Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Immigrants Occupy! Broadening a Movement Culture
The Occupy movements around the country have touched different communities in different ways, resonating with local issues as well as bringing local folks to the front lines of a national struggle for economic justice. For many immigrant communities, everyday struggles with the legal system and the economic crisis encapsulate some of the core issues driving the Occupy ethos. Yet those same issues can be a hindrance to organizing.
As the protests picked up momentum back in October, John Michael Torres, an activist from McAllen, Texas, a low-income largely Latino community, told NPR’s Latino USA:
[L]ittle by little people are starting to understand that this is a big deal… But at the same time you have people who maybe don’t have a TV in their house. Who don’t have the Internet… So in a very poor area of the country, you have that disconnect from what’s going on in the rest of the country. Which is why it’s so important that we’re out there in public spaces, that we’re not relying on the mass media to tell our own stories, but we’re inviting people to come and sit down with us, to participate, to share their own stories as well.
Back at Ground Zero of OWS, Fox News Latino reported:
Occupy groups, who have said they need Hispanics and other immigrants to rally to their cause, have realized that the growing number of arrests could frighten undocumented immigrants – and they’ve taken steps to make sure they aren’t a neglected group.
Mariano Muñoz, who is part of the Spanish assembly for Occupy Wall Street in New York, said it is an issue they are aware of and trying to address.
He said immigration training classes are offered to undocumented who want to join, where legal experts and lawyers address any questions they may have, any issues they could face and how to deal with worst-case-scenario cases. The classes offer police procedure and immigration rights instruction.
“Once they know the issues and are aware of the risks, it is up to the people to make up their mind,” Muñoz said. “Sometimes, the issues and the cause are more important than deportation.”
Teresa Puente recently wrote in In These Times that the convergence between the immigrant rights struggle and Occupy is growing increasingly profound, even as rifts within the movement–across culture, ethnicity and class–grow more apparent:
In New York, protests have attracted individuals who are passionate about immigration reform. Natalia Fajardo, 27, traveled to the city from Burlington, Vt., to spend a Sunday afternoon at Zuccotti Park with her sister, Laura, who came up from Florida. Fajardo works for an organization called Justicia Migrante, a group that advocates for lettuce workers in Vermont.
“The [Occupy] movement was started by mostly middle-class and white people who are impacted by the high cost of education, cuts in public services. These are things that people in the immigrant community have dealt with for a long time,” says Fajardo, a native of Colombia. “We all know these themes impact us equally.”
Tania Unzueta, a leader of the Immigrant Youth Justice League in Chicago, is among the DREAM Act activists protesting immigration policy locally and nationally. She says her family–her father and sister are also activists–and many immigrant youth are not joining the Occupy movement because there is so much work to do in the immigrant rights movement. “All of a sudden people are saying ‘We are part of the 99%,’” Unzueta says. “But we have been saying that for a long time, and nobody has been listening to us.”
But is Occupy speaking to them? New America Media’s round-up of coverage in ethnic community news outlets shows ambivalence, but also growing consciousness, among California’s Asian American community:
Oakland Chinatown Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council president Carl Chan said the shutdown of the Oakland Port has diverted cargo ships to ports in Los Angeles and other cities. That’s forcing many businesses to have to pay for transferring the cargo to the Bay Area. Small business owners belonging to the 99 percent are financially hurt.
Still, some ethnic media say the Occupy movement has captured the imagination of readers, and brought the issues of class, the wealth gap and poverty to the forefront of public debate.
Giao Pham, managing editor of Nguoi Viet based in Westminster, Calif., said his Vietnamese daily continues to track the Occupy movement, because there’s interest in the community.
“People recognize that the movement is getting bigger and they discuss the meaning of the movement,” he said. “The Vietnamese community here in the U.S., we’re new and not rich. People discuss the one percent and the 99 percent, which they belong to.”
The obstacles to organizing stem from social barriers ranging from race to geography, but they also reflect the shortcomings of a movement culture that fails to be as inclusive as it claims. Fortunately this is turning around on the new cultural front that the Occupy protests have generated. Participants are by necessity constantly inventing new modes of communication, dialogue, and creative protest. On December 18, International Migrants Day, Occupy activists will march in the Immigrants Occupy! Rally, led by the Immigrant Workers Justice Working Group of Occupy Wall Street. The poster for the event says it all, and in more than one language.
- Posted in
131 Comments so far
Show AllSure, as if fighting for Wall Street's low-wage policy is what OWS is all about. Has there ever been a more abhorrent attempt at co-option than this?
OWS is mostly "middle-class white people" concerned with "the high cost of education and cuts in public services?" Is that the OWS message? Not at all. But let's make it a race issue shall we, Michelle? Let's try to divide OWS over phony "civil rights" rhetroric.
And, don't miss a chance to conflate illegal migrants and legal citizens in "ethnic communities."
And certainly don't miss a chance to send a message to villagers in Central America that OWS supports amnesty for illegal migrants.
We need to realize that Fox News is just one of Wall Street's mouthpieces. Someday we'll discover that Michelle Chen is on someone's payroll.
Ralph Nader said it best:
"So, its a low-wage policy that's the root of this approach, and a lot of liberals have bought into it because they confuse this strategic policy by the Wall St. Journal types, with civil rights! ...The important thing is that we have to control our borders. Anybody who thinks we should have open borders is an apostle of the Wall St. Journal low-wage policy, in this country, against minorities."
Ralph Nader, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYnQjDlCeXU
Michelle was not saying 'OWS is mostly "middle-class white people" concerned with "the high cost of education and cuts in public services."' She was quoting an article written by someone else.
The main point of her article isn't just about incorporating undocumented workers into the movement (although, there's nothing wrong with that), but about the many different immigrants in this country, most of whom are "legal", who have communities here and who may not feel as if they belong to the white "majority."
Go to any big city in this country and you will find whole communities of people (not necessarily all "immigrants," but I digress) who may not identify with mainstream white "America." I see it here where I live: there's a huge Chinese community, huge Indian (as in East Indian, not Native American) community, huge Middle Eastern community, huge Vietnamese community, huge South and Central American community, etc. A lot of these people are relatively recent immigrants, some are newly minted citizens, some have been citizens for a while, some were born citizens here because their parents or grandparents immigrated here, some are here on work visas (BTW, there are serious issues of exploitation for this group of people, too, because often their employer is their sponsor for their visa*), and some are permanent residents - the vast majority of people in these communities are "legally" here. Yet, they don't all necessarily feel like they are able to fit in with what is perceived to be mainstream "American" culture. In fact, many other European immigrants to this country have felt like that in the past - Italians, Irish, Eastern European, etc. One response to feeling excluded *is* that they form their own ethnic communities here so that they can build up a support network for each other. Sometimes, feeling excluded from mainstream "American" culture is enough for many people in these communities to feel as if they can't be a part of an "American" political movement. It's not necessarily a problem that derives from the movement, itself. It's a problem that has to do with a community's perceptions of acceptance. What the movement can do is to make it more clear that they welcome ethnic diversity.
