Optimismo
I’ve just finished writing this week’s column for L.A. Weekly. And while it won’t be posted for a couple more days, allow me — in the best traditions of the Bush administration– to leak you my key point (that’s all I have time to do as I’m swamped with work and can only lightly blog).
What’s most inspiring about the uncontainably rising pro-immigrant demonstrations of the last few days is that they are just that: rising. Bouyed with something’s that gone lacking for quite some time now in an American bodypolitic rife with fear, loathing and bitterness – optimism.
Here are millions of people in the street — peaceful, orderly, dressed in white t-shirts– and all asking for one simple right — to be Americans. It’s hokey, but nonetheless true.
That, of course, is the dirty little secret of Latino immigration into the U.S. Yes, the “illegals” have all the unattractive jobs, they remain non-persons deprived of basic legal status, and to many who they serve daily they are merely a faceless brown-blurr. But I insist that theirs is, overall, an upwardly mobile, positive and most certainly optimistic narrative. With all of the injustice attached to it, the Latino immigrant experience remains today the most vibrant contemporary embodiment of the American Dream.
Writer and author Richard Rodriguez certainly gets it. Wrting in Salon he says:
The crowds parading up the streets of America on Monday, and for the last two weeks, have been telling us with their bodies, if not always in English, that illegal immigrants are not alone in the United States of America.
Indeed, illegal immigrants, who were supposed to live a shadowy existence, belong to neighborhoods and to church congregations that were willing to stand alongside them. And most important: Many millions of illegal immigrants have U.S. relatives, sons and daughters, in-laws, cousins, grandchildren.
That family tie is the lesson of these parades. In Houston and Boston, in Phoenix and in San Jose, Calif., what we saw were not exactly “protests,” nor were they political demonstrations, primarily. We were seeing huge family gatherings, celebrations of the clan.
In Los Angeles, I saw a veritable platoon of young women with baby strollers, the babies asleep or not, the women chatting, as though they were headed to the grocery store. I saw carnival balloons and comic oversize sombreros. I saw the Mexican Virgin of Guadalupe floating on somebody’s shoulders. I saw the flags of several nations, often, of course, Mexico’s. On one Mexican flag, an old man with an Indian face had taped the photographs of his sons, serving in Iraq.
It’s rather fascinating to watch all this unfold before us, the political parties and the media alike grasping to understand events that have completely overtaken them. Most siginifcantly, there appears to be a decisive political shift taking place. The Conventional Wisdom gaining consensus in the major media is that Congress is now feeling the pressure to come up with sensible immigration reform.
I know that’s way too an optimistic view for most. Conservatives will hate the notion, caving into their paranoic fears of a foreign invasion. Likewise, Liberals and Lefties seem more or less incapable of doing anything except denouncing Republicans and are equally allergic to good news. They prefer to think of Latinos only as oppressed victims, rather than as agents and architects of their own brighter future.
Nevertheless, there are some things I’m willing to celebrate this morning. I love the idea that the people who clean our houses and our offices and the rear-ends of our children are now the same people out in the streets offering a dynamic lesson in democratic civics. I also love the idea captured in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll (taken in the last few days) which shows a dramatic turn-around in public opinion on this issue. The survey found that nearly 2/3 of those polled backed the notion of letting immigrants who have lived in the country a certain number of years apply for legal status and citizenship. Some 68 percent agreed that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans don’t want.
Sorry… but this is all good news.
April 11th, 2006 at 12:48 am
Thanks much for that, Marc. A refreshing antidote to so much of the nativist and often bigoted responses to your last few posts. Let those who want to build hi-tech fences around America read the polls and weep that their fantasies are further than ever from reality. Perhaps one day they too will come to see this as good news.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:42 am
Michael, your internationalist credentials are not burnished by saying those that would like to see better immegration controls are “nativist and often bigoted.”
Any country that cannot control its borders cannot long exist; but maybe that is part of your agenda. Totally free immigration from one place to another? Perhaps that would work, but I suspect that the chaos it would engender would wreck all economies of any type.
Maybe if we adopted the Mexico laws for illegal immigration and made it a felony? Would that be more to your liking?
Bigoted indeed! Pot, meet kettle!
April 11th, 2006 at 5:00 am
A-Mouse, I have never said that everyone who has expressed concerns about immigration in these discussions or who wants to see more controls is bigoted. The bigotry comes in the motivations behind the statements made and the way they are expressed. Sometimes there is no subtlety at all: Remarks about Latino and Asian drivers, for example.
Nor do I expect everyone to agree with my “open borders” perspective, nor think that anyone who does not is a bigot. The issue Marc has posed in these recent posts is immigration reform, and the various attempts to find compromises in Congress. Too many people here have responded not by debating that issue, but by advocating that all illegals be sent home and raising images of invading armies and electric fences. This is not going to happen, as is increasingly clear, so perhaps some people here simply have to accept that the immigrants are here to stay and that the search for humane solutions to the problem is reasonable and the wave of the future.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:01 am
I agree with most of what you wrote, but your last few sentences range from false to foolish. There is no dramatic turnaround shown in that poll. What’s shown is that public opinion that can be discerned from the wording of a poll hasn’t moved much and it’s never been particularly vicious toward “illegals”. Also, that it’s “good news” that 68% think “illegals are taking jobs Americans don’t want” shows a credulity that isn’t fitting for a journalist. Common, but not fitting. You know better, Marc, than to take a poll question that’s as packed and oversimplified as that one and ascribe sserious significance to it. You really, I hate to say, are acting as a propagandist for some of the worst shit being layered into this discussion – that there are just some jobs that Americans wouldn’t do, regardless of wages and working conditions. Question – when we give citizenship to the folks at issue – which is what we should do for practical, political and humanistic reasons – will they quit doing certain jobs ? After all “Americans won’t do them”. (Of course, that’s false. Totally. In all of the jobs at issue, far more Americans are doing them – wages and working conditions be damned – than illegal immigrants. That’s a fact. But you never mention it. You just parrot the cliche and celebrate simplistic polling data that appears to confirm that 68% of Americans agree – when in fact it confirms little other than when you include a cliche in the wording of a poll, most people will nod their head and agree.)
Your trumpeting an unexamined “labor shortage” and using lines like “jobs Americans won’t do” in this context (when in others you report on the conditions that have made the same jobs hellish and exploitative in many cases) provides cover for companies and contractors who have factored illegal immigration into their business plans and who are attempting to use legislation that on the one hand promotes fairness for illegal workers as a package to create a “guest-worker” program that will officially legislate a two-tier labor force for the first time since the Civil War. Advocacy journalism is fine. Uncritical advocacy that obscures at least as much as it explains isn’t. Optimismo or obfuscation ????
April 11th, 2006 at 6:12 am
Here’s an article that deals with the “guest worker” issue more forthrightly:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/23/the_guest_worker_gamble.php
One question for the language police – since when do “guests” clean your toilet ?
