Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Readers Write: Meet the Nativists

By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted March 11, 2006.


AlterNet readers debate the growing public concern about immigration.
Advertisement

An article reprinted from the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report about leaders of the burgeoning "nativist" movement in the U.S. prompted some smart discussion that revealed -- to me, at least -- that AlterNet's audience extends well beyond the traditional confines of the liberal worldview.

The reader comments revealed that the concerns about immigration are not so much about the immigrants themselves as the larger economic and political processes that brought them there -- namely, that corporations have manipulated governments, American workers and foreign immigrants to sustain a cheap supply of labor, consequences be damned. I thought this description of what happened in reader zooeyhall's hometown in Norfolk, Neb., is a perfect example of how complicated the issue really is:

"I live in Nebraska in a rural area. In the '60s and '70s, work at the local packing plants paid a VERY good middle-class wage -- almost $22 per hour in today's money -- and they had a strong union. Sure, it was hard, dirty work, but that didn't bother farm kids used to such work and who were anxious for a job over the summer to earn some money. It also provided a good full-time job for those who wanted to work hard and move up. I had many farmer-neighbors who got a good income working there.

"Well, in the 1980s companies like Tyson cut the wages by 50 percent, boosted the line from 60 to 200 animals per hour -- and then started bringing in Mexican workers (even setting up employment recruiting offices along the border). They busted the local union when it went on strike, and then claimed they "couldn't find enough local workers" to justify their importing of illegals.

"So now little towns around here that used to be local farming centers are 60 percent Mexican. Local Andy Griffith sheriffs have to deal with Mexican drug gangs that make the Bloods and the Crips look like Boy Scouts. We had a bank robbery last year in Norfolk, Neb. (pop. 25,000), where a Mexican bank robber killed five people in cold blood."

Commenter dlf responded to zooeyhall with important points:

"Look, the problem lies in both our corporate-business class and the government who works with them. This link shows there is actually something to protect American jobs, but Americans have been trained to repeat the 'Jobs Americans Won't Do' line. We play into the hands of both industry and government by remaining ignorant of our rights and not exercising them. When was the last time the gentleman in Nebraska saw an ad for employment at that meat packing plant? These employers are in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because they now only rely on their immigrant help to supply them with labor. That means they are effectively cutting Americans out of the process, which is discrimination. Every time one of these stories comes out, Americans should be asking the reporters how many Americans have applied for these jobs, how many were interviewed, and how many hired. If they don't know the answer to those questions, they are simply spreading more propaganda and inciting people by calling anyone who disagrees with their pronouncements xenophobic.

As a black person I found it very interesting that they would try to make me angry about this issue by invoking George Wallace and other racists. Personally, I know that this issue will attract people of different stripes for different reasons, that has no bearing on whether it is a valid issue or not."

Reader marcinde's reaction to the article displayed how the issue cuts right to fundamental questions about nation-states, labor rights and economic power:

"On the issue of immigration, it seemed so cut and dried when I lived in New England. Liberal = pro-immigration, right? Then I moved to San Diego, and the same job I made $14 an hour for in Massachusetts paid $7an hour. Hmm. Then I lived in Phoenix for six years. I still see the human side; I have good friends who came here illegally. All I'm saying is that if you think you're either pro-open borders or you're an a**hole, go spend some time in a border state. I'm still figuring out the answer myself. How do we balance doing what's right for the world with what's right for the nation? Like many others here, I tend to think in absolutes. I'm just pointing out that this is a much muddier issue than you realize once you're in the thick of it."


Digg!

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
NY Times editorial 03/11/06: Open Doors Don't Invite Criminals
Posted by: Fleuette on Mar 11, 2006 2:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read below for new insight on Immigrant issue:

March 11, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Open Doors Don't Invite Criminals
By ROBERT J. SAMPSON

Cambridge, Mass.

LAW enforcement officials, politicians and social scientists have put forward many explanations for the astonishing drop in crime rates in America over the last decade or so, and yet we remain mystified. Studies have shown that while each of the usual suspects — a decline in crack use, aggressive policing, increased prison populations, a relatively strong economy, increased availability of abortion — has probably played some role, none has proved to be as dominant a factor as initially suggested.

Perhaps we have been overlooking something obvious — something that our implicit biases caused us not to notice. My unusual suspect is foreigners: evidence points to increased immigration as a major factor associated with the lower crime rate of the 1990's (and its recent leveling off).