Anyway, unless a person has indigenous heritage, we're all "immigrants" here in the U.S.
Also, I think you may be misinterpreting Ralph's border control statement, or the sentiment behind it.
* I've seen, first hand, what can happen to people on H1B visas here in the U.S. (these folks are considered non-immigrant temporary workers). Some people, because they feel immense pressure to please their [American] bosses, who sponsor their visas, will accept work schedules that basically allow for no extra time off (i.e. they work every day of the week, long hours - 16 hour days are not abnormal). Often, they also will accept vastly lower pay. Some temporary foreign workers may be accepting funding from a foreign institution and thus not even getting a pay based on minimum wage here or pay that supplements the living stipends that they get from abroad. For instance, I've seen some folks working long hours, every day, only to take home $15,000-$20,000 a-year salaries. Many of them have families to support when they come here for "temporary" work (which can last up to 6 years for H1B visa holders), and it may be difficult for their spouses to find work or get work visas (spouses of workers with H1B visas are not allowed to find official employment... which can sometimes cause the spouses to seek out jobs that pay them under-the-table). Anyway, I don't know all the ins and outs of this, but from what I've observed, there appear to be plenty of ways that employers can find to underpay both immigrant and non-immigrant workers, as well. AND, because they represent a "cheap labor" pool, in some industries, often, employers will seek out temporary foreign workers to hire instead of others who may be protected by law, institutional policy, or union.
OWS is about economic justice for the 99%, which clearly includes rejection of wage slavery. Chen tries to co-opt the OWS movement with a pitch for Wall Street's low-wage/wage-slave strategy. That's the outrage.
Nader understands the issues perfectly and boils them down to a single comprehensive paragraph. Liberals are being Roved into confusing a brutal economic policy with "civil rights" for the slaves. They've made you into an apostle. I'm an abolitionist.
"Liberals are being Roved into confusing a brutal economic policy with "civil rights" for the slaves."
Nicely put. I was so outraged by this article the words wouldn't come.
Why would someone be "so outraged" by this article?
Where is that emotion coming from? Do you really believe that the immigrants are in cahoots with Wall Street?
Capitalism places you in competition with every other worker on the globe. Are you mad at all of those competitors? Or just some of them? Or is it OK if they take your job, just so long as they don't come here?
Maybe the US should bomb every country where work is being outsourced to by US corporations. After all, those workers are all taking away our jobs, aren't they?
"Capitalism places you in competition with every other worker on the globe."
False.
Many jobs have LOCAL not GLOBAL labor markets. American construction workers, mechanics,hairstylists or physical therapists, to take a few examples, do NOT face competition from Chinese construction workers, mechanics , hairstylists or physical therapists. .
If the number of mechanics in China increases, this has no impact on the labor market for mechanics in the U.S.--- unless those Chinese mechanics are allowed to immigrate into the U.S.
Opposing the de facto open-borders favored by economic/financial elites and the "free market" ideologues on their payroll DOES NOT mean opposing or being "mad at" any immigrant. Opposing elite-supported, pro-Wall Street POLICIES has nothing to do necessarily with personal hostility toward immigrants.
It is quite possible, and eminently rational, to be both pro-immigrant (to support reasonable "amnesty" for example) and to be anti-unrestricted immigration.
Surely you can understand that.
"Many jobs have LOCAL not GLOBAL labor markets."
ProgressivePopulist,
Could an argument be made that the unrestricted movement of global capital places all "workers" in competition? Directly or indirectly? People who lose their jobs cannot afford mechanics, hairs stylists, physical therapists, and etc.If capital is directed outside the borders of the nation state, construction workers would have less to construct.
What I am struggling with is that the idea of the contained nation state only exists within the realm of the ordinary "citizen".Corporate entities already operate in a world without borders.
Sorry, I realize I am off topic here. Actually, I am simply thinking out loud. Your ideas regarding the nature of local and global markets caught my interest.
Thomas Gilbert-
Well, you raise some interesting questions that are actually quite complicated and would require moving past simplified statements such as "unrestricted movement of capital" and go into much greater detail about the nature of capital movements. Unfortunately, this is not a forum for long, somewhat technical analyses. Nevertheless:
"If capital is directed outside the borders of the nation state, construction workers would have less to construct."
In reality, capital flows both ways, of course, IN and out of the U.S. All during the 1990's and up to the 2008 financial crash the U.S. experienced an unprecedented INFLOW of capital. Massive foreign lending provided up to 20% or more of total lending in U.S. credit markets. By 2005 it amounted to 25%. This foreign capital allowed the U.S. to grow faster than most ( all?)other developed economies. The U.S. share of the total GDP of the rich OECD countries rose an astonishing 4.2% to 42.7% in 2005.
Foreign lending and U.S. growth funded U.S. investments and acquisitions abroad, expanding the U.S.-controlled share of global production. This reflected, among other things, the revival of the role of the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency. Foreign countries were willing to finance U.S. growth for many reasons, but a key one was the attractiveness of Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS's). Elites in export-base, dollar-recycling countries such as China benefited from policies that depressed local consumption and thus made their economies reliant on external demand for growth. These foreigners chose to recycle their trade surpluses with the U.S. by buying various forms of debt securities rather than increasing domestic wages and domestic consumption.
Massive HOUSING CONSTRUCTION in the U.S. from 1991-2005 was inextricably linked to this INFLOW of foreign capital.
U.S. financial arbitrage involved borrowing short term at low interest rates from foreigners while lending back to them long term at higher interest rates. The financial arbitrage operated through the housing system, with the sale of MBS's, which had a highly stimulatory, Keynseian effect on the economy. MBS's depressed U.S. interest rates and allowed homeowners to cash out their growing home equity, stimulating the economy, creating jobs, etc.
The U.S. was so far ahead of other nations in this process (recycling foreign dollars into the U.S. financial and housing systems and transforming them into increased aggregate demand that increased economic growth) that the growth of the U.S. economy significantly exceeded the growth of other relatively rich nations. This above-average U.S. growth then attracted more foreign capital into the U.S. (just as superior U.S. growth during the Clinton years attracted foreign capital into the U.S stock market).
You can see that these economic dynamics are not linear—they involve multiple FEEDBACK loops. (This, I suppose, is unfortunate for those who can only analyze things in a simple, linear fashion. ) Two feedback loops standout in importance.
First, above average U.S. growth stimulated investment in China and elsewhere creating cheap disinflationary imports. Faster U.S. growth led to higher fiscal revenues and allowed the Federal Reserve to lower interest in 1995, a crucial economic turning point. From 1991 to 2005 disinflationary imports from low-wage, environmentally vulnerable, China (and Hong Kong) rose to 15% of total U.S. imports. Low-cost, profitable production in China led to more U.S. investment there, which in turn further increased cheap imports and disinflation.
