.S; borders between a small number of rich communities and the masses of impoverished outside those communities.
Your dream of a borderless world can never become reality. New and worse borders would simply replace the old ones.
Your dream of open borders would lead to a nightmare.
Capitalists want freedom to move across borders, while denying it to working class people. that is why the capitalists have set up borders. The more restricted the movement of working class people are the less power they have. By your logic, why limited ourselves to considering international borders? The same things you claim apply to city and state borders with equal validity, Perhaps you wish to see no working class people being able to move anywhere, or even walk down the streets, without approval from the authorities. Why do you not call for protecting the jobs in Florida from the refugees from Detroit? Did the massive influx of people from the east Coast and the Midwest into the Sun Belt result in fewer jobs in those states? Of course not. It resulted in a vastly greater number of jobs.
Was the number of jobs in California greater when only one million people lived there? Californian had a much smaller population in the 30's, then it did in the 90s. So how come the unemployment rate was lower in the 90s than it was in the 30s? You say that more people coming in means fewer jobs. Clearly that is false.
You say that we can not open borders, because the "lifeboat" here will be swamped, and because "new and worse" borders will be the result. That is fear-mongering completely at odds with reality. We have a "new and worse" border, right here. And you are promoting it.
People coming in to an area are not like mere passive passengers on a limited lifeboat, merely taking up space and being an extra mouth to feed. They are the builders and workers - the working class people build the "lifeboat" and the more people, the bigger the lifeboat that gets built.
You talk about working class people as though they were livestock, or dependent children. Working class people are the source of all wealth, they are not a drain or a liability.
LA anone, put out over $600,000,000 in social and medical services not counting education in 2009 for undocumented aliens. Too many people in the lifeboat will sink it.
"Capitalists want freedom to move across borders, while denying it to working class people. that is why the capitalists have set up borders."
That is simply false, historically and theoretically. "Capitalists" didn't set up U.S. borders, or French borders, or German borders etc....National borders came in existence, in various ways and time periods, but always through the rise of nationalism and usually militarism also. Geopolitical dynamics, nationalism, borders, national sovereignty, empire etc . all pre-date capitalism by centuries. Capitalism is a *transnational* economic system that in many ways conflicts with the system of sovereign national states. This becomes clear as day if you study the effects of corporate globalization, the loss of national sovereignty to the power of global finance, the imposition of "austerity programs" by transnational capitalist forces, and so and so forth. Nationalism, of course, has a very dark side, but it one of the few remaining forces in the world that can be mustered in the fight against predatory corporate globalization.
Today capitalists play a deceptive game--their right-wing political spokespersons use anti-immigrant populist rhetoric to gain popular support, yet do nothing serious to stop the inflow of illegal (and legal H-1 type immigrants)--they never call for severe and strictly enforced sanctions on employers who hire illegals. The last thing they want is a tightening of the labor market!
So you are absolutely wrong to think that capitalists are *in reality* denying illegal immigrants access to U.S. labor markets. Just the opposite--they WANT that cheap labor, and if that labor has no rights, and splits the working class via anti-immigrant populism, so much the better.
"By your logic, why limited ourselves to considering international borders"
Again, you resort to argumentum ad absurdum. The fact is, over centuries a system of national states and international law has come into being. This is reality. It's not easily going to be changed in the near future. I deal with things from a realistic viewpoint. Nationalism is as strong now as it has ever been. That may not be my choice. But it is reality. So the question is not what kind of ideal system you or I can dream up, but which beneficial policies can realistically be pursued in the given historical circumstances.
Your preferred policy of completely open borders is simply not realistic and counterproductive. It creates a divisive atmosphere of fear and confrontation. It weakens support for progressives and progressive causes across the board. It has no change of ever being implemented, and therefore makes improvements to illegal immigrants lives--e.i. a reasonable path to citizenship etc.-- even MORE difficult to achieve politically.
It's a "feel good" position steeped in finger-wagging moralism that only divides and weakens the progressive movement. It's an extreme, uncompromising position so unreasonable that it can only be defended with vicious character attacks and ad absurdum arguments.
Such rigid moralistic dogmatism makes it extremely difficult to find common ground between progressives, liberals, moderates, and independents who would support a reasonable form of "amnesty" for illegal immigrants already here IF combined with reasonable and effective moratorium (with exceptions of course) on immigration until the time when economic and social conditions change to make immigration once again beneficial.