Consider what sociologists call the "Latino paradox": Hispanic Americans do better on a range of various social indicators — including propensity to violence — than one would expect given their socioeconomic disadvantages. My colleagues and I have completed a study in which we examined violent acts by almost 3,000 males and females, ranging in age from 8 to 25, from 1995 to 2003. The study selected whites, blacks and Hispanics (primarily Mexican-Americans) from 180 Chicago neighborhoods ranging from highly segregated to very integrated. We also analyzed data from police records, the Census and a separate survey of more than 8,000 Chicago residents who were asked about the characteristics of their neighborhoods.
To read article:
linked text = Open Doors Don't Invite Criminals

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Summary Posted by: numen
» What About NAFTA? Posted by: Fleuette
neoliberal elite propaganda: if you speak out, you are a racist xenophobic monster
Posted by: cry0fan on Mar 11, 2006 4:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is part 1. Part 2 continued below:

The working class citizens of America (of all races) OWN this country. We and our ancestors BUILT this country, with our sweat, blood and tears. The benefits of this country, whatever they may be, rightly accrue to US, the working class citizens of America. And to us, alone.

ALWAYS the elite have sought to control America and us for their own benefit.

Let me give you some background on this and maybe it will help set all this in perspective.

America was started as a slave labor exploitation machine, exploiting the dispossessed poor of the British Isles.

The English, Irish and Scottish "indentured servants" were often actually slaves sold at auction and marched at whip in chains. These so called indentured servants worked and died in the tobacco plantations of North America and the sugar cane plantations of the Caribbeans.

Then the "indentured servants" supply dwindled (people of the British Isles got wise to what was going on, and the ones that were here ran off to the hills to become the hill folk of Appalachia). So then the elite brought in black slaves from Africa. It was harder for them to escape.

But the black slaves and the white poor rebelled together against the elite and thus threatened the elites (e.g., they burned Jamestown Virginia to the ground in the 1600s). And so in response to the mixed race rebellions in the 1600s, the elite seperated the blacks from the poor whites via a "screen of racial contempt" (quote from historian Edmund Morgan). THe elite did that by creating laws that placed all whites (even poor whites) above all blacks, even slaveowning blacks, That is the skin color caste system America still lives under.This skin color caste system was created by elite politicians at a time when most white men could not vote because of proprty qualifications for voting. And it goes without saying that women and "non Christians" (euphemism for minorities in those days) could also not vote. So, it was basically the upper class that voted in the politicians that created the racial caste system in the 1600s and 1700s.

But the working American citizens fought off even chattel slavery. They broke the chains of slavery. Then it became apparent what the REAL war was. From the beginning, capital has desired to own labor. In fact that was the clarion call of the Civil War (at least one of them).

The Richmond Inquirer, a leading slaveowner newspaper before the Civil War, regularly ran editorials demanding that "Capital shall OWN Labor." THey wanted us ALL back under the embrace of their iron chains. Just as it was for the first 50 years of the colonies from 1600 to 1650.

And that conflict blossomed into labor vs capital struggle of the 1800s and 1900s. The Great Railroad Strike of 1877; the union wars of the 1800s and 1900s. Man, we really took it to the elite. We BROKE our chains of iron.

But then mass media came along....

And the elite quickly understood the power of mass media propaganda.

They began to build a system of think tanks and nonprofit foundations. The purpose of this system was to create a culture of American labor that would be submissive and obedient and domesticated. All through propaganda. THe human primate is highly susceptible to indoctrination via the dominance hierarchy. This is hardwired into us. The elite use this aspect of humanity to control us.

As elite academician propagandist Harold Lasswell said, if the masses "will not have chains of iron, then they will have chains of silver." These chains of silver are the reams of propaganda that the elite churn out to grow generations of obedient little Americans. To indoctrinate us by creating a culture that has ideas that favor the elite.

More below....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Part 2 of Neoliberal Pro-Mass Immigration Propaganda
Posted by: cry0fan on Mar 11, 2006 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is part 2, continued from part 1 above:

One of the primary profit centers for the upper class and corporations is the manipulation of the labor supply demand curve. As long as the supply of labor grows faster than the demand for labor, the elite win by stripping wealth from the workers via downward pressure on wages. In the 50s and 60s and 70s, the citizen-workers were winning. Immigration was still low enough to drive wages up. The working class American citizens were on the winning side of the labor supply-demand curve. Demand for labor was growing faster than the supply of labor.

But the propaganda generated by the elite-funded nonprofit foundations began to have an effect. The American Left was subverted by this propaganda put out by the nonprofit foundations. It flooded mass media and entertainment industries. This was propaganda that favored mass immigration from poor countries. This strategy behind this propaganda was to demonize as monsters all those who oppose mass immigration. This is the primary purpose of the American political Left--to control the political culture by creating a left that is impotent. The political rightwing is about neoliberal economics and war machine propaganda. But I digress....