April 11th, 2006 at 6:14 am
Liberals and Lefties seem more or less incapable of doing anything except denouncing Republicans and are equally allergic to good news. They prefer to think of Latinos only as oppressed victims, rather than as agents and architects of their own brighter future.
Perfect, classic Marc. Can’t get through a post that’s supposed to be “all good news” without a straw-man smear. Karnak Award for knowing how millions of people “prefer to think”.
Guess that’s why major left-liberal blogger Atrios has all those celebratory pictures of the Philadelphia rally on his blog, and pointers to more. Yeah, he’s allergic to good news, all right.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:24 am
One more point – does anyone really think that Sensenbrenner was going to be the basis for a legislative outcome on this, given the extreme opposition to it from the corporate and small-business communities – not to mention the little guy in the White House – demos or no ? A McCain-Kennedy style compromise was always in the cards. Given that, shouldn’t progressives be at least willing to analyze a deal between one of the most conservative man in the Senate and one of the most liberal critically ? And shouldn’t the leadership of this burgeoning mass movement address the “guest worker issue” if it’s going to help unpack the complex of issues and have more impact and on the political outcome than ratification of what’s been more-or-less a given. Twelve million people were never about to be deported. So an opportunity is being lost to take on the issues that really are on the table. The leadership of these demos is a disappointment – as usual and as expected from their mealy-mouthed, tepid, opportunistic circles.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:27 am
Good catch, Nell. Marc is gloating that nobody else “gets it” on this one, when he’s the one slicing it about as thin as it gets on an issue that’s (duh!) complex. And based on his journalistic experience in these areas, Marc should be taking the lead on some of the complexities. Too bad…
April 11th, 2006 at 6:34 am
Pardon me if I’m not in an optimistic mood this week…
I guess it must be this Sy Hersch article in The New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
And that nativist Paul Krugman’s column in yesterday’s Times that starts thus: “But he wouldn’t do that.” That sentiment is what made it possible for President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election. Many people just didn’t want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace.
Now people with contacts in the administration and the military warn that Mr. Bush may be planning another war. The most alarming of the warnings come from Seymour Hersh, the veteran investigative journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal. Writing in The New Yorker, Mr. Hersh suggests that administration officials believe that a bombing campaign could lead to desirable regime change in Iran — and that they refuse to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
“But he wouldn’t do that,” say people who think they’re being sensible. Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq war, however, discounting the possibility that Mr. Bush will start another ill-conceived and unnecessary war isn’t sensible. It’s wishful thinking.
(end clip)
April 11th, 2006 at 7:17 am
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060410-094710-4817r.htm
Why isn’t Marc Cooper doing something about this? Is he going to ensure that he now boycotts these rallies and tells his readers to do so?
April 11th, 2006 at 7:35 am
Balter – it’s not an “anitdote.” it’s a response. So now your opposite numbers here carry a disease? Honestly: I like you, generally. I don’t get that instinct to see people as so negative.
I like it. It’s the left view presented honestly and compellingly. It lays out where it’s coming from emotionally nd makes good points and I feel what Marc’s talking about with the optimism thing.
I think another aspect of this up feeling – say, with the polls he cites – is that by far most Americans of any race basically like these Hispanics, whether legal or not. We go down there for vacation. We love their food. They seem great.
Granted, it doesn’t deal much in specifics, which is where things can get heated for some reason. One of those reasons is because the “compromise” we seem to be headed toward may have been done before and may not have worked, and so there’s this feeling that there’s dishonesty at play, that really this is about total unification of the Americas, or at least of the US and Mexico, which may be fine but nobody’s really willing to come out and say that.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:37 am
Note to A-Mouse: The posts from reg illustrate the distinction I am making. Although I may not agree with him on many points, none of his many posts on this subject reflect the kind of bigotry that fairly reeks from the posts of people like Woody.
Marc: I would be interested in your response to Jcummings and the Washington Times article. To what extent is ANSWER involved in the organization of some of these marches?
April 11th, 2006 at 7:37 am
Or maybe you do, MB. Say that.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:43 am
Michael,
Excuse me for objecting to your statement “I have never said that everyone who has expressed concerns about immigration in these discussions or who wants to see more controls is bigoted.” You have certainly implied “bigot” to anyone who opposes your beliefs. Yesterday, the tone of the forum changed so dramatically after you left. No one had to waste time on defending themselves of bigotry and racism. People were able to discuss ideas, and thoughts. There was still vigorous disagreement, but little name-calling.
As to the topic posted. I see a reason to be optimistic, as well. All of the marchers in the street demanding dignity is, indeed, a beautiful thing. I love the fact that this country supports this. The marches also awoke many people to the fact that there is indeed a huge faction of people in this country that have needs, that have been overlooked. Now people must recognize and accept that fact. What do we do? I’m glad the question has been asked from San Jose to Des Moines to Boston. The debate now becomes truly national, not just a border state argument.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:44 am
All Woody does – usually – is unflinchingly state the conservative view on this issue. It is intellectually possible to view all the illegal immigrants as “invaders” in the sense he means and also accept that they are individually decent people understandably motivated. If I’m wrong about that maybe Woody can say so.
And I myself do find it useful to keep in mind that there may in fact be something more sinister behind some of this, as perhaps evidenced in the organizing forces behind these events, which I’ve only read references to, and their presumed interest in creating more of a movement in Mexico: to make coming to America a new and noble thing to do, to help with whatever the agenda might be.
Kind of blue-skying with that last passage.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:45 am
My assumption is that Marc probably wouldn’t care about ANSWER’s involvement, just as most people who truly opposed the Iraq war had similar feelings, if we were annoyed by their sectarianism. The reason, I presume that Marc opposed the ANSWER involvement in the antiwar movement, as opposed to this movement, is that he wasn’t foursquare in opposition to the war. Otherwise, he’d be just as loud in condemning ANSWER’s involvement in the immigration movement. There is precedent – communists and anti-communists worked together on civil rights, while most of the anti-coms normally boycotted working with the CP and Trots.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:47 am
“so there’s this feeling that there’s dishonesty at play, that really this is about total unification of the Americas, or at least of the US and Mexico, which may be fine but nobody’s really willing to come out and say that.”
Paul, I think this is a very good and fair point, and in fact is probably the best explanation for all those flags from Mexico and other Latin American countries in the demonstrations and why they bother some people and not others. I have made no bones about the fact that I would love to see some sort of super-federation between Canada, the United States and Mexico (and that’s just for starters, we could unite all of North and South America if we wanted to.) But I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime; meanwhile what I do hope to see is a lessening of American national chauvinism (which pisses off most of the rest of the world, as you well know) and a serious self-examination by Americans of who they really are and what makes so many of them think they are different, unique, and superior to everyone else. This is why my bigortry antenna are always up, and boy they don’t have to be too sensitive to pick it up in some of these posts as I have said.