The counter-productive and utterly futile call for wide open borders only encourages the opposite extreme: "no amnesty! mass deportion!" BOTH if these extreme positions are completely unrealistic and will never be implemented. Mass deportion is just as unfeasible and immoral as a policy as open borders.
With the issue thus polarized, elite economic and financial interests get their cake and eat it to: illegal immigrants stay in the country as super-exploitable second-class citizens; others can enter freely, often at great personal risk ; workers are pitted against each other. bigotry, racism and nativism distract the populace from the misdeeds of plundering and war-mongering elites; the domestic "reserve army" of labor only gets bigger, wages are suppressed; unions are debilitated, etc.--and all the while right-wing politicians can claim to be "pro-American" for fighting to "protect the American dream" from the illegal immigrants.
It truly makes no sense for progressives to play right into the hands of the ruling elites by taking an extreme and unrealistic "open borders" position. Nothing good has or will come out of it.
"Working class people are the source of all wealth, they are not a drain or a liability."
1) Marx's "Labor theory of value" is untenable logically and empirically. It has long ago been logically disproved and rejected by all progressives and leftists, except a few die-hard orthodox Marxist ideologues. But that is too great a subject to go into here. Suffice it to say that your binary worldview, with its division of society into "workers" and "capitalists," is far too simplistic and non-empirical to be a useful explanatory framework for complex moderns ocieties.
2) Intellectuals, scientists, philosphers, spiritual explorers, religious thinkers and practitioners, symbolic analysts, entrepeneurs, artists, poets, dreamers, athletes, comedians, mothers, fathers, friends, pioneers of peak experiences --many types of people create "wealth", in the broadest, most humanistic sense of the term, not just "working class people". Of course, if you define all those people to be part of a "working class", then your term becomes so broad is to be useless.
3) Too many workers, and too many people in general, CAN and HAVE become a "drain and liability" to a society's *quality of life*.
You must admit that fact, or your "theory" implies that there is NO upper limit to the desirable number of "workers", or population in general, in a given social context *AND ECOLOGICAL CARRYING CAPACITY*. That would be absurd.
Your theory as stated is thus based on the fallacious, and hyper-simplistic notion that "the more jobs there are, the better": "Workers" by definition "work", that is find or create jobs somehow, therefore you conclude "the more workers, the better". But your premise--"the more jobs the better" is simply false, and therefore so is your conclusion.
There is more to life than just work. There is more to life than just having "a job". Humans are not simply "workers" that are atoms in a "working class". "Man [and Woman] does not live on bread alone." Or a job alone. Humans are spiritual beings with many paths to self- and social -realization tha tsimply cannot be encompassed in such dry and limiting self-identities as " I am a worker", "I am a member of the working class".
For anyone who has a system of values where simply the number of "jobs" is NOT the ultimate criterion of "the good" and one's essence as a human being is NOT simply to be "a worker"., your theory of unlimited population expansion and the unlimited growth in the number of "workers" and "jobs" can only be seen as spiritually bankrupt, dystopian and depressing.
"I do not think that "thoughtful policies " of any kind are possible in this hateful and emotional climate."
Thoughtful policies can certainly be discussed, as I have been doing. But because of rigid ideologues on the right, and on the left (like yourself), positive change is unlikely.
Calling for open borders is completely counterproductive. Such a hideous, non-sensical solution is a non-starter, except for extreme "free market fundamentalists" and misguided pseudo-progressives.
Proposing such a solution alienates the vast majority of Americans and sets back the fight to improve immigrants lives.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"-- certainly true in this case.
Claudia L,
Let me guess! You signed the petition against the Dream Act! You know, I'm from L.A., and guess what, I have been unemployed for 10 years, but, it's not the immigrants fault. Immigrants put up with a lot of crap, remember the van carrying migrant workers on the 60 fwy and the Riverside Sheriff's Deputies was caught on camera beating the migrants? Surely, you must have heard how they are target of robberies when they get paid. Surely, you must have heard how some employers outright rip them off in wages - what about the carwash in the valley?