Second, superior U.S. growth provided an incentive for foreigners to recycle their surplus dollars back into U.S. bonds and securities, which in turn further stimulated U.S. growth. This dollar-recycling strengthened the dollar, thus encouraging even more dollar-recycling.
Disinflation from cheap imports and dollar- recycling from the export producing countries drove U.S. economic power all through the 1990’s up until 2005 or so when the self-reinforcing growth mechanisms began to turn in reverse, eventually leading to the crash of 2008.
Nevertheless, the growth during the Clinton-Bush years was NOT an illusion. It was real. Real jobs were created. Real wealth was created.
You are fundamentally correct, imo, that unrestricted international capital flows can put workers in different countries in competition with each other, directly and indirectly, but we must be careful to look into the details of these flows, and not oversimplify things.
Likewise, we should avoid blunt, reductionist concepts such as "workers" and the "working class", which obfuscate the many differences in interests and attitudes and social allegiances among different types of "workers". But that is another issue, to complex to get into in this post.
Continuing on the effects of the post-1980's system of debt-financed U.S. growth enabled by a symbiotic relationship with export-oriented dollar-recycling countries:
ProgressivePopulist,
Thank you very much for your reply to my very unorganized "thinking out loud" questions. Perhaps I can present a more formal version when time and topic permit.Your response was extremely informative.
Thank You
Thomas Gilbert-
The main problems though were:
1) It was not sustainable
2) The lion’s share of the benefits of growth went to wealthy elites, and a small professional/managerial class, increasing wealth inequality to staggering proportions
3) Deregulation of the financial sector amplified enormously the bubble-nature of the economic growth and led to outright fraud on a massive scale in many cases.
4) Deregulation of the financial sector, so-called “free-trade policies”, and many other factors that go under the heading of “predatory corporate globalization” led to financial crises across the developing world, which then required bailouts by U.S. taxpayers to protect wealthy investors and keep the neoliberal game going--until finally the crash of 2008 brought the whole game to an end.
5) Deregulation of environmental protections has led to increasing ecological destruction and resource depletion around the world, with deleterious side-effects like rising-food prices and so on.
6) Deregulation and the imperatives of dominant capital have combined to result in unprecedented media consolidation, thus reducing further the already slight hope for an impartial mainstream media to counterbalance the power of mega-corporations and mega-finance and the mega-State they control.
7) The symbiotic relationship between an indebted, hyper-consuming U.S. and exporting, dollar-recycling countries like China has led to massive labor exploitation and environmental destruction in those latter countries.
8) The neoliberal ideology promoted by Clinton and Bush and now Obama have encouraged worldwide attacks on social security systems, notably even in the advanced countries of Europe. There the increasingly undemocratic form of the E.U. polity took shape and began implementing policies to undermine traditional European systems of “coordinated capitalism” and social welfare, while at the same time pursuing policies bound to radically increase income inequality and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of transnational elites.
9) So-called “free trade” policies exemplified by NAFTA, conceived by Republicans then pushed through by Clinton against grassroots opposition, have led NOT to fair competition between individuals and firms in different nations, but competition between disparate social systems that leads inevitably to a downward spiral. When an economic system with worker and environmental protections and reasonable wages goes head to head with an economic system without those protections and extremely low wages, the latter system is bound to win. This results in a classic “race for the bottom”.
10) The promotion of the interests of transnational corporations (TNC’s) above all other interests has led to the U.S. to support of murderous an oppressive dictatorial regimes throughout the world , particularly in critical resource-exporting countries.
11) In other countries, Eastern Europe being the key example, the promotion of TNCs’ interests has led to the precipitous expansion of the EU (and NATO) into Eastern Europe and the Baltic States (where the populations are now paying a very heavy price for it) and to manipulated popular “revolutions” that ended up handing power to national elites willing to be subservient to the interest of TNC’s and the global financial elites. There to ordinary people are paying a very high price and have turned against those phony revolutions (eg. as in the Ukraine).
12) The promotion of the Washington Consensus beginning in the Clinton years led to IMF imposed austerity policies (their neoliberal principles being internalized by national elites in developing countries) which caused massive increases of in the concentration of wealth, and massive suffering by those not participating in the global economy. In countries like India for example the mass of peasants has been squeezed so hard that we have seen an outbreak of mass suicides. In fairness, it should be noted that huge middle classes have been created in China and India, although they are dwarfed by those countries peasant masses.
Globalization does have its winners, and it’s not a black and white moral saga.
The economic growth during the Clinton and Bush years was real, if unsustainable, and many people have benefited from it-- but the "collateral damage" has been enormous.
That is absurdly illogical.
How does supporting immigrant rights help the 1%? It doesn't. How does being exploited disqualify someone for being included in the 99%? It doesn't.
ALL of us are being played one against the other, and ALL of us are subjected to Wall Street's low-wage/wage-slave strategy.
By your logic, we should all be excluded from Occupy.
Two Americas wrote: "How does supporting immigrant rights help the 1%?"
It doesn't. But you distort the previous posters words to create a silly strawman argument, and imply a spurious meaning to the term "immigrants rights".
Immigrants to NOT have * rights* to illegally immigrate into any country they wish. Period.
There is NO BASIS whatsoever in international law or international human rights declarations for the notion that sovereign nations must have "open borders" as you claim they should.
NATURALLY wrote: "OWS is about economic justice for the 99%, which clearly includes rejection of wage slavery."
Absolutely correct. Illegal immigrants constitute a super-exploitable group of workers without normal rights and legal protections; additionally, and especially in times of economic contraction, they swell the ranks of job-seekers, depress wages, make union expansion more difficult, increase the already extreme disparity in wealth/power, divide the working class, and so on.
Why do you think the 1% fight tooth and nail against really effective restrictions on excessive immigration? Why would any progressive want to assist the !% in achieving their goal?
To oppose this Wall-Street promoted super-exploitation and anti-labor strategy is perfectly consistent with, if not essential to, OWS goals.
<...and Chen tries to co-opt the OWS movement with a pitch for Wall Street's low-wage/wage-slave strategy.>
Sad, but true.
OWS principles directly entail support for immigrant rights--the ending of illegal immigration, providing established illegal immigrants with a reasonable path to citizenship (thus eliminating a class of super-exploitable, second-class workers) and instituting a rational system of immigration control with levels determined NOT by the profit goals of the 1%, but by the quality-of-life goals of the 99%.
"Immigrants do NOT have * rights* to illegally immigrate into any country they wish. Period."
Are the children and grandchildren of "illegal" immigrants also "illegal"? Should the United States of America ever been established? Are all white people in North America "illegal"? Are white people in North America the ultimate "illegals"?
"Are the children and grandchildren of "illegal" immigrants also "illegal"? "
In my view, if you read it, there should be NO illegal immigrants, so that issue wouldn't arise. Illegal immigrants already established here should get a path to citizenship; future illegal immigration should be curtailed as much as possible. In any case, anyone born in the U.S. should be a U.S. citizen, afaic.