In summation, the immigration debate reflects a deeper divide between nativism and internationalism, as I have said repeatedly, and the views expressed here reflect a range of attitudes beween these two poles.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:48 am
I meant that outside of civil rights, mainstream CCF “social democrats” and other turgid redbaiting liberals paused their crusade to work alongside iMLK, who had no problem working with Reds. That said, the WWP and ANSWER are far worse than the CP (the CP was quite honorable outside of some of its foreign policy positions.) Yet eople truly opposed to war shrug them off. Just as people truly for immigrants rights feel the samee way. The only conclujsion that can be drawn is theone I mentioned. Marc didn’t oppose the Iraq war.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:54 am
Well, Jcummings, you may be right or wrong about Marc’s attitude towards ANSWER in this case, but excuse me if I would prefer to hear him speak for himself! For one thing I am interested to know how much they really are involved in the organizing of these marches, or some of them, or whether the Washington Times is exaggerating their role.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:00 am
The facts check out, as far as my research goes.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:02 am
JCummings.. please go grease urself and then proceed to burrow urself up into the netherregions if ALexande Cockburn., That’s a s polite as I can be with a little sectarian fool like you. Better yer; Go out on the internent and find a single statement of mine endorsring the war to back up ur lie– or just dont come back here ever again?
In the end you show urself more facscinated by the work of stooges like ANSWER than the growth of a real popular movement.Mow, goodbye and go do your homeowrk And dont think of coming back till it’s done.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:02 am
“there may in fact be something more sinister behind some of this, as perhaps evidenced in the organizing forces behind these events”
I would have dismissed that sentiment had I not read The DaVinci Code. From the look of much of the national leadership on this issue, there might well be a papist conspiracy behind these demos and I demand that Congress investigate.
(Att. humor police: that was a stumble in the direction of satire. Att: brain police: I haven’t actually read The DaVinci Code, okay? Just wanted to save possible wasted pixels downstream.)
April 11th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Why would someone be so rude to one of his readers, in response to a challenge? I am not a member of any sect. I’m just curious as to why the discrepancy in your position, and one can easily extrapolate what I said, from your seeming inconsistency on the ANSWER issue.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Okay. Say that. Push the deep quesitons. The country’ si n the mood to deal with deep questions, and one of the benefits of this issue is it presents an opportunity to do that. We want to feel like we know who we are, and that seems gone forever.
By and large the “deep questions” on American have been the sole purview of the left. That makes them think they have all the answers and that god is on their side. But there is a conservative position on these questions, and most conservatives are good thinkers honestly motivated.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:05 am
ANSWER is but a pimple on the ass of these Latino demos. they have mininmal presence and are NOT the force that convoked people inyo yhe street. Unlike the ati-war movement wiser heaeds did not let these luttle scumballs seize the operation.
Just to clarify the IDIOTIC assesrtions by Jordi… these ANSWERiets should very well be taken by the scruff their ncks and and have their asses kicked squarely out of the immigrants movement. They are poisonous. Sort of like having u Jordi on the blog.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:06 am
so reg, is the role of ANSWER a non-issue?
April 11th, 2006 at 8:10 am
That’s what Marc C says, I see.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:12 am
Thanks, pal.
I guess rudeness is your forte when challenged.
My name’s spelled with a y. If you can’t stand the give-and-take of being a prominent journalist and having your positions challenged, perhaps you shouldn’t have a comments section on your blog. There is nothing I’ve seen in my brief research on the issue that indicates a leadership role for ANSWER, but also nothing that contradicts the Washington Times article, particularly in regards to the Latino Movement USA.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Well, I don’t want to get in the middle of this fight, but Marc has opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, Jcummings. Unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary, you may want to retract that statement so we can move on.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:19 am
Pretty much, yeah. They aren’t the organizers of this movement. I don’t even think the leadership – which obviously doesn’t include ANSWER – is really “organizing” the movement, just trying to channel a popular groundswell.
If you’re looking for questionable ideology among some of the leading circles, there may be some legitimate issues with some of the background noise among the more militantly “la Raza” organizers. Frankly, I think that this movement – in it’s essence of asking for citizenship and inclusion in the realm of fair labor laws for millions of people working here , which is just about the only thing on which I’d bet there’s common agreement – is about as pro-American and mainstream as public protest gets. It’s certainly not being manipulated by sinsister forces to the extent of say, the anti-abortion sentiments of many decent people. Marc’s absolutely right. Obsessing on ANSWER doesn’t even rise to the level of “distraction” – it’s just silly and paranoid.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:20 am
that last post was an “answer” to Paul, if it wasn’t obvious from the juxtaposition.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:22 am
I stand by my statement.
I don’t see how, within a few weeks of the war, stating in the LA Weekly that there was no reason to withdraw forces -, and maintaining that position as far as I can see (never calling for “out now”) is actually opposition to war. Perhaps he opposed it before the war but he was busy slamming the antiwar movement. One would think that if his motives were purely tactical, he would also publicly write long columns and critiques of ANSWER in this particular movement. One can extrapolate thus that while he is not for Bush and for torture, etc., that ending the war is not high on his priorities list.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:22 am
Okay, here to lighten the mood with some grammar police confiscations of semi-sloppy Spanish headlines.
Perp #1: Mickey Kaus:
“In L.A., el pueblo unido ha desaparacido!”
The correct form is desaparEcido, from the verb “desaparecer”–to disappear.
Perp #2: Marc Cooper:
“Que Paso con el Grande Backlash?”
We’ll forgive the lack of accent mark on the final vowel of past tense “paso”, since it’s damn hard with these HTML fonts, but not the preceding of “Backlash” with “grande”–”grande” can only precede a noun in its shortened masculine form “gran”. So either “el Gran Backlash” or “el Backlash Grande” (assuming, of course, that the English borrowing ‘backlash’ would be masculine, but that’s a separate issue).
April 11th, 2006 at 8:25 am
I think it pays to be wary when it comes to ANSWER.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:32 am
I’m sick of ANSWER taking all of the credit for the character of these demos.
I’m issuing a press release this afternoon that, since I voiced my criticisms here in this space of numerous Mexican flags being flown at the first “grand march”, the organizers have wisely taken my counsel and changed a key symbolic tactic of the movement with U.S. flags being given overwhelming priority.
I will be issuing further instructions to the masses as deemed necessary.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:34 am
Jcummings, as a regular visitor to this blog since it first started up, I remember Marc’s positions on this very well. He argued that the antiwar movement should be inclusive of both out now and phased withdrawal positions, and he leaned towards some sort of phased withdrawal on the grounds that once we went in there we had a responsibility to clean up some of the mess before we left (Marc, if I have this wrong, please correct me.) I have always been an out now person, but despite my disagreement with Marc on this I have always considered him to be clearly anti-war. So I think your characterization of his views is indeed inaccurate.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:38 am
It depends how you constitute “antiwar.” I remember particularly right after the fall of Saddam’s statue, Cooper was among those who said that the left should stop opposing the occupation.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:39 am
I gotta agree with Nell, here Marc. You’re painting with a hugely broad brush here and it’s beginning to seem a little like shtick.