Now, you said that you and your husband paid so much in taxes...well, let me share something with you, have you seen this "How will San pedro get rid of the undesirables on the island," edition.channel5belize.com 3-19-2010, that's right, this was their home! But, if they want to come to this part of their country (Island) they are asked why did they come and if they have enough money during their time there! Don't know about Belize? Well, this is in Central America (formerly British Honduras) borders Guatemala and Mexico. How about the documentary "Paraiso for Sale," about the indigenous peoples of Panama thrown off their land by wealthy American developers...
You want to blame somebody, blame the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - remember W. said that he corporations needed skilled and unskilled labor - jobs Americans couldn't do and wouldn't do. The U.S Chamber of Commerce had an open letter to congress requesting more visas - check out their website. Bill Gates is on there and other big corporations - I'm sure you have went to Vegas at least once and saw all of the immigrant workers in the hotels while W. was in office, right? Blame Clinton for NAFTA and CAFTA, this has put a lot of farmers and other workers out of business because they couldn't compete with the likes of WalMart - in Mexico I think it is WalMex. Oh, and let's not forget the drug problems that some Americans have that is causing a lot of these problems, some of these countries were little sleepy towns that were peaceful!!!
If you want to rant, go here "California Dream Act? You're Kidding me Right? www.city-data.com 9-4-2011 - I'm sure you will find like-minded individuals as yourself. I think the whole point you're missing, no one wants to pack up and leave everything and everyone they know - it's hard to move to another state or city, let alone another country.
Minnie
I've never been to Vegas. I'm not the one ranting. I just posted facts that you don't like so give me facts.
You Lie! Americans will do any job. That's how this country was built. They just won't do it for slave wages. We used to have standard of living now gate busters are establishing our standards. They had no trouble "picking up and moving" here. It will take as much effort to move back.
"You must have heard how some employers outright rip them off in wages" All workers in America are having their wages ripped off - I don't see you worrying about them. And the American Workers are expected to subsidize the social services and medical of people who are not paying taxes and will never make enough money to support themselves if they do pay taxes. I understand that the rich should be paying their fair share so say they do. Should we air lift all of Haiti to America so we can take care of them too? What if they just march over here?
The single most effective thing we can do is raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour because that's what it takes to support a family of 4.
$12 an hour is woefully insufficient, and demanding an increased minimum wage is dramatically inadequate and myopic as a political program.
Farm workers in Michigan are making $12 an hour, plus housing and medical care, by the way. No one is preventing whites from applying for these jobs, and no employer is turning whites away. As the economy collapses and immigrants are being driven underground thanks to the anti-immigrant hysteria you are promoting, we are now seeing whites doing farm work.
You are the one in hysteria.
Undocumented immigrants get FREE MEDICAL NOW. The only difference is I am paying for mine.
"Whites" Look who's the racist. Do you mean American citizens?????
Again, you are making my case for me.
On the one hand you say "Americans" would do the same work, if it were an attractive deal. Then you turn around and say that "they" have a better deal than you do. Which is it?
"Whites" equals "American citizens" in your mind?
Indigenous people from Latin America have a greater claim to being called "American citizens" then the descendants of Europeans do.
"Farm workers in Michigan are making $12 an hour, plus housing and medical care, by the way. No one is preventing whites from applying for these jobs, and no employer is turning whites away." THIS WAS YOUR STATEMENT NOT MINE. I merely cough you in the midst of your racist rant. You hate "white people". Be proud. Be proud our heritage.
Americans would do the same work at a higher wage if it hadn't been depressed by imported cheap union busting labor.
The indigenous peoples of the US ARE American Citizens. The indigenous people of Latin America are indigenous to Latin America. Are you the official spokesperson for the Indigenous people of Latin America? Why would they want to come here with all their great culture and heritage and obviously they are a more intellectually superior and more civilized people. Why would you want to infect them with our defected ways?
Indigenous people, regardless of which side of any arbitrary border set up by invaders, are under relentless pressure in various forms at all times.
This is another racist and bigoted comment, sneering, paternalistic, sarcastic and demeaning:
"Why would they want to come here with all their great culture and heritage and obviously they are a more intellectually superior and more civilized people. Why would you want to infect them with our defected ways?"
You say I "hate whites", and that "we" should be "proud" of "our" heritage. That is straight out of the white supremacist playbook. "White" is not "heritage" - any more than the Confederate battle flag is the "heritage" of the South - and what makes you assume that I am white?
Which heritage of being white should "we" be "proud of," exactly? Slavery? Genocide against native peoples here?