Back to immigration--This elite strategy has worked very well. Jobs that used to pay very well 25 years ago, now pay a pittance. And this effect has bled off into jobs not taken by immigrant scab labor. Why? Because as long as the supply of labor in large segments of commerce increases faster than the demand for labor, it will force ever increasing numbers of American citizens into other areas that are not impacted by scab immigrant labor, thus lowering wages in most areas of employment.

This means more profit for the upper class and corporations. This is why they fund nonprofit foundations. To mold and evolve the political left.

By demonizing as xenophobic, racist monsters, all those who oppose the mass importation of immigrant scab labor, the elite paralyze (with shame and race guilt) JUST ENOUGH Americans to have their way. The think tanks and foundations keep a close eye on opinion polls and voting numbers so as to be able to know just what to do in order to get away with the immigrant-scab-labor, labor-supply-manipulation exploitation machine scam.

So, now I hope you see where this pro-mass immigration propaganda is coming from.

Are those "chains of silver" comfy? Do you prefer the chains of silver on your mind, as opposed to the chains of iron on your ankles?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: cry0fan Part 2 Posted by: Rod from Canada
Supply and Demand
Posted by: medstudgeek on Mar 11, 2006 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More immigrants, more workers. More workers, lower wages. That simple

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For one thing, it's the law...
Posted by: BeeGee on Mar 11, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our President breaks the law by illegal wiretapping without sanctions. His agribusiness and industrial friends break the law by supporting illegal immigration without sanctions. If the U.S. is based on Rule of Law and laws are declared meaningless, where does that leave us.

The Civil Rights actions of the 50s and 60s showed that unjust laws can and should be changed. If we want to open our borders to anyone and everyone, let's change the law. For the moment, though, I doubt the wisdom of opening the borders to lots of unskilled individuals at a time when our Congress is cutting social safety nets and the U.S. government is unable to assure adequate housing, health care, and even nutrition to those who are already here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tired old reverse racism argument
Posted by: numen on Mar 11, 2006 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

...it should call reservations about ANY kind of immigration
what it is -- a racist and xenophobic fear of the unknown
and the 'other.'


Almost as long as Blacks have been demanding equality, those wanting to keep them down have been trying the argument of "reverse racism", the claim that giving Blacks an equal chance is in itself a form of racism against those who benefitted from discrimination. It can be not only a vicious argument but a very effective one against Liberals because we do tend to have a kneejerk reaction of defensiveness about being called racists, even by those using it as a propaganda tool rather than a means of enlightenment. Because of that, the techniques has been practiced successively by Conservatives, Neo-Conservatives, and now by Neo-Liberals to try to justify their continued attempts to "keep the N******s down".

The ugly little secret in the illegal immigration debate is that as Browns have overtaken Blacks as the "predominant minority", Blacks have been losing the economic gains that they fought and died for for over generations. As Browns take jobs for less money and fewer benefits, who gains and who loses? Whites get huge financial gains (more billionaires than ever before), Browns get the "benefits" of indentured servitude in its 21st century formulation, and Blacks lose everything they worked for.

And now we get to see the Neo-Liberal version of the rhetorical tactic: Not only do we supposedly need all those illegal immigrants to do what Bush and the Neo-Liberals call "jobs Americans won't do" but those Blacks who used to be doing them are can now be called racists if they complain about being kicked out to be replaced by Browns.

Time to call them on it. The ever so common phrase "jobs Americans won't do" is just the same old racist BS for "joibs that Blacks are too lazy and shiftless to do" (because now they want a living wage and OSHA standards and benefits).

Do the Neo-Liberals (including those at Alternet) really think we cannot see through the inherent racism behind their overwhelming need to replace all of their Black nannies with Brown ones, Black cottonpickers with Brown ones, and Black lawnmowers and gardeners with Brown ones?

And so we see Alternet run piece after piece trying to persuade us to replace Blacks with Browns for the continuing enrichment of Whites:


Now if you was white, should be all right,
if you was brown, could stick around,
but if you black, whoa brother, get back, get back, get back

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An immigration control structure that works
Posted by: janvdb on Mar 11, 2006 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, we all agree that people like whoever posted the main post above are corporate pawns and clueless snobs who care absolutely nothing about the ACTUAL base of the ACTUAL Democratic Party and/or the "left" -- the WORKING CLASS. We all agree that we aren't going to fall for this crap about how it is "racism" to want to protect ourselves from all the misery, overpopulation, bad government, $1-a-day slave life which is sure to envelop 95% of the human population over the next 200 years.