I’m a liberal and hardly feel that Latinos are completely oppressed, including and especially the one I sleep with most every night!
The Brazilian emigre community here is very well-organized and has accomplished a great deal for its community.
BTW, in your zeal to bash the dems, just wanted to point out that an organizer of the demonstrations said on ATC on NPRyesterday that they would rather not have a bill than a bad bill. Kind of underscores the notion of getting it right rather than just throwing something out there ot fix in the conference.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:58 am
ANSWER is joke. They’re irrelevant. There are many hispanic interest groups pushing these events. It’s what they do; classic groupthink based only on ethnicity. Our people are oppressed and so on but the home office is never mentioned. It’s agreed to be bad beyond all hope and dismissed.
The economic implications of low-wage undereducated masses demanding something just for existing is another more sinister matter. I’ve read the Da Vinci Code and Daughter of God. Although neither are true the church has a role to play even if only to advocate for a higher birth rate which is the ultimate culprit in this.
“In the poorer countries, early marriage, a desire for large families, and failure to employ birth control methods reliably are common.”
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations2.html
“With a 2005 rate of natural increase in Mexico of 1.9%, its population would be expected to double in 36 years (0.69/0.021 = 36.3) from its 107 million people now to some 214 million in 2041. Will it?”
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html
They’ll come here I suspect if the current spike which resembles a hockey stick just like global warming. The convergance is a perfect storm.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Let’s cut through the post’s propaganda:
1. The WaPo poll offers it’s “don’t select this!” choice as #3, making illegal presence a felony. Sensenbrenner tried to take that out, but the Dems worked to keep it in. The WaPo is just carrying the water.
2. The protesters were wearing white because they were told to wear white. They were also waving American flags because they were given them and because they were told to leave their Mexican, etc. flags at home. Take a look at these flags.
3. Apparently Marc Cooper is opposed to “non-person status”. First, illegal aliens aren’t “non-persons”. They have a lot of power through numbers and because they make money for corrupt corporations and banks. They even have political representatives such as Gil Cedillo.
And, if Cooper doesn’t favor “non-person status”, why does he want to put more people in that status?
Giving amnesty will encourage massive illegal immigration. Unless we’re going to hand out citizenships at the border, we’ll just have millions more illegal aliens, all of them in that status that Cooper claims to oppose.
Maybe Cooper’s opposition to “non-person status” isn’t really that solid. If it were he’d support enforcing our immigration laws rather than supporting those who think they mean nothing.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:24 am
The protests have little to do with immigration.
The socialist left– i mean democrats are just using this to expand their weakening and without direction base.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:32 am
If ANSWER were in control of the demos, we’d be hearing all about Mumia’s support for immigrant workers. We’re not. They have, however, printed some nice signs.
Back to Marc’s initial theme, I was at a local transit center yesterday, and noted a number of Hispanic-appearing men. A number in a row that I saw had smiles–some big, some not so. You see that a lot in Mexico, but, it occurs to me, not much in the US. I then passed a middle-aged blue-collar kind of guy humming and snapping his fingers, kind of bouncing along. Smiling also. It occurred to me that it I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a middle-aged Mexican man snapping his fingers and bouncing along. More often, such a man would have his head down, as if hiding.
This is just a snapshot, and perhaps just a projection of what I am expecting to see, but I noticed the behavior before I thought about what might be its source. Pride, emerging from “the shadows.” It seems real, and is great to see.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Interesting view, Michael C. I’ve got a snapshot too.
I’ve had reason to be at the local super-home-hardware stores. I’ve seen lots of blue collar Latino guys waiting outside the parking lot, in the last few years. Their heads are not down. As you approach, they are laughing and goofing around like any group of guys, and then they have no problem crowding around and looking the driver right in the eye, not threatening, just inquiring (obviously wanting a job).
April 11th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Add the House bill’s border and workplace enforcement provisions to McCain/Kennedy, and you have a decent bill.
Pass the Senate bill as is and you have a bullshit bill that gives corporate America and “The Race” lobby what they really want: millions of more additional “undocumented” workers over the next couple of decades.
Also, it is amazing to note Marc’s criticism of the Senate Dems for refusing to allow the additional Republican amendments to be offered. In doing this, Dems were FOLLOWING the lead of the same people organizing the marches that Cooper is praising. They want the most liberal bill possible, and are hoping that the tide will turn in their favor over this current Congressional Easter recess period.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:57 am
One more note:
I think the Latino community has always had pride. Maybe that pride had never been organized in a march before, but I’ve been involved with people from south of the border for over 20 years. Some have been citizens, those on visas, and with no documentation at all, and while some may lack the all the creature comforts, and some have suffered the slings and arrows of prejudice — pride is not lacking, in my view.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Lynn, interesting that our (vastly generalized) observations differ in this way.
I intended to say above, concerning the speculation about A.N.S.W.E.R.’s involvement in these marches, that it is truly a case of reporting that the tail is wagging the dog. This sort of reporting is a remnant of the Hooverian belief that Communists were behind the civil rights movement, the antiwar movement, and pretty much every other grassroots expression of non-mainstream passionate opinion.
A tip of the Easter bonnet to you all.
Such thinking reflects the belief that the individuals filling the streets could not have come to a particular belief on their own, and discards the more likely explanations: that the commies/ANSWER (1) actually share the message being expressed by the demonstrators; and (2) the fact that they are trying to affect the direction of a movement does not mean that they are having any success in doing so.
April 11th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
“Communists” as in people who believed in the ideal of communism were very much behind all of the above mentioned movements. This doesn’t make the adherents communists, yet communists deserve positive credit for their great role in American social movement history.
April 11th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
well, if nothing else, perhaps the sheer size of the demonstrations will put to rest the crazy idea the “law enforcement” camp sometimes puts out that the illegals should be sent home etc. i think by now most folks realize they are not going anywhere. pound them into servitude by back taxes, fines, green card fees? dump them onto the streets by fining their employers out of existence? make them go back across the border and then come back in? oh, really. are they going to walk to the border? i can see it now – the 5 million person march with baby strollers. next thing you know farrakhan will be leading them.
for the inside the beltway folks, the party that gives them a green card and simple straight citizenship and fences the border will get all the votes. watch the polling that comes out over the next few weeks. the idea of law enforcement on companies, contractors and small businesses will fall right off the table when the public sees what that really means. there’s a reason why cities and states have refused to enforce these laws–they know the real cost. most of the corrupt corporations and banks will prove to be urban legend.
the genii is out of the bottle. i wouldn’t stand too close to the border these days–i think there is going to be a stampede heading north!
and on a final note
“Did you know that the IRS provides illegal aliens with a special number (in lieu of social security) to use for paying taxes? It does. The implied promise is that illegals paying taxes will have an advantage when it comes to gaining citizenship. Indeed, the IRS trains and funds people to do outreach and convince them to participate in the program. How more absurd can the government get?” judith klinghoffer
April 11th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Michael: Nor do I expect everyone to agree with my “open borders†perspective, nor think that anyone who does not is a bigot.