I never assumed you were "White" (your phrase). You are obviously "brown" (which is the description you have offered) so I say be proud of your heritage. Again the Solutreans were the first race here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean) you browns are 2nd indigenous occupiers. And if you hate US so much why don't you leave?
Like I said, I will use the same excuse border crashers use against deportation, "I can't be responsible for what my grandparents or parents did." If it is good for you "browns" (your racist description), it should be good for the US citizens. The native people of the US are US citizens.
Everything is double posting. Sorry.
I think that you have made an assumption that undocumented workers do not pay taxes. Many people do not realize that undocumented workers do pay taxes. When they are on an actual payroll (most are), even if ss cards have not been checked by an employer, federal and state payroll taxes are withheld, as is FICA. Sales tax is paid when people shop for food and clothing, gas and other taxable things. I would agree that most undocumented workers do not file income taxes. To the feds and state governments potential tax refunds end up being unclaimed tax money for the coffers.
The undocumented workers are here to work, and in most cases send money back to their families. A relevant documentary on this subject is "The Other Side of Immigration". People who come here are not coming for the reasons that the politicians and MSM would have you think.
Yes they are here for JOBS.... which we no longer have, but avail themselves of all the social services and education.
How much do you think is withheld from a paycheck when the W2 says they declare 8 dependents and never file?
Most of them are "Day Labor" and employed as "Contract Labor" especially in the construction business, pay no taxes, no SS, no medicare and the employer doesn't have to pay Workmen's Comp. If the undocumented worker gets hurt on the job, the employer drops them off at the hospital and we get to pay for it in higher premiums.
"We" no longer have jobs? Management, the bosses control jobs. "We" don't "have" them.
If. as you say, "they" pay no taxes, no SS, no medicare and the employer doesn't have to pay Workmen's Comp and the employer drops "them" off at the hospital, then clearly it is the boss that is breaking the law.
Your generalizations, and your hostility are racist, whether nor not you "think" you are being racist.
I am not talking about race - I'm talking about undocumented aliens of ALL COLOR. If our immigration laws were enforced we wouldn't have this problem.
This is not a discussion about racism. Don't hide behind that. it's about "Illegal Aliens"
The "immigration laws are being enforced" with more resources, more manpower, more aggression, and more wanton illegality on the part of the authorities then ever before in history, Yet you call for more police action, and cavalierly dismiss the racism pervading all of this, and the total destruction of the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus by the authorities. You can not, or will not see that what the authorities are using against the immigrants can be, and most likely will be turned against any and all of us.
The phrase "illegal aliens" betrays the racist and inhumane nature of the agenda you are promoting., Acts can be "illegal," human beings cannot. The word "alien" is used against immigrants from south of the border, and not against white. Obviously the meaning of the word "alien" in this context means "not like us" and that means "not white." The word alien is used to de-humanize people, as though they were a separate species. This then leads people to support virtually any sort of inhumane and cruel actions by the authorities, and look the other way and wash their hands of the issue.
The fact of the matter is that whites have long come into the country without documentation - still are. Detroit was back in the 50's full of undocumented people from central Europe, Canada, Ireland and other places. There was no frantic and hateful anti-immigrant movement.
Today, undocumented whites from Poland, the Ukraine and other places are working in light manufacturing and food processing. there are no swat team raids, no unconstitutional arrests, no mass detentions, no relentless suspicion and harassment from law enforcement, and when undocumented white people are confronted by law enforcement, they are often given nothing more than a warning to "update their paperwork." And after all, the "crimes" that all of this insanity are supposedly about are almost always a matter of nothing more serious than lapsed paperwork. The lapsed paperwork is the result of foot-dragging and hostility from ICE officials and bureaucrats, disproportionately directed at people of color.
So you can say that you don't support this being racist, that you yourself are not racist, but that does not change the fact that the hostility toward immigrants from south of the border, and the programs and activities of law enforcement and the federal agencies are most assuredly racist.
What difference does it make whether or not you "are" racist - and all we have to go on there is your say-so - when you support a movement and policies that are racist to their core?
'Alien" First definition:
Not belonging to the same country, land or government. Nothing negative. Just that their allegiance is to another country, land or government. Until they are 'Naturalized" become a citizen of this country - which you have to wait on line to do. Which people cutting in line don't want to do.