Shut up, Jan Frel. I'm married to a Mexican; I speak Spanish; I've spent some time on both sides of the border; I'm not a racist. The Mexican government is a disaster. And I think that the collapse of the immigration-control system in the US is destroying working class life, working to the benefit of the rich, and SHOULD BE FIXED.

OK. How? Let's face the fact that while some employers are aggressively pushing out Americans for their illegal, no-rights slaves, most employers are helplessly caught in a competitive situation which forces them to race to the bottom.

It's easy to attack them, but without regulation to create a level playing field, the attempt of one employer to enforce immigration laws on his own puts him at a possibly-fatal disadvantage relative to his competitors without denting the problem.

We cannot expect farmers or other employers to fix our regulatory mess, because coordinating that many disparate actors is impossible. No one employer can stop hiring illegals alone, if their competitors continue to take advantage of the cheap labor. This is particularly true in farming, where the price of produce is arrived at upon the assumption that labor costs will be those which will attract only illegals into the fields.

To fix this problem, we need regulation and ENFORCEMENT, not more scapegoating of employers. If all the lettuce farmers or apple growers in the US were simultaneously hit with effectively enforced regulations which required them to hire legal labor, the price of lettuce and apples would adjust upward to cover the increased labor bill and their profits would be unaffected.

If one apple grower tries to offer a wage which would attract legal workers, while everyone in the Yakima Valley continues to use illegals, that apple grower will be out of business in about two years.

We need biometric Social Security cards. We need thumbprint readers and iris scanners into which such cards could be swiped in all Post Offices, employment and human relations offices. Hiring would require that the employer swipe his card and put his thumb on one side, the employee the other and the machine produce a card recording the hiring. This card would be carried during work hours and be produced upon demand by CIS enforcement officers.

The Social Security Admin needs to clean up its records. They purport to track everyone's contributions, while quietly accepting contributions from as many as 20 employers on one SS# at once. 5% of our workforce are working under false, stolen or unissued SS#s. The SS Admin will notify an employer if an employee is using an unknown or unissued SS#, but if two individuals are contributing on one #, they do nothing. So, of course, that is what that 5% are doing.

In the false document business? Need SS#s with matching names so you can issue false documents which pass muster? Well, just get yourself an Employer # (1-page form, I have 5 or 6 myself) and write the SS Admin and they will send you a list of 250,000 matched names and numbers.

It's not drivers licenses but SS cards which need to be made uniform, the records kept current using biometrics, swipe cards and computer connections and double use of one number prevented.

continued below . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

continued . . . an immigration control system that works
Posted by: janvdb on Mar 11, 2006 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem can be fixed only with uniform, fair, effective enforcement of proper use of SS#s. Harassing employers is not the way. Biometric SS cards and ascertainment of the actual physical identity of new hires is the way.

Then, we need to put in place huge guest worker programs to bring people in here with temporary work permissions -- unlinked to any employer; that's just endentured slavery and will drive wages down even further -- while demanding that the countries we cooperate with in this way institute reforms to address the root reasons this river of humanity is leaving home.

We need to demand reforms like free women's and well baby health care clinics accessible to all corners of a country in return for our setting up guest worker processing centers and accepting workers from that country.

We need to demand reforms to the real property records systems, such as the creation of County Clerk and Surveyors' functions operational to the point that international title companies will issue title insurance anywhere in a country or a Mexican state in return for allowing legal emigration for temporary work from that locale.

We need to demand reforms of the legal systems of these locales.

At the same time, we need to end our stupid "War on Drugs" which is funding a huge international violent destabilizing mafia which is wrecking havoc on Latin America.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh Please... Posted by: numen
Of course there are racists; ignore them
Posted by: janvdb on Mar 11, 2006 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure there is a large group of racists out there who are beating the drums of hatred -- most of the them are even Republicans, isn't that ridiculous?

Anyone who falls for that hate-filled crap and votes Republican because they actually believe the out-and-out lies put out by the right is just an idiot.

It is obvious that all the lunatic fringe on the right who are fanning the flames of racial hatred against "the Browns" are going to get out of the controlling core of the Repugs -- who are of course the very rich who profit from this river of slaves -- is more meaningless showplace violence along the border.

"Beefing up the border" will not work and is just a bone thrown to the right lunatic fringe to shut up their barking for a bit. It is not intended to work.

All the illegals know that if they can just get through the border and 40 miles into the US, THEY ARE HOME FREE.