Good, point taken, we are in agreement!
April 11th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Paul from Mpls Says: All Woody does – usually – is unflinchingly state the conservative view on this issue. It is intellectually possible to view all the illegal immigrants as “invaders†in the sense he means and also accept that they are individually decent people understandably motivated. If I’m wrong about that maybe Woody can say so.
I hadn’t weighed in on this post, but you’re essentially correct, Paul. Conservatives view a person as an individual and appreciate individual contributions. Liberals think that people have to belong to a group to have value.
Someone can be my friend, even if I disagree with his actions. However, if that individual becomes a threat, then he changes the rules and should be prepared for resistance. In the case of the (primary) Mexicans, I like them (except their driving)–just don’t violate the law.
In the case of the parading Hispanics, most are “useful fools” for the left (unions, socialists, Democrats, etc.) They turn out based upon radio broadcasts and react to excitement from their friends. I bet most, I do mean most, are there for the fun, frivolity, and party atmosphere–especially the young people. Its a great way to meet chicks.
Here are some quotes about individualism to illustrate my remarks.
Ted Kennedy: America is engaged in “war against the individual.”
Hillary Clinton: (1) “We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.” (2) Quote 2. “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what’s best for society.”
Nikita Khrushchev: “Comrades, we must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.”
Benito Mussolini: “There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State, which demands, and the individual, who attempts to evade such demands.”
Source (among many):
The war on individualism
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29119
================
Michael Balter and Randy Paul, I apologized for my previous remarks about you in the last post. I just wanted to be sure that you knew that in case you didn’t go back to learn that I was truly sorry for reacting to you.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
The organizers of the immigrant marches nationwide are a coalition of religious groups (Protestant evangelicals and Catholics); labor unions like S.E.I.U., Latino civil rights groups such as the National Alliance for Human Rights, and Spanish-language talk radio. In Los Angeles Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahoney organized the Monday 4/10 candelight vigil for immigrant rights. Mahoney has made strong statements for immigrant rights recently. Also, the religious groups as well as Spanish-language talk radio in Los Angeles mobilized many who came to the 1/2 million march in Los Angeles a few weeks ago. ANSWER is a non-player, non-important. People need to look at this remarkable coalition, particulary the role of the talk radio and religious groups.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
What Julia says is probably true, just as ANSWER, in the grand scheme of the antiwar movement, is not important.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Those comparisons are outrageously false. Who hates individuals more than the GOP? Unless the individual happens to be a powerful business exectutive that is. Those are the only individuals on the GOP map. Top 1 percenters duping poor working slobs into thinking they care. As with any wingnut source I find the context of those quotes deliberately distorted biased propaganda. I find the same thing on right-wing so-called science critics. They aren’t valid just self-interested. Ethnic groups marching in lockstep adds to this group mentality, but that’s separate from what Woody is talking about.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
I don’t know how much ANSWER is involved in the protests, but that “accusation” was also thrown around for the March protest.
What they are involved in, is the “A Day without Latinos Boycott” which you can check out at their website. Of course, the boycott is on May 1st.
April 11th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
CAUTIOUS OPTIMISMO
“The opportunities for employers to exert excessive power over immigrant employees at these junctures has the potential to shape their entire U.S. work experiences, rendering them unable to exercise their rights effectively and to advance in the workplace. So much for enhanced labor rights for immigrants, and so much for the effort to prevent exploitation that drives down wages and working conditions for U.S. workers.
Equally troubling is the way that, as a formal government program, McCain-Kennedy institutionalizes guest workers’ second-class status, marking them as a group that, for all the attempts to enforce labor law, remains more vulnerable and less secure than the mainstream of American workers. While McCain-Kennedy creates a path to full citizenship for guest workers that is currently blocked off, the existence of the program ensures that there will always be more temporary, disposable workers to take their place.â€
I for one am glad, that the groups that organized these demonstrations were not primarily from the Left.
As some who considers their political ideology to be mostly left, I personally find the immigration ISSUE EXTREMELY COMPLEX—there are many sides to this “peso.â€
Yes, who could deny that everyone needs to be treated with dignity, and there is little doubt that our “business as usual policy,†in Latin America is NOT responsible for this crisis, and for the resulting massive immigration, which appeals to greedy employers, who are all to willing to profit by others misery.
The AFL-CIO are enchanted, and why not, it’s a goldmine—the thought of future union dues is enough to give the treasurer an orgasm. MacDonald’s, Burger King, Wal-Mart, corporate farmers and guys who need their chickens plucked and fed will be happy. So tell me, wouldn’t U.S. citizens who are minorities and unemployed, be grateful to have these jobs; if of course, they were paid a living wage and were also given benefits.
It is difficult to reconcile double-digit unemployment, and the willingness of employers to hire immigrants before they hire unemployed Americans.
Wouldn’t this be the best welfare reform—having every citizen working who can physically do so?
IT’S ODD IF YOU CAN ONLY BE GRACIOUS TO YOUR GUESTS, BY EVICTING YOUR FRIENDS AND RELATIVES FROM YOUR HOUSE!
April 11th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
The illegal immigrant demonstrations (ok, maybe only on half were) are going to backfire. The damage to their cause by the display of foreign flags during the first days of marching cannot be undone. The display of American flags during the latter demonstrations will be seen as a cynical ploy to undo the earlier damage. The arrogant demand for amnesty and the signboard references to Hispanic claims for repossession of parts of the U.S. were especially damning, and the American flag displayed upside down was provocative, to say the least.
There are many citizens and legal residents who hold a great deal of resentment towards illegal aliens for claiming civil rights that they are not entitled to, for bullying their way into this country while others apply for a visa and wait patiently until their time comes. Frankly, these marches will only serve to emphasize the magnitude of the illegal alien problem, stiffen the resolve of the anti-illegal immigrant citizen and gain additional anti-illegal immigrant disciples. Truthfully, any benefits to the illegal aliens are ephemeral. The kids who played hooky from school had fun (half of those in LA will never graduate). It was cathartic for the adult illegal aliens who had pent up emotions associated with their fears of deportation.
In the end the Congress will not be intimidated by a congregation of screaming law breakers making irrational gratuitous demands. I have faith that the Constitution will be upheld and Federal codes will be enforced.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Are you trying to be a comedian, George? Were you there on the streets, or did you watch the televised Fox News reports? If you had actually been there at the demonstrations, you would have seen for yourself just a few Mexican flags….this out of half a million peaceful demonstrators. To say that American flags outnumbered any other flag exponentially is a collosal understatement. As for “signboard references to Hispanic claims for repossession of parts of the US,” can you honestly say that they represented even a fraction of a tenth of a tenth of a tenth of one percent of all of the 500,000 protestors? No, of course you can’t. Sheesh, someone needs to remind me during the GOP’s next convention to use an oddball supremacist in the hall to extrapolate endlessly, as you have done.