"Should the United States of America ever been established?"
No, it should not have from the perspective of Native Americans . The destruction of indigenous American cultures is a tragedy. But so is most of world history. Not every wrong can be righted completely. Certainly, the U.S. government could do a lot more to redress the wrongs committed against Native Americans.
"Are all white people in North America "illegal"?"
Most of the U.S. population are citizens. But many original colonialists WERE "illegal" from the perspective of Native Americans.
"Are white people in North America the ultimate "illegals"?"
Many colonialists and adventurers were at one time. They expropriated land that was not theirs and engaged in brutal genocide. Those wrongs and others, unfortunately, cannot be fully redressed at this point.
The people who live in America now as citizens are hardly all descendants of the original colonialists; nor do I believe in collective guilt passed on generation after generation, Old Testament-style.
We have to deal with the world as it is to some extent. I'm looking for practical solutions to a real problem, not engaging in hypothetical moral exercises.
Certainly, though, the wrongs committed against indigenous Americans cannot be redressed by siding with the 1% and supporting a policy of cheap labor and the creation of an illegal subclass of super-exploitable workers.
How could supporting such a neoliberal policy, the policy of capitalist profits above all, in any way correct the past evils involved in the creation of the U.S.?
Two wrongs do not make a right.
I have to agree with WonderWoman, Two Americas, Constitution. The way I read the article, Mrs. Chen was quoting someone else. As a black female, I was one of the first to experience unemployment - I have been unemployed for 10 years. Good thing my hubby still have a job, but, it's been tough. But, again, as a black female, I'm used to knowing how to deal with this, meaning I don't trip. Things happen, and you learn how to deal with it emotionally because in this society, there was only so far that blacks on a whole could go anyway! That goes from lower wages, worse educational opportunities, worse school environment (yes, I live in Los Angeles, and yes, we have had drive-by shootings at schools/homes/streets, school fights to the point there was always one way into the school and one way out - if lucky, we got two ways into the school.) Worse food - meaning, there are more fast food restaurants, small (as people call them hole-in-the-wall) food places, liquor stores than grocery stores...And yes, I am a liberal, former conservative that was pushed on me by my family.
One thing is for sure, I at times, feel that I am not fully accepted in this movement due to my racial makeup. It was reported once that some of the black participants at Occupy L.A. (downtown) wasn't wanted there because they wanted to keep it peaceful. But, make no mistake in the matter, you may not feel that the workers quoted in Mrs. Chen article do not really belong - well, for sure, all you have to do is look at the first MayDay rally - or, what some called Day Without An Immigrant, these groups turned out some of the largest group of people since the Million Man March in D.C.
Sure! A lot of us would like control on the border, however, the immigrants from all over the world is here and it is unfair to punish immigrants from Latin America and Mexico, like they did with Haitian immigrants and not punish all. As far as I'm concerned, they are here, and they should be treated like humans and if they are citizens. Imagine, if people continue to mistreat immigrants from certain countries, then why should Americans expect special treatment should they happen to go to the immigrant's country of origin.
"Sure! A lot of us would like control on the border..."
Yes, that is a perfectly rational, moral, and politically essential goal, as Ralph Nader eloquently argued:
"The important thing is that we have to control our borders. Anybody who thinks we should have open borders is an apostle of the Wall St. Journal low-wage policy, in this country, against minorities."
Progressives, liberals, leftists, independents, moderates, OWS folks-- everyone opposed to plutocracy and the rule of the 1% should support policies to effectively put an end to illegal immigration to the extent possible. This can't be done with border enforcement alone-- severe, strictly enforced sanctions on employers hiring new illegal immigrants is the only truly effective method.
".... however, the immigrants from all over the world is here and it is unfair to punish immigrants from Latin America and Mexico, like they did with Haitian immigrants and not punish all. As far as I'm concerned, they are here, and they should be treated like humans and if they are citizens."
Once again, absolutely correct. Illegal immigrants already established in this country need a path to citizenship so they can have full legal rights and cease to be a class of super-exploitable, oppressed workers.
Restriction on excessive immigration and support for immigrant rights go hand in hand. Adopting one policy without the other fails on practical, political and moral grounds.
skinnyminny said "if they are citizens." I agree.
I have to disagree with your statement that "Illegal immigrants already established in this country need a path to citizenship..." The problem with granting any type of amnesty to "already established" illegal aliens is that it encourages still more to migrate here illegally.
In 1986 we granted amnesty to 3 million illegals, and in the years since an additional 12-20 million have entered the U.S. Of course, if we grant a new round of amnesty many millions more will come, certain that they too will be made U.S. citizens. It would mean an even greater economic disaster than the one we are now enduring.
In my view, government should provide illegals with emergency medical care and nothing else. Private charities are free to do whatever they choose. Illegal employers should be forced to pay severe fines and end their illegal hiring practices. No jobs means that millions will leave on their own, just as millions have already left because of the great recession.
Naturally:" I have to disagree with your statement that "Illegal immigrants already established in this country need a path to citizenship..." The problem with granting any type of amnesty to "already established" illegal aliens is that it encourages still more to migrate here illegally. "
That's why BOTH parts of the policy I proposed are essential-- one without the other is doomed to fail, as I said.
If you recall, I advocated " policies to effectively put an end to illegal immigration to the extent possible. This can't be done with border enforcement alone-- severe, strictly enforced sanctions on employers hiring new illegal immigrants is the only truly effective method."
A policy of severe, strictly enforced sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants , along with a massive increase in border enforcement, has NEVER been implemented. If it had been in 1986, you would not have seen most of the "12-20 million" illegal immigrants that followed the earlier amnesty. If employers couldn't get away with hiring illegal immigrants, most all would not come. In countries that HAVE severe, strictly enforced employer sanctions, there is little problem with illegal immigration.
The problem with NOT granting a path to citizenship (with reasonable requirements and provisos) is twofold: 1) It would be impossible in practice and morally reprehensible to deport the current mass of immigrants. 2) If they are not deported, yet have no path to citizenship, they remain a subclass of residents without full legal rights and subject to super-exploitation, which is socially undesirable and morally reprehensible also.
Finally, a comprehensive policy including a path to citizenship, severe, strictly enforced employer sanctions, substantially increased border enforcement, and the creation a rational system to determine the amount and type of immigrant flows that best serve society in a given historical juncture--such a policy is the only one that could possibly overcome the political divisions on this issue. It's a long shot no doubt, but if any real reform has a chance, it must involve compromises on both sides.
Anti-immigration folks would have to accept a path to citizenship for established illegal immigrants who wish to pursue that, but in return the problem of illegal immigration would be ended once and for all.
Pro-immigrant folks would have to give up their misguided desire for open borders, but in return they would see illegal immigrants becoming legal citizens with full legal rights and protections.