It is simply impossible to "beef up the border" enough to stop this flow of people. Real reform must take place at the point of hiring and will require biometric ID of all new hires. Nothing else will work.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Something to chew on
Posted by: Uncle Tupelo on Mar 11, 2006 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Percentage of foreign US born population by year (from the Census Bureau)

1850 9.7
1860 13.2
1870 14.4
1880 13.3
1890 14.8
1900 13.6
1910 14.7
1920 13.2
1930 11.6
1940 8.8
1950 6.9
1960 5.4
1970 4.7
1980 6.2
1990 7.9
2003 11.7

We've always had immigrants, lots and lots of immigrants. The only differences now are that we're not growing the jobs like we used to, and the unions are weaker. Good jobs are flowing overseas, thanks to "free trade" and the jobs that remain are getting worse and worse, thanks to Wal-Mart and the other unionbusters.

Anyone who turns around and blames all this on Mexicans or any other immigrant group is a stone-cold liar and a stone-cold racist out to distract you from what the real problem is. Don't be fooled.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Something to chew on Posted by: numen
» RE: Something to chew on Posted by: Uncle Tupelo
» RE: Something to chew on Posted by: cry0fan
» RE: Something to chew on Posted by: Uncle Tupelo
» RE: Something to chew on Posted by: Gma1
» AGREE 10,000% Uncle Tupelo Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: AGREE 10,000% Uncle Tupelo Posted by: Uncle Tupelo
Away with borders and countries
Posted by: wbblack on Mar 11, 2006 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Humanity existed long before the creation of states and governments; we are all citizens of the world, not of nations"

I basically agree with this quote. Immigrants aren’t the problem. Borders are the problem. We live on a planet. Class politics creates countries, and class politics can destroy them. Destroying nationalism is a good thing not a bad thing. Countries are lines drawn around piles of bosses’ money. The ruling class says. “These are my workers to exploit, and if I can’t make enough profit, I’ll bring in other workers to work cheaper or I’ll make a deal with another group of bosses in some other ‘country’ to use their workers. If I still can’t make enough money, I’ll send my workers to fight your workers.”
Immigrants aren’t the problem. Capitalism and nationalism force us to compete with each other for crumbs, while the ruling class lives in ridiculous abundance. May be we should get rid of the ruling class. Then we could produce the stuff we need and share it. We all might have less stuff, but we’d all have what we need and our lives would be much more meaningful. They way we live now is really just despicable.


WBBLACK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fighting Immigration since 1492
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Mar 11, 2006 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the woes the folks hear about immigration is the same one from 500 years back. 'They will spoil our lands.' 'They will take our resources.', 'They will make making a living harder.', 'They don't respect our ways.' Well you did it.
You came here,stole the land,butchered the game,displaced families,forced new doctrines of socierty and religion upon the People and now you have the audacity to bitch about 'new immigrants'.?! You egotistical assholes.
You're worried about jobs and property values,how do you think the People felt when your Pilgrims and Puritans butchered over a thousand people,collectivily, so they too could survive in the New Land.
It's not about closing borders or illegal immagration. The fact is the Earth was ment to walk on in it's entirity. Not sectioned off,fenced in, or secreted away. Opening of all borders,with some sort of equitabl wage being paid,would go a long way towards slowing this immigration. Changing out corrupt leaderships would help alot more. If we all could live the teaching from kindergarten about 'sharing' we'd get along much better. Sorry folks,the ain't greener any where. But we can sure as hell 'Take Out the Trash' and make a better world for all of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It Ain't Xenophobia....It's Progressive
Posted by: mikespindell on Mar 11, 2006 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My grandparents, who were peasants, emigrated to the US in the late 1890's. Neither of my grandmothers spoke English for their entire long, lives. These ancestors found opportunity in America far beyond what was ever to be open to them in Europe and my whole family probably would have been wiped out by the Nazi's. Why then, as a progressive, am I in favor of aggressively limiting immigration?

Immigration in the US has ALWAYS been used to keep the cost of labor down and ensure that the underclass remains that way. I say this not as a Marxist, which I'm definitely not, but as a realistic observer of American history. Waves of immigration throughout this country's history always worked against the interests of labor and for the monied elite.

Particularly striking, when one calls being tough on immigration racist, is the history of immigration after the Civil War. African American slaves freed and given citizenship would get the opportunity to rise toward economic equality finally in the context of an Americs growing into an industrial power. However, the immigration gates open wide to Eastern Europe and lo and behold the black man was screwed out of what would have been the chance for economic and then social equality. African Americans are still in recovery from the effects of this undercutting of their supposed freedom.