As for “bullying their way into this country,” most Americans probably (and thankfully) don’t share your silly outrage. Perhaps this is because most Americans don’t want to see the goods and services that they consume in their lives increase exponentially. It might interest you to know that WAL MART has gotten in trouble numerous times for employing scads of illegals….Are you willing to boycott Wal Mart now, and to buy only goods that are worker-certified if you feel so strongly? And why not?
I hear people like you and Eleanore blasting American employers but how about looking a little bit into the mirror?
April 11th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
David – As someone in the “blasting American employers” faction, I refuse to shop at Walmart for this and some other reasons. You must be aware of the anti-Walmart campaign spurred by Robert Greenwald’s film, among others…
And as I’ve said numerous times, I hate the fact of cheap produce picked by super-exploited workers. I’d rather pay an extra half-buck, or whatever, for lettuce if it went to the laborers than know that it’s being sent straight to the supermarket from hellacious field conditions.
If there’s anyone who needs to look in the mirror, maybe the high-and-mighty hyper-lefties who see this as strictly an “open borders” issue and, objectively, stand with the Chamber of Commerce on the issue of unfettered labor markets – at least when you dis someone like Eleanor – could use a bit of reflection.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
What reg said.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
“I hear people like you and Eleanore blasting American employers but how about looking a little bit into the mirror? ”
I don’t have any problem looking in the mirror–I don’t shop at Wal-Mart, and I sleep quite well at night.
David, do you hire illegal immigrants? Your indignation towards me, comes off as quite defensive. Perhaps, it is you that needs to look in the mirror
But remember–NARCICIS BIGGEST PROBLEM WAS THAT HE BECAME TOO OBSESSED WITH HIS REFLECTION, SLIPPED ON THE BANK, FELL IN THE RIVER AND DROWNED.
16 U.S. Plans for Hemispheric Integration Include Canada
Sources:
Centre for Research on Globalisation, November 23, 2004
Title: “Is the Annexation of Canada Part of Bush’s Military Agenda?â€
Author: Michel Chossudovsky
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html
Canadian Dimension, Jan/Feb 2005, Winnipeg: Vol.39, Iss.1; pg. 12
Title: “Canada’s Chance to Keep Space for Peaceâ€
Author: Bruce K. Gagnon
space4peace.org
Faculty Evaluator: Sherril Jaffe, Ph. D.
Student Researcher: Christina Reski
The U.S. and Canada have been sharing national information since the creation of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) in 1958. This bi-national agreement to provide aerospace warning and control for North America is scheduled to expire in May 2006. In preparation for the renewal of this contract, the U.S. and Canadian commanders are proposing to expand the integration of the two countries, including cooperation in the “Star Wars†program, cross-national integration of military command structures, immigration, law enforcement, and intelligence gathering and sharing under the new title of NORTHCOM, U.S. Northern Command.
Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien refused to join NORTHCOM. To circumvent his decision, this “illusive transitional military†(aka NORAD/NORTHCOM) formed an interim military authority in December 2002, called the Bi-National Planning Group (BPG.) The command structure is fully integrated between NORAD, NORTHCOM and the BPG. The BPG is neither accountable to the U.S. Congress nor the Canadian House of Commons. The BPG is also scheduled to expire in May 2006. Hence, the push for Canada to join NORTHCOM.
Donald Rumsfeld said that U.S. Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. NORTHCOM’s jurisdiction, outlined by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), includes all of Canada, Mexico, parts of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles of the Mexican, U.S. and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Artic.
Under NORTHCOM, Canada’s military command structures would be subordinated to those of the Pentagon and the DoD. In December 2001, the Canadian government reached an agreement with the head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, entitled the “Canada-U.S. Smart Border Declaration.†This agreement essentially hands over confidential information on Canadian citizens and residents to the U.S. Department of Homeland. It also provides U.S. authorities with access to tax records of Canadians. The National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, currently debated in the U.S. Senate, centers on a so-called ‘Information Sharing Network’ to coordinate data from ‘all available sources.’â€
The BPG is the interim military for NORTHCOM. Part of the BPG’s agenda is the Civil Assistance Plan (CAP) which supports the ongoing militarization of the civilian law enforcement and judicial functions in both the U.S. and Canada. Military commanders would “provide bi-national military assistance to civil authorities.†The U.S. military would have jurisdiction over Canadian territory from coast to coast, extending from the St. Laurence Valley to the Parry Island in the Canadian Arctic.
It appears that some Canadian leaders are in full support of this program. In the summer 2004, Canada agreed to amend the NORAD treaty to allow sharing satellite and radar data with the ballistic missile defense program based in Colorado. This operation center will control the 40 interceptor rockets planned for Alaska, California and at sea.
On February 22, 2005, at the NATO summit in Brussels, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin declared that his people would not participate in the controversial Missile Defense Shield. Contradicting this message, Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. (and former board member of the Caryle Group) Frank McKenna, said “We are part of it now.â€
On August 2, 2004, the U.S. Air Force quietly published a new doctrine called “Counterspace Operations.†The development of offensive counterspace capabilities provides combatant commanders with new tools for counterspace operations…that may be utilized throughout the spectrum of conflict and may achieve a variety of effects from temporary denial to complete destruction of the adversary’s space capability. It has also been noted that Canadian Military personnel are taking part in large scale American space war games designed to prepare for combat in orbit.
Under an integrated North American Command, Canada would be forced to embrace Washington’s pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate in December 2003.
Similar bi-national negotiations are being conducted with Mexico. U.S. military could exert strategic control over air space, land mass and contiguous territorial waters extending from the Yucatan peninsula in southern Mexico to the Canadian Arctic, representing 12 percent of the world’s land mass. The militarization of South America under the “Andean Trade Preference Act†as well as the signing of a “parallel†military cooperation protocol by 27 countries of the Americas (the so-called Declaration of Manaus) is an integral part of the process of hemispheric integration (see story #17).
Richard N. Haass, of the U.S. Department of State, said at the 2002 Arthur Ross Lecture, “In the 21st century, the principal aim of American foreign policy is to integrate other countries and organizations into arrangements that will sustain a world consistent with U.S. interests and values, and thereby promote peace, prosperity and justice as widely as possible. Integration reflects not merely a hope for the future, but the emerging reality of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy.â€
April 11th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Julia refers to the National Alliance for Human Rights.
Another group involved in the earlier L.A. rally was CHIRLA.
And, the Georgia rally was organized by a former Mexican consul general.