I have three points of disagreement. I'm surprised you don't know that the 1986 law (which is still the law of the land) provided for the strict sanctions on illegal employers you advocate. That's CURRENT law. We don't have to "overcome political divisions" to achieve it. It's already on the books.
The problem with the 1986 law is that amnesty is initiated by individuals, and government responds. That process worked well for 3 million illegals. But, fines and prosecutions of illegal employers have to be initiated by government, and administration after administration has bowed to political pressure to mostly ignore the law in regard to employers.
Whats more, informed observers claim the real impetus behind calls for another "comprehensive immigration reform" law (and the goal of any such law) is to remove the 1986 employer sanctions and make the multi-billion dollar axe that is hanging over their heads disappear.
Second point of disagreement. Even IF employer sanctions were to be strictly enforced, the impact of a simultaneous amnesty for more than 12 million illegals would be to increase, not decrease, illegal migration.
12 million illegals suddenly achieving legal rights to employment in the U.S. would mean their employers are no longer illegal. The message that would go out from those millions to their home villages: We're no longer illegal, and our employers are no longer concerned with immigration raids. That would be a sensation in poor countries around the world and trigger one of the largest migrations in history.
As to illegal employers, the sanctions combined with millions of newly legal workers (which you advocate) would send a mixed message at best. We'd be saying the illegal acts you've committed are now legal, but don't do it anymore. That too is absurd. The employers' response is obvious: There's no problem! We just need more slaves. Please amnesty/normalize the ones who have come since the last round of amnesties.
Third point of disagreement. I'm really surprised you repeat the absurd rhetoric that it's "impossible to deport" millions of migrants. Talk about a straw man argument! The fact is, a one-time high of 20 million illegals is now down to closer to 12 million. Did the U.S. deport 8 million? Certainly not! A tiny fraction were deported. The others left on their own, due to the economic downturn and lack of jobs in the U.S. Clearly, there is no need to deport anyone. That's a canard and you should be embarrassed you said it.
The solution is to strictly enforce the current law against illegal employers and grant no further amnesty (or normalization of any kind). Stop giving food, housing and non-emergency health care to illegals. They came for the money, and they will go home when there is no more money for them. That's not theory, it's already happening.
Hundreds of thousands were rounded up, that the government will admit to. A tiny fraction were deported because a tiny fraction were found to be guilty of anything.
Yes, people are leaving because the jobs are disappearing here, and because of the intense hostility, the round ups and detentions.
So, if immigrants take jobs, and 8 million have gone, where are all of the jobs?
''12 million illegals suddenly achieving legal rights to employment in the U.S. would mean their employers are no longer illegal. he message that would go out from those millions to their home villages: We're no longer illegal, and our employers are no longer concerned with immigration raids. "
That does not make any sense. If there were NEW strictly enforced employer sanctions against hiring illegals (much stricter paperwork requirements, near-draconian penalties, audits, on-site inspections etc.) then those employers would not risk hiring illegals in the future. That's the way it works in a lot of countries, and it works very well. So even if some immigrants came illegally (after the new law) they would not get hired. They would return home, and word would get out--things in the U.S. have changed radically.
"The solution is to strictly enforce the current law against illegal employers"
I don't believe the current law is written in a way that it CAN and MUST be strictly enforced, nor are the penalties high enough.
"Stop giving food, housing and non-emergency health care to illegals. They came for the money, and they will go home when there is no more money for them. That's not theory, it's already happening."
I think the U.S. can be generous and compassionate enough not to embark on policy to inflict such pain and punishment on people who have already been greatly exploited by the 1%. They were in effect invited here to work and given the message that the laws were not being enforced against hiring them. A law that goes unenforced loses it moral standing and legal actionability.
Your argument is incoherent. On the one hand you say a path to citizenship (with reasonable restrictions) would cause a new flood of immigrants to illegally enter the country; on the other hand, you say illegal immigrants are now leaving en masse due to the economic downturn. Those two assertions are contradictory.
Many are staying still. There lives are too deeply rooted here. But even if everyone left, the problem would not be solved! If and when the economy improves they will be hired back.
They are a pool of workers effectively STILL in the U.S. labor market, even if they are back in Mexico or elsewhere, since they can return to the U.S. at some later point. Thus even when not working-- even as a "reserve army" of workers-- their future availbility still functions to drive down wages , increase profits, redistribute wealth upwards, and so on
*Effective* employer sanctions, border control, and a rationalized system of visa issuance as I called for is STILL necessary.
A path to citizenship is desirable (IF combined with the effective end to future illegal immigration) because those illegals immigrants established here broke *no actionable law*, since those laws were not reasonably enforced, and they have worked hard and suffered.
If they remain as a super-exploitable sub-class this only divides the working class, impedes unionization, puts downward pressure on wages, creates animosity toward all government services, gives right-wing populists potent talking points, and so on.
Your claims are ridiculous. The 1986 employer sanctions are not imaginary, they are not optional and they are not impossible to enforce.
In fact, the 1986 bill was a compromise that granted amnesty for 1 million (which turned into 3 million) in exchange for strict sanctions of illegal employers (to "turn off the jobs magnet") and greatly enhanced border security, which together would STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION once and for all. The intent of the bill was clear! Furthermore, without those provisions it could not have been passed or signed into law.
You are either totally unfamiliar with the 1986 law or you are willfully misrepresenting it.
Of course, as history shows, the result of the 1986 amnesty was that an additional 20 million illegals migrated to the United States over the next 20-25 years. The estimated 1 million who were here in 1986 turned into 3 million (when family members still in their home countries were also given cut-in-line amnesty), and then the 3 million turned into 23 million. And that's in spite of those harsh new employer sanctions and enhanced border security.
It's obvious that a new round of amnesty would have the same result. People in villages and regions where the newly amnestied individuals came from would hear: your brother is now legal, he no longer fears deportation, you should go to the U.S. and you too will be made legal some day.
And of course people like you would then make the argument that these new migrants were
"in effect invited here to work and given the message that the laws were not being enforced against hiring them."
And that argument would be correct. Amnesty for those who have broken the law is indeed an invitation for others to do the same!
In sum, all of your arguments are propaganda in support of Wall Street's low-wage policy.
"The 1986 employer sanctions are not imaginary, they are not optional and they are not impossible to enforce. "
"Not impossible to enforce" is quite different from MANDATORY, BINDING enforcement.
If your argument is that employer sanction laws will NEVER be enforced, then it is YOU that are making arguments for Wall Streets low-wage policy.
Without BINDING, MANDATORY enforcement of employer sanctions, the borders will always be de facto "open", and immigrant flows will follow Wall Streets beloved "free market" law of "supply and demand".
You must be truly stupid. There is nothing non-mandatory or nonbinding about the 1986 employer sanctions. And there is no way to write a new law that is any more mandatory or binding than the 1986 law, short of amending the Constitution. Otherwise, the president has the power to enforce or not enforce federal laws.
Obama, like Bush, is a Wall Street, free-market whore who advocates lower wages! He says they will make the U.S. "more competitive." None of the Republican candidates are any different.