I live in what is the most ethnically diverse County in America. I enjoy and celebrate that diversity which encompasses large enclaves of Afro Americans, Jews, Irish, Poles, Chinese, Koreans, Italians, Puerto Ricans, Indians, Pakistanis, Thai, Columbians, Peruvians, etc., etc.. The variety of food and the richness of cosmopolitan culture is wonderful. Many of those ethnicities represent recent immigrants and my country is far better for it.

That being said the time to call immigration to a halt has arrived in America simply because the time is here for the working man to take back the gains of the past century, which have been eroded by the encroachment of the Global Corporatocracy. Is there anything that Bush is strongly in favor of that isn't motivated by his need to play to his REAL base, the elite?

This is NOT Xenophobia and it's not a return to isolationism. This is one battlefront in the continuing war against those who would ground us down via the oppression of Corporate Power as camoflaged by the seemingly benign philosophy of Globalization. The proponents of this philosophy appear all over the political spectrum and so sometimes it is confusing to understand. Bill Clinton, is just as guilty in this as are the Bushies. NAFTA, CAFTA and all these treaties have only served to move the US towards being a "Banana Republic," while assuring continued poverty in 3rd World Countries. The Bushies immigration program is aimed at destroying the last vestiges of power held by ordinary Americans, and leave us in thrall to the corporate elite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those racist Mexican immigrants
Posted by: YogiBear on Mar 11, 2006 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By stating that it is OK to have concerns about 'illegal' immigrants, AlterNet is basically saying it's OK to have xenophobic tendencies and a mistrust of anyone who may look, think or behave differently from us.

When polled, the majority of legal immigrants, latinos and otherwise, agree with the majority of Americans that illegal immigration is a problem. Does that make them "xenophobic"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ah YES....duh Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: Ah YES....duh Posted by: cry0fan
» RE: Ah YES....duh Posted by: Bobsays
» Duh yourself Posted by: YogiBear
immigration
Posted by: tke on Mar 11, 2006 12:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's not LEGAL immigration people worry about, it's illegal. Liberals should be smart enough to figure out illegal immigration is not a positive thing for our country, after all, it's against the law. When I hear people in other countries saying they have a RIGHT to enter the U.S. illegally and no one is going to stop them, i think, these are not people we want in our country. Many of them are dangerous, i.e., the MS13 gang that now controls large portions of the U.S. and Canada and operates like the old mafia, extorting money from legal immigrants who are trying to succeed in business. Democrats need to get on the LEGAL side of this issue before elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: immigration Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: I agree (gasp) Posted by: tke
FedUp
Posted by: tke on Mar 11, 2006 12:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FedUp is TOTALLY right, must be a historian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: FedUp Posted by: dlf
» RE: FedUp Posted by: tke
» RE: FedUp Posted by: dlf
it's nothing personal
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 11, 2006 1:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The immigration issue has been hijacked by the left, who use it as an issue to attack corporations and perceived racism. Only in America would anyone think that 11 million plus illegal immigrants isn't a problem. The porous US border with Mexico would not be tolerated by any other country. More liberal Canada to the north would never accept the quantity of illegals coming across the border. Immigration must be managed and controlled. It is not racist to say this. Immigrants do have an affect on the local job market. They also do require resources, housing etc. Any developed nation has a responsibility to its citizens to preserve their quality of life and their security. It is this cavaler attitude to citizens that is the hallmark of underdeveloped countries. In underdeveloped countries, states don't care about the sqaulid conditions of their citizens. Just look at the favela of Brazil - virtual war zones where the poor and dispossed battle it out with the police and drug gangs. The US has already seen a third worldification of its major cities because of illegal immigration. Along with this has been the ghetto mentality and violence that are the hallmark of developing countries. You only have to drive around LA to see that. Michael Douglas' film Falling Down looks more like a documentary than a film about a white guy winging out. Everyone benefits from managed and budgeted immigration policies. The current approach pitches hispanic against black. The US should build that wall quickly and start to take responsibility for all its citizens. It should also go after the teaming ghettos of its urban areas and clean up the drugs and crime. Then the US can get back to being the admired role model it once was.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Enough of this "Fortress America" nonsense
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 11, 2006 2:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My great-grandparents migrated to American shores from Norway, Italy and Russia. Some of them were fleeing brutal wars and genocide; I don't know all the reasons they came here. I think in general that they were running 'from' as much as they were running 'towards'.