Supporters of the marches might want to call their closest Mexican consulate and find out how they can help them with their cause.
April 12th, 2006 at 8:56 am
TLB,
The websites you include are just attacks on immigrant rights activists.
To learn about CHIRLA, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, people should llook at their website at http:///www.chirla.org. CHIRLA was an important organizer of the LA immigrant rights march and has been working for immigrant rights in Los Angeles since 1986.
The website TLB included about National Alliance for Human Rights is an attack on Armando Navarro, an ethnic studies professor at UC Riverside. To know more about Navarro, a leading scholar of Chicano history, people should look at his website ethnicstudies.ucr.edu/people/navarro/navarro.html
Last year when the Minitemen patrolled the border, Navarro and his colleagues got volunteers trained by the ACLU to patrol the Minutement, so the Minutemen & their allies don’t like him and attack him a lot.
TLB, the immigrants want to become legal residents and also U.S. citizens. Their movement has nothing to do with right-wing phantasies of Mexican reconquest of the Southwest. There has
been a long-standing groups such as CHIRLA
who have worked for immigrants rights for
years in Los Angeles and other places. CHIRLA
and such groups were major organizers of
the immigrant marches
April 12th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
David Cummings overestimates Americans if he believes that they are all as cynical as he appears to be. I believe that if we spark the American consciousness they will realize that paying a little more for their products is a fair sacrifice to ask. However, the real reason for the low cost of our products from Walmart is the low price they pay for their goods. Labor is an extremely small part of product cost in the retail sales level and agriculture business. The real savings is due to the exploitation of manufactured goods results from the low wage scale in the People’s Republic of China. As for agricultural products, studies have stated that a substantial increase in the hourly wage of migrant workers would result in only a few dollars increase in the family breadbasket. The savings through the use of migrant workers, illegal or not is insignificant.
April 12th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Julia Stein,
Some have called the marches part of a campaign for civil rights, but I disagree. Please cite international legal convention and valid documents that bestow those rights. Will someone in this forum please tell me which civil rights have been violated by denying amnesty to illegal aliens. If failing to surrender to the demands of a mob of illegal aliens is a violation of civil rights, then we’re in concert with all other democracies that respect rule of law.
April 12th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Eleanore Kjellberg,
You speak of human dignity, but continued illegal immigration does nothing to improve human dignity. If or when the illegal alien population reaches the critical saturation point, the point where there are 2 workers completing for every job, human dignity will dissolve into despair. None of you probably remember the Great Depression, but for those who do will remember the steep decline of the national wage scale and the great competition for the most modest of occupations. Jobs Americans won’t do? Tell that to those who were alive during the Great Depression. It could happen again, if illegal immigration isn’t controlled.
April 12th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
TLB,
You say that illegal aliens have a lot of power. A few street demonstrations do not make them real players in the politics of America. These people have shot their bolt and have little energy left. The continuing influx of illegal aliens into this country make them fungible for the unscrupulous employer. They have few skills which makes them easily replaceable. They cannot afford to strike for any length of time, as they live in the margins of society and have little desposable income to allow them to hold out for long. Twenty-seven illegal aliens were let go as the result of staying away from work during the demonstrations. They have little recourse within the legal system for appeal. I have little doubt that all of them have been replaced by now.
I watched on CNN as a restaurant worker stated that he was paid $25,000 as beverage manager for working 60 or more hours per week. His boss unabashedly said that he was a great worker. I suspect that he was, after all, how many citizens would acquiesce to working four or five dollars per hour, without vactions or holidays or recourse to unemployment compensation or workers compensation. When Americans support the presence of illegal aliens, you’re complicit in this exploitation and working to the demise of fair labor.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Someone mentioned Cardinal Mahoney as a supporter of illegal immigrants. Many would say that the good cardinal is merely espousing his interpretation of the scriptures and support of the poor. I submit that he has an ulterior motive, as does the Vatican . The catholic church in America has been in decline for a number of years now, partly because of its encyclicals on abortion and birth control and in part for the child abuse scandals. The disasterous illegal immigration is indeed the ill wind that blows some good, good for the catholic church, that is. Hispanics are well known for towing the line for the church when it comes to following its dogma to the letter. Can’t have a church without parishners, can we? Priests willing to be complicit in the exploitation of their constituencies? Never!
April 12th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
I apologize if that sounded like I was indicting Eleanore or even George specifically for anything (I could have taken some time to proofread what I read).
I won’t, however, apologize for pointing out the hypocrisy of this rather fervent nationalism that currently rears its ugly head on here. Your intentions, reg and Eleanore, are good I am sure but it is a matter of much more than just lettice and Wal-Mart, reg. Movies, customer service, real estate, you name it. There is no escaping it.
April 12th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
I am not sure if people realize how dependent the economy (and their comfort) is on illegal labor.
April 12th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
“I am not sure if people realize how dependent the economy (and their comfort) is on illegal labor”
Which is why I’ve been pointing out the hypocrisy of the leftish elite in some of their pontificating on this. Is your point the same as the Chamber of Commerce ? We can’t leave home without them ? Or do you support raising the bottom rung of the labor ladder – which, frankly, can’t be done without regulating employers that incorporate illegals or “guest workers” into their business plans. (I’m not sure what your point is about “real estate”, but of course I’m aware how pervasive this practice has become. And at the risk of being accused of “nativism”, I’m tired of retail customer service from people who’s English isn’t conversationally adequate to doing the job.
April 12th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Or even capable of understanding anything in any language. My comfort does not ride on anything these people are exploited to do. If we increased the minimum wage they’d just import more to work for less. I mean legal’s a problem these days. Illegal is perfect.
April 12th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
reg, real estate development (the physical end), like many things, is linked.
April 12th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
I’m not going to go into a merry go round here, but I guess what frustrates me is seeing Eleanore’s laundry lists on here of how employers benefit from immigrant labor (which is good, I have no problem really with this), but there seems to be no acknowledgement by anyone that blind consumerism plays a crucial role in creating an incentive for people to come to this country illegally.
As for worker exploitation, I definitely agree, Mark. But don’t you think that that is all the more reason to provide a pathway for illegals to become legal? No more backroom deals, no more people losing their fingers or other limbs in factories and not reporting this brutality and other exploitation to OSHA and other authorities for fear of being deported. I don’t know about you, but I would say that is the sure fire way of ending exploitation of illegals. Believe me, sending them back to Mexico (which is a slap on the wrist, if even that, to business) is not only going to fail in ending their misery, it is an impossibility.
Wages for all workers in the U.S. are stagnant, even when compared against other G8 nations. Legalizing those who otherwise play by the other rules, keep their noses clean, and share our common values will have a most positive impact on wages for everyone. Union membership will rise, and the economy will thrive.
Certainly, there needs to be a limit on how many people can come in, and that should entail border security, among other things, and more importantly reforming “free trade” policies, but I will save that for another day.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
[...] Optimismo [...]