Give any of these Wall Street whores amnesty/path-to-citizenship/guest-worker/red-card or any such legal status for their wage slaves, along with "mandatory" employer sanctions, and the result will be 12 million new slaves and low priority and no budgets for sanctions. Suckered again! Just like 1986.
And the news of the amnesty would trigger an explosion of new migrants dying in the desert, overwhelming state and local budgets, straining charities, taking still more jobs from impoverished U.S. citizens and lowering wages yet again across the board. And the next time the slavers need another fix someone like you will be calling for another round of normalization with "absolutely mandatory" employer sanctions, saying "this time we REALLY mean it." How completely juvenile!
ProgressivePopulist,
I respect Ralph Nader as a consumer activist, but, that may be as far as I'd go. Here's why, Ralph Nader is of Lebanese descent, and I think he should understand what is happening in Mexico more than me. This is why I say this, the richest man in the world Carlos Slim lives in Mexico, the (I think this is the spelling) Raouf family is from Mexico...these are people of Lebanese descent, both of these families control the media, textiles...pretty much everything, and the natives of that country don't have the near the money they have - apparently they have immigrated to Mexico. Then like former President V. Fox, (haven't check, but, it may be the case with this guy too) Calderon - most of these people are not people that look like the natives and probably not true full blood Mexican. I say this because I've notice in Latin America, most of the people installed are from Spain or some other country, just like in Belize (formerly British Honduras) their former Prime Minister is Musa, of Palestinian descent. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with people that have been in that country for a while - but, I think it's a problem when Latin America continues to be plagued by civil conflicts and people cannot reap the benefits of their country, or prevented from getting the top positions and have to struggle. I say this literally, because just like what is happening in I think it's what, Bahrain or Saudi - the people want their leaders to be like them - meaning the Shia wants a Shia leader, and the Sunni wants a Sunni leader.
And you've mentioned the 1%, well, that is one of the reason I will not vote for Willard. Something he is not talking about, as far as the 1%, when his father George W. Romney was governor of Detroit, there was a riot in which 43 people died. It was called the 1967 Detroit Riot, blacks were rioting over housing, no jobs and harassment, and he called in the National Guard, I think it was about 8000 troops. But maybe he did this because the riots had already did damage in Newark, New Jersey. There is a documentary about this called, "Murder City - Detroit Riots." Yes, I am using this against him, especially when he seeks and says he identifies with the Tea Party - they are the ones screaming about less government/unions/cuts to 'entitlements'... and the Mormon church, as I've written before, I believe that they do not care for blacks that much, especially with the practice that is alive and well today as frowning on and discouraging interracial marriages...Not only that, he is not talking about the family he has in Mexico - which is probably why the big support for him with other conservatives, this will probably help with immigration becoming even more due to people being forced from their homes and land to come here. Again, not everyone wants to leave everything they know behind to come here. And when they do, I think it should be because they want to come here, not because that have no choice. Either way, since Mexico and Central America is our closet neighbors, I'd rather they be here before people that travel around the globe - because it makes no sense that we are in Asia, ME, Africa when people have needs that are closer to us - and this is how you can stop immigration - because for one, I'd think they rather be home, they have the beautiful water, fresh seafood, better tasting fruit like their bananas, housing is much cheaper, good weather, they don't have to worry about trying to assimilate in a country that is edgy like ours - one minute we like you, the next we don't...
Skinnyminny, Ralph Nader has plenty of concerns about Mexico. Don't get fooled by the racists selectively quoting him in an attempt to justify the rightwing "solution" of "border walls only". Here is his full take on the immigration issue:
http://www.votenader.org/issues/immigration/
ProgressivePopulist, I know that you understand fully well and I agree with your post where you mentioned about the need to go beyond the walls to solve this mess. Frankly, however, this nation could benefit from the immigrants as they are family oriented at heart and would help us better stand up to and defeat the POLICE state that has plagued this nation for years if not decades.
Thank you for your insightful comment, skinnyminny. I think the Occupy movement could do more to make everyone feel more included, especially those of us who don't identify with the "average white American." And, I don't mean that as anything more than constructive criticism for the movement.
Okay, here is where I disagree with your last paragraph. It amazes me how people always blame 'liberals,' when the fact of the matter is, it has been mostly conservatives/republicans busted in regards to 'low-wage/wage slave strategy.' Remember Nicky, Meg Whitman's housekeeper. Former Governor of Califas, Arnold Schwarzenegger that actually put his hands in the cookie jar (reminds me of those days that slavery were in force actually, white men got minority women pregnant, LOL!) and we just found out earlier this year the child he produced was 13 years old. Remember Bernie Kerik that had to step out of an election do to undocumented workers. Willard Romney admitted to undocumented gardeners, but, rumor has it, he still or maybe had undocumented housekeepers. Oh, and let's not forget the infamous Lou Dobbs on television every night talking about 'illegal aliens' (really! Come on now, aliens!) but had them as his keeping up his horses...
You say you're an abolitionist. Really! Well, don't you see what's happening here in this entire scenario. Most of the so-called low-wage/wage-slave strategy is happening here as has been done in the immigrants country. This is, put the farmers out of business by competition from big corporations like Monsanto, or force them off their lands. Put the small mom-pop type stores out of business by bringing in the big stores like Wal-Mart. And a host of other ways to starve the population, make them homeless /jobless til they have no choice but to submit to the rich - this is what is happening to American families as we speak - next step would probably be to make us part of the human-global-migrant worker system. For example, Newton L. McPherson aka Newt Gingrich (pronounced as Ging Rick) talked of hiring kids to clean bathrooms. Can you imagine a kid having to clean up other people's poop/vomit/blood/urine...! BTW, another union-busting strategy, or is it that he really wanted to say have them in those Gold/Silver mines that are allegedly controled by Barrick Gold, Bush family and the Mormon church in Utah?
The point I made about liberals is that they are supporting Wall Street's low-wage/wage-slave system because of a misplaced concern about the "civil rights" of the slaves. (Conservatives, by comparison, don't care about anyone's civil rights.)
But, as Nader says, these liberal apostles of Wall Street's low-wage policy are "confused." To support the "civil rights" of slaves is to support slavery itself.
As a black woman, you should know that ethnic and racial minorities are over-represented in the ranks of the poor, unemployed, underemployed and homeless. And more and more middle-class people are falling into poverty.
In the past 25 years, 20 million foreigners have been illegally recruited to come here and take the jobs of construction workers, meatpacking workers, janitors, restaurant and hotel workers and many others. Many of these jobs used to pay good wages and benefits. Many were union jobs. Many were held by black Americans. Now, because of this influx of migrants, unions have been busted, good wages have become slave wages, and benefits are no longer paid.
This is all deliberate. It is a part of what Nader calls Wall Street's low-wage policy. And it is supported by so-called "civil rights" advocates like Michelle Chen who want open-borders and unlimited recruitment of migrant workers from foreign countries.