The central idea paraded on FOX and right-wing talk radio is that America must build a big wall around itself, and the unspoken subtext is that we must also send out our armies to scour the world for natural resources in order to support our "American Way of Life". This is really not a good idea, even if we could get away with it, which we can't.

The best method for slowing immigration is to make sure that all countries (especially our neighbors) have economic incentives at home - so by allowing countries to build up their own industrial bases (small-scale production in particular) immigration will be vastly reduced. This means a vast decrease in the international trade in raw materials, and perhaps an increase? in trade in finished products. Just look at a Western Union - notice all the Spanish? Immigrants take their pay and wire it back to their families in Mexico or wherever, where $100 means much more then it does here.

Of course, this also means that we Americans might have to become a lot handier with a shovel then we have been of late, but this will have the added benefit of curing the obesity problem in this country and reducing health care expenditures.

I. Peter Solem

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Labor Unions
Posted by: aonghus36 on Mar 11, 2006 8:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another thing that can help along side working against capitalistic globalisation is stirring up labor unions amongst these low wage workers "from other countries". Don't deny the so-called "foreigners" their right to be here, because everyone has the right to walk the Earth. We are One. Let's just take the glitter out of the gold of cheap labor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Labor Unions Posted by: dangerouslysane
Useless policies
Posted by: cephalis on Mar 11, 2006 9:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think that mass migrations of people can really be controlled. It's 'social entropy'. If things are bad in one area and good in another area, people move. The greater the economic discrepancy in the two areas, the greater is imperative to change your location. I think the only useful way to influence this phenomenom is to make economic conditions better in the areas people are abandoning.
As climatic conditions due to global warming further debase areas of the southern hemisphere, the tide of people moving north will swell and inundate the more developed northern nations. I very much doubt that we can adequately prepare for the social disruption resulting from these changes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fabric
Posted by: benzene on Mar 12, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmm....

Too many illegal immigrants will cause the fabric that makes America great to dissolve...
Those godless atheist science-mongers will cause the fabric that makes America great to dissolve...
Funny how this argument keeps coming up:
The Civil Rights Movement will cause the fabric that makes America great to dissolve...
The Feminists will cause the fabric that makes America great to dissolve...
The Womens' Suffrage Movement will cause the fabric that makes America great to dissolve...

Indeed, a timeless piece of bullshit rhetoric scared of change with its head in the sand, because, after all, the fabric that makes America great was made in China in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the immigrant's culture & personality ALSO comes WITH the immigrant
Posted by: cry0fan on Mar 12, 2006 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am for greatly reducing immigration in general. I have given my economics-based reasons above in this thread. Now I am giving other reasons for reducing immigration greatly.

If we need more money for Social Security, take it from the upper class in the form of wealth taxes and income taxes. We need to tax them more anyway.

First, I don't generally like the kind of people who emigrate to America because of the following reasons:

1. Immigrants to America are in general often greedy, grasping types, with stars in their eyes. all wanting to get rich quick. They are often ostracized in their home town because of their greedy personality. They are obessed with wealth and capitalism. Capitalism is OK with me, at long as it is on a small scale. Like a solo proprietorship. After that, it needs gov't control because large aggregations of capital tend to dominate smaller ones, to the detriment of all. That aint a good thing. That's a bad thing.

These immigrants are in general NOT the sorts of persons that build a strong welfare state; they are not the sorts of persons that increase social capital. Instead, they are social darwinists. Not matter where they come from, in general, that is the sort of person they are. They are natural Republicans at their core, in general. Just my personal observation. I have lived a full life and traveled and lived in most of the USA and have seen many foreign countries, both first and third world. That is my opinion.


2. Moreover, if these immigrants come from the 3rd world, which most of them do, then they bring their 3rd world culture with them. 3rd world cultures are generally heavily religious and not generally into building the sorts of secular, science based countries I like. THey are not cultures that are into building accountable and open governments, which I likes. The gov'ts their countries produce are even more corrupt than our own government.

I am not real keen on human cultures in general. But it seems to me that the only human cultures that are worth much at all are the western cultures, particularly western european cultures, e.g., the Swiss, Frence, Danish, German, Swedish, and so forth. And the Japanese. Like I said, that is the the best of a bad lot.

Also, having lots of different cultures in a nation IS NOT a Good Thing. People tend to trust more those who look and think and act like themselves. You want as much trust as possible in a nation. That way you get a strong welfare state. Having lots of cultures and races is a bad thing because the elite can use that to divide us.

Now, don't go all "you're a racist nazi" on me. I am a CITIZENIST, and as such I believe America belongs to the citizens of America, whatever their race or culture. But I see no reason to bring in more people of different cultures. It just aint a good thing. We need to get control of this country for those who are here NOW.

And don't call me a xenophobe. I care less about your propagandist demonizations. Straight from the elite mass media into your ear and out of your mouth....

Again, I say why let in all these immigrants from the 3rd world, when they are bringing their unattractive cultures and their unattractive personalities with them? I mean, if an American citizen goes overseas and gets married to a foreigner, and they want to live here, that's fine. Or something like that. But I see no need for mass immigration, at all, illegal OR legal.

Fire away, meat puppets....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You sad, ahistorical man Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: apologies Posted by: Bobsays
Immigration is Nothing New
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 12, 2006 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Biblical Abram was a Chaldean migrant thousands of years ago and was not the first by far. People have been migrating, driven by a desire to be free or by economic need, as long as there have been groups of people. There will be immigration as long as there are people. Get over it.

The issue is not will there be immigration, but how will we deal with it. For better or worse, peoples around the world are grouped into nations that largely share a common language, cultural background, history and economic interest. Our economics, folkways, law, schools, art, and future is defined by and tied to this paradigm. All wishful thinking aside, that's the way the world is organized and will be unless something compelling comes along. Deal with it.

Massive immigration by people with a shared history, culture and language into this nation has never happened before. We have had decades of continuous heavy immigration--but by a mix of peoples that had different languages, faiths and national/ethnic identities. They HAD to assimilate to some extent as they lived in tight quarters with dissimilar migrants that they were joined to economically at the hip.

Greeks, Russians, Poles, Italians and others were compelled to learn english just in order to interact with the society and economy they were now a part of. That is not the case with current immigration.

The vast majority of today's illegal immigrants share hispanic heritage, the spanish language, the Roman Catholic faith, their 'underground' status and are driven here by economic need. There are so many and are so clustered that they can largely operate in a cloister of their own making. They have media, merchants, social service agencies and many levels of government more than willing to enable them to continue this pattern. This is historically dangerous in the long term.

This voluntary ghettoization could eventually result in the kind of cultural/social/political division that has torn so many countries and societies apart throughout history. The american model has largely worked well over our history because of some level of assimilation and is endangered by this very kind of thing. Think of Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, Iraq today, Sudan, Israel/Palestine, WW II Germany among other places in the last 50-75 years. There are many more.

The answer is engagement. Bringing these people out of the underground means freeing them from many forms of exploitation. Bringing them into the legal economy means new taxes to help offset the costs associated with providing them with the schooling and social services. Bringing them into our neighborhoods, businesses and homes means more rapid assimilation into our society and culture while enriching our own. Integrating them into our economy means that they cannot be used to undermine wages and for union busting.

No fence, border patrol, law, or prison is going to keep illegal immigrants out as long as there is such a chasm in economic opportunity between the US and our southern neighbors. Self interest and survival will trump every attempt of government. Deal with it.

It's definitely a pay me now or pay me later decision. A little discomfort with a bright future now or denial and a heavy price later. Just like with Global Warming, we are at a fork in the road and it's time to make a decision. It's your future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

comparison of how our leaders used to support us to what they do now
Posted by: cry0fan on Mar 12, 2006 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
interesting article regarding cesar chavez, farm labor activist and illegal immigration:
excerpts from:

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/22110.html
and http://www.isteve.com/

...

From 1965 to 1981, the UFW succeeded in raising wages significantly for stoop laborers in California. Since then, their pay has fallen, and they've lost most of the fringe benefits they had won. Today, most make less than $10,000 per year. Hundreds were discovered near Salinas living in caves, ...
...

[Cesar Chavez's] success stemmed from the long-term decline in the farm labor supply. According to agricultural economist Philip L. Martin of the University of California, Davis, migrant farm workers in the U.S. numbered 2 million in the 1920s. Eisenhower cracked down on Mexican illegal immigrants, shipping one million home in 1954 alone. The famous 1960 “Harvest of Shame” documentary by CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow inspired liberal Democrats in Congress to abolish the bracero guest-worker program in 1964. The supply of migrant workers dropped to about 200,000, most of them American citizens, making unionization and better contracts feasible—as long as what Marx called “the reserve army of the unemployed” could be bottled up south of the border. The next year, Chavez began his storied organizing campaign.

Growers fought back by busing the reserve army up from Mexico. In 1979, Chavez bitterly testified to Congress:

… when the farm workers strike and their strike is successful, the employers go to Mexico and have unlimited, unrestricted use of illegal alien strikebreakers to break the strike. And, for over 30 years, the Immigration and Na