By the way, did you know that Reverend Ralph Abernathy used to join with Latino-American labor leader Cesar Chavez in marches protesting the hiring of migrant farm workers from Mexico? They knew, way back then, that American farm workers could never have decent wages and dignity as long as there was an unlimited supply of Mexicans who would work for slave wages in cash and then return to Mexico where the cost of living is one eighth what it is here. That's a lesson we need to remember.
Naturally,
Yes, I am a black woman. I am black-native American-white, which makes me, technically multiracial. But, because in this country I am labeled black (or the term some prefer to use African-American) due to the one-drop rule. I don't refer to myself as African American - someone who could say they are African-American is someone like Charlise Theron...this is the problem with this country, everybody is labeled. Race and ethnicity is used for everything, school registration, home loans, jobs, doctor...
And to say the minorities are 'over-represented,' is a fallacious statement. If that was true, then we'd all be on a level playing field, and surely, we wouldn't have race-based policies. In addition, I don't think Mr. Obama would have to continue going to Congress every 2-3 months to be issued money for spending. He is the only president in this country's history to be given money for budget/spending in piece meal - It is one piece of paper that have been used for every president, and all they do is change the numbers (dollar amount) on it. If minorities are 'over-represented,' people wouldn't have been saying, "oh, were not racist, we have our first black president..." Which is an excuse to deny the whole truth, especially on those spreading the lies that a 'presidential veto,' can solve everything - well, with 2/3 majority votes from Senate and Congress they can 'Override a Presidential Veto!'
What scares me most about reading some (not all) of the comments here, is people sound like they are on the verge of trying some of the Tunisa/Egypt style disobedience to demand the president have only one term - and possibly thinking that they will get what they want. I think if this happens, the military will take over and no one, and I mean no one will get the president they want - because if the military takes over, other country's (such as the G-8) as well as the UN will make the decision who will take over, no OWS, GOP or anyone else, but outsiders. And this is something I will never be a part of. As far as Cesar Chavez, okay, but, where is the credit for the Filipino migrant workers - again, people seem to always leave out the Filipino migrant workers when talking about the farms workers who deserve credit for this!
Don't get me wrong, I do understand your passion towards open-borders...but, my personal feelings on the matter is you are being a little selfish. Here's why I say that, I've notice that some people are for war, but not immigration - yet, they never take into consideration that war creates refugees. Me, I try to look at both sides of the coin - for example, if we weren't in other countries displacing their citizens, or promising them the sun and the moon through false deceptions, they may not want to come here. I don't think everyone wants to pack up and be uprooted from their family, friends and country especially when they know this country has a very strong and vocal history of racism.
Clearly you care nothing for the poor, unemployed, underemployed, homeless and others of our fellow citizens who are struggling to survive, right now in the United States.
LOL! I mean, I literally did laugh out loud at this comment! I mean I was ROTFL! Apparently, you haven't paid attention to my comments. Either that, or it's just a right-wing talking point/tactic for you, turn the conversation around and blame the opponent. Again, I was one of the first to lose my job. In case you haven't noticed, blacks rank highest in the unemployment statistics - and this is a reality! I am a citizen, natural born, in fact, my family has probably been here longer than yours.
I do care about our citizens, but, again, since my family and friends have always suffered the brunt of the policies in this country, we deal with it to the best of ability and move on. Can't miss what you've never really had. Meaning, since I come from poor, it was not hard to deal with going back. I would think in your case, it would be harder to go to something you've never had. That's right, I've come from a background when there is no milk/formula for a baby - they used to give them 'sugar water,' meaning water with sugar. I come from a background, that if you run of sugar or eggs, you hope the neighbors have it so that you can borrow a cup of sugar until payday, or a couple of eggs.
Now, lest you've forgotten, even former Pres. Bush told migrants that if they wanted immediate citizenship - join the military (during the Iraq war) and they can become a citizen, thereby, pushing other immigrants further back on the waiting list. BTW, try looking at the city of Bakersfield, Califas (Kern County) and you will see a lot of homeless vets sleeping under the freeway. There are homeless vets everyway, actually. It is Pres. Obama telling businesses if they hire vets, they can get tax credits. And please stop trying to put a guilt trip on me! Wasn't it Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney, these wealthy people use the excuse, "I know how to create jobs," as a political campaign talking point, yet, they were really looking for a job. Whitman lost the bid for Governor in Califas and now works at (I think) Hewlett Packard. Romney, is looking to be president - the question to him should be, "if you know how to create jobs, why aren't you creating them now, especially that we need them now? Why do people have to wait until you become president to believe you will create jobs - or is this a condition of employment, we give you the job and you'll create jobs?" How 'bout this, the rich, why aren't they doing what the late 'Father Dollar Bill,' did? This was a rich man that went to 'skidrow,' area of Downtown Los Angeles every holiday, mainly Christmas, and gave people money. Depending on the circumstances, such as people visibly disabled/families...he would give them a $100 dollar bill - so, it was increments of $1.00-$100 - he was rich and this was the way he gave away his fortune. Why aren't the rich buying groceries, paying utilities, rent...for the poor, in addition to groceries, what about babies that need formula?
I didn't read this post and I will no longer read anything posted by skinnyminny. This poster is nonrational and a purveyor of disinformation. I don't believe skinnyminny is even who, what or where he/she claims to be.
What disinformation?
And please, use quotes, not some vague accusations.
Read the skinnyminny posts for yourself.
Here's just one example: "to say the minorities are 'over-represented,' [in the ranks of the poor, unemployed, underemployed and homeless] is a fallacious statement."
I did a ctrl-f on "over-represented" to find the original. In context it looks as if she misread what you were saying and took it to mean over-represented politically, not over-represented in the ranks of the poor etc. She seems to be replying to the common racist meme of special treatment/representation for minorities rather than what you actually said.
"She seems to be replying to the common racist meme..."
That's right. "Seems to be" is the operative phrase. Rhetorical misdirection is a classic rhetorical tool taught to lawyers, PR hacks and political speech writers. It is SOP for purveyors of disinformation. If you are truly interested — and I don't know why you would be — you can find the tactic repeated throughout the skinnyminny posts.
"Michelle was not saying 'OWS is mostly "middle-class white people" concerned with "the high cost of education and cuts in public services."' She was quoting an article written by someone else."
True, she was quoting someone else. But she did not object to any part of the statement, and certainly seems to be endorsing the statement and including it to buttress her point that OWS is a" movement culture that fails to be as inclusive as it claims".
"Anyway, unless a person has indigenous heritage, we're all "immigrants" here in the U.S."
Even "Native Americans" immigrated into the continent at some point.
Otherwise I agree with most your of points, especially you insightful comments on the exploitation of H-1B immigrant workers and pools of "cheap labor"
Perhaps Michelle didn't think it was necessary to object to the statements she quoted in order to convey the point of her article. Sometimes, articles have word limits imposed on them. Anyway, she's entitled to quote other articles without having to make judgments about them that lie outside of the point she's making.
Native Americans *migrated* to the Americas at some point. They didn't displace another group of humans. When the British, Dutch, French, Portuguese, and Spanish settlers (did I forget anyone?) arrived and claimed large swaths of the Americas, they certainly didn't inquire whether they were allowed to do so under Native laws, now did they?
There are also serious issues of exploitation for J-1 visa holders. See this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/americas-sweatshop-diplomacy.html
Lettuce workers in Vermont? It is a hilarious mistake, evidently made by the journalist Teresa Puente, since Natalia knows quite well that most immigrants without documents here in Vermont work on dairy farms (though there are some who do other work.) Lettuce is not a crop we export from Vermont, given our northern climate. We do have people growing it for local consumption, but they are small scale farmers, and while a few might hire immigrants--and I don't know of any--it would only be a few
Regarding the previous comment: Capital is free to migrate across borders without restrictions, this is a basic tenet of neoliberalism. But people become "illegal" when they do what money can do. There is something wrong with this picture. The idea that some immigrants are "illegal" simply means that they can be super-exploited. Ralph Nader is worried about "controlling our borders," but maybe that just shows how much of the Wall Street world view Ralph Nader has unconsciously internalized. How about abolishing borders completely and giving humans the freedom tha only money now enjoys?
In one of his columns, George Orwell noted that prior to the 20th century people could go anywhere they wished. No passports or visas were needed. Borders were open. And, he said that in the 18th century it was posible for someone to visit a country at which his own country was at war.
A lot happened about 100 years ago. When too many entered the U.S., Ellis Island was set up to check them out and reject those the descendents of northern Europeans (the 1% of the time) felt were "undesireable" (the 99% of the time).
"In one of his columns, George Orwell noted that prior to the 20th century people could go anywhere they wished."
That is simply false historically.
Noted historian Jacques Barzun made the same observation in his widely respected volume on the history of the Western Civilization.
To take one of hundreds of examples:
Do you think anyone could just enter Japan before the twentieth century?
If you say, "yes", you need to read a little more history.
If you wisely answer "no", then the notion that "prior to the 20th century people could go anywhere they wished.... Borders were open" is definitively refuted.
But just in case you are not convinced.....
Do you recall a widespread and centuries old institution called serfdom? Do you think serfs could go anywhere they wished?
I would have supported serfs escaping and crossing borders for better opportunities, if that is what you mean. That is essentially the situation in Latin America from which indigenous people are fleeing.
I happen to be reading right now on the history of the Crusades. Poor peasants, multitudes of poor peasants, moved all over Europe. There were many problems and obstacles, but "illegal immigration" was not one of them. As I said, Barzun discusses the open borders prior to WWII, with people traveling all over Europe without border guards and paperwork demands.
Japan is a poor example since it is an extreme case of isolationism and xenophobia.
But now to address your "serfs couldn't move" argument - just because people are serfs and can't easily move is no excuse for calling for further restrictions on their movements.
In this country slaves could not move from the southern states to the northern states without risking their lives. Would that have been a reason, in your mind, for the northern states to erect a wall and prevent runaway slaves from entering? Would that have been reason for deporting them back to the South if they did get into the North?
People did make those arguments - the exact same arguments you are making - in the 1840s and the 1850s. They said that the escaped slaves were taking jobs away and were depressing wages. They said that they were "illegals."
"But now to address your "serfs couldn't move" argument - just because people are serfs and can't easily move is no excuse for calling for further restrictions on their movements"
To follow you analogy, I'm calling for the end of 'serfdom' period. I'm for a nation's workers and professionals et al. to have full citizenship, and full legal and human rights.
This is in accord with all international human rights declarations and progressive principles.
Open borders, which neoliberals, capitalist elites and YOU call for, would only further the dominance of transnational capital an the enrichment of the 1%. Why you take that position is beyond me.
National sovereignty, enshrined in international law, is here to stay, whether you like it or not, and national sovereignty involves the right to make decisions about immigration levels.
Your call for open borders and end to national sovereignty is a dream that it came true would end in a nightmare-- not a global "workers state" but a dystopia of transnational capitalist rule.
"The idea that some immigrants are "illegal" simply means that they can be super-exploited."
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
In 1986 Congress passed and Reagan signed a comprehensive immigration reform law which granted amnesty (citizenship) to 3 million illegals. The rationale for the law was what you offered above.
It didn't work. Wages for farm workers did not go up, they went down.
Since 1986 an additional 12 to 20 million illegals have rushed across the border. Unions have been broken. Wages for construction workers, meatpacking workers, janitors, restaurant and hotel workers and many others have fallen precipitously. Wages, benefits and working conditions across the board have been deteriorating ever since.
The villains are not the itinerant wage-slaves and low-wage replacement workers. The villains are their illegal corporate employers and Wall Street owners. OWS is the ultimate response to Wall Street exploitation.
Nader is correct (of course) that the confused liberal apostles of Wall Street's low-wage policy are working against the interests of the poor, and that includes poor ethnic minorities.
peterlackowski: "Ralph Nader is worried about "controlling our borders," but maybe that just shows how much of the Wall Street world view Ralph Nader has unconsciously internalized. How about abolishing borders completely and giving humans the freedom tha only money now enjoys?"
Wall Street--economic and financial elites-- do NOT want to restrict immigration. The very much like having a "reserve army" of domestic labor bulked up by de facto unlimited immigration. Making immigration illegal, but do nothing effective to stop it, just furthers the profit-goals of the 1% by denying immigrants legal rights and turning them into an fearful, second-class group of super-exploitable workers.
Ralph Nader's position is the OPPOSITE of that world view. He OPPOSES de facto unrestricted immigration and the creation of a sub-class of illegal immigrants.
peterlackowski: "How about abolishing borders completely and giving humans the freedom that only money now enjoys?"
THAT is precisely the Wall Street/ Neoliberal view. Every neo-classical "free market" fundamentalist would applaud your statement. It appears YOU have internalized their views 100 %.
Great points, Michelle!
Does one need papers to join Occupy Wall Street?
Have not the criminals on Wall Street and the corporate run immigration system not only raped US taxpayers but raped the Mexican undocumented too?
Has not their profit programs of NAFTA and the War on Drugs coerced many Mexican undocumented to the US while simultaneously forcing them to be part of the 99% too?
I invite all Dream Act Kids and other innocent undocumented victims of the U.S. corporate run immigration-for-greed system to protest as Wall Street occupants too.
In fact after the world's greedy are exposed for what they really are, many of the undocumented would have the option of either becoming legal U.S. residents and/or returning to their home countries where they would be able to earn a decent, human, living wage there too.
The Occupy Wall Street movement protests all forms of corporate greed and tyranny. It should also protest the abuse of the bi-national (U.S. / Mexico) corporate elite who not only rape the good tax paying citizens of the United States, but the good hard working people of Mexico too.