April 13th, 2006 at 5:16 am
There are three things that should be done in conjunction with the employment of foreign migrant workers after legalization.
1. Fine employers $10,000 for every illegal worker, prosecute them and impose punishments of one year in jail. A forgery proof social security card with photo ID would have to be issued to every citizen, green card other legal immigrant to allow employers to differentiate between legal and illegal workers.
2. Authorize more work visas for poor workers who wish to enslave themselves to poor wage (couldn’t resist it).
3. Require that sponsor employers post bond to assure the return of workers to the country of origin after expiration of visa. This will help defray the cost of our enforcement.
4. Require employer to post bond or pay medical care of workers should they become incapacitated during course of their stay. Sponsored migrant workers should never be allowed to become a burden of the American people. I believe that just about every western country takes this precaution with its guest workers, so it’s not unreasonable or immoral.
5. Require employers to pay into worker compensation and umemployment funds for sponsored workers.
6. Require employers to pay for the three to five thousand dollars for background checks for sponsored employees. Wouldn’t want a terrorist to slip through, would we?
Employers receive the benefits, let them pay the bills and take the risk of employing foreign laborers. However, I doubt that after all of these requirements are met, that we’ll be able to call legalized workers low cost labor.
April 13th, 2006 at 5:35 am
Those of you who would argue for the legalization of illegal aliens based upon their contribution to the availabilty of cheap goods and services should beware, as the overhead costs of their new worker entitilements and their requirement to pay income and social security taxes can but only lead to an upward trend in the cost of their labor. Part of their attraction will be lost to employers, perhaps even provoking them to automate. The two great labor competitors in our country have been the machine and the worker. When the worker becomes too expensive, necessity becomes the mother of invention once again, and industry automates. As we put the burden of the true cost of migrant workers on the shoulder of the employer, look forward to a lessening of the need for manual labor provided by migrants, and an increase in unemployment in this country.
April 13th, 2006 at 6:31 am
“blind consumerism plays a crucial role in creating an incentive for people to come to this country illegally”
The people who are being hurt most by illegal immigratioin aren’t engaged in an orgy of blind consumerism. They are watching their already paltry wages depressed by at least 8% according to the Harvard economist who’s studied this issue most thoroughly. Your incoherent “leftism” is characterized by an inattention to class, which shouldn’t be surprising, but makes your arguments sound sophomoric and glibly moralistic.
April 13th, 2006 at 6:38 am
Also, can’t you tell the difference between “blind consumerism” and a concerted attempt by business interests to kick down the bottom rungs on the labor market laddder ? Your “cause/effect” is bizarre. Also, one of the reasons – among many – that Walmart is so popular and promoted as something tantamount to a moral necessity in some circles (right-wing punditry, Friedmanite economists, etc.) is because “blue-collar” and service sector wages have been so depressed for so long that the people who’ve been impacted worst by illegal immigration really can’t afford to shop anywhere else.
Things are linked all right. (But I still don’t get the real estate reference.)
April 13th, 2006 at 6:51 am
Reg,
To whom are you addressing your commentary? If your are addressing me, then you’ve misinterpreted the tone of my messages entirely. I do not support amnesty for illegal aliens, nor do I support the status quo as regards to the infiltration of our borders. I support legal immigration and fair labor for U.S. citizens and green card immigrants. If you are addressing someone else, please do it by name.
April 13th, 2006 at 7:32 am
Correction re: “There are three things that should be done in conjunction with the employment of foreign migrant workers after legalization.”
My three things burgeoned to six.
April 13th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Reg,
Don’t bother replying to my question, as I discovered that you were referring to David Cummings comment.
April 13th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
RV Poll #11 – Have the recent demonstrations made you more or less sympathetic to the illegal immigrants?…
This is a photo from the Los Angeles Times, of immigrants rights protesters in LA.
This weeks poll asks:
Have the recent demonstrations made you more or less sympathetic to the illegal immigrants?
Your Options include:
More Sympathetic
Less Sympathet…
April 13th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Would any of you pick lettuce at $50.00 per hour? Senator McCain says that Americans are incapable of doing so.
Take up the Senator McCain’s challenge. Go to xxxxwww.http://www.projectusa.org/ and tell him what you think.
April 13th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
40 to 50 hours of week bending over (and saying in a bent over position) for fifty dollars an hour might sound dandy, but after a while that’s going to take a toll on a person’s physical health (namely their back, neck, and posture). Fifty dollars (this is also, I assume, without any health insurance benefits) an hour is not exactly a king’s ransom when one considers the longterm health implications. I certainly wouldn’t do it. I’d rather have my old job back at Burger King for four bucks and change per hour. Hell, I’d rather work for Roto Rooter.
Of course, I don’t want to see it pawned off on immigrants, either. Let’s pick our own lettuce. I have arthritis but I grow my own vegetables.
April 13th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Regardless of our personal feelings, or Senator McCain’s for that matter, the senator has no business making judgments concerning the will or capability of Americans as a whole.
April 14th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Do any of you have any opinion on whether illegal immigrants should be given the right to vote? Some activists have advocated giving illegals the right to vote, so the nucleus of a movement for that sentiment exists. It’s so easy to register to vote. All one needs is a driver’s license, maybe a birth certificate and a utility bill. The former two can easily be forged and the utility bill only indicates residency in a community. Illegal immigrants could very well tip the balance in local and national elections if they so choose. Why not? Illegal immigrants are apparently not adverse to conspiring with forgers in obtaining false documents for employment.
May 1st, 2006 at 9:26 pm
[...] I went to the afternoon march and rally supported by the larger institutional players — organized labor and the pro-immigrant NGO’s. The march stretched for miles down the central L.A. thoroughfare of Wilshire Blvd. and culminated with some speeches from the local Catholic cardinal as well as from L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (see some of my pictures here). The Mayor had originally planned to be in Dallas to plead for an NFL franchise, but Mayor Tony has great political instincts. And instead of being a no-show, he stole the show, waving a big American flag and saying how proud he was to be the mayor of all who stood before him in the streets. I found the entire day-long experience invigorating and rife with the exuberant optimism that has marked this movement since its public eruption less than six weeks ago — after all, these are people who are pleading to be included in the American Dream. With what dishonesty and malice do some commentators refer to these demos as “pro-illegal immigration.” Quite to the contrary, the demonstrators are asking to become legal, to come out of the shadows and to be recognized for their work. [...]
September 18th, 2006 at 11:05 am
spanish chicks…
Hey ! Thanx for the nice post.. Have you heard of the WWE Divas ? We all know they are the hottest and sexiest women alive ! But as the biggest fan on earth for melina perez, i have to say that melina perez is the sexiest of all the wwe divas !…
September 25th, 2006 at 8:01 am
wwe divas…
Interesting post. I came across this blog by accident, but it was a good accident. I have now bookmarked your blog for future use. Best wishes. WWE Divas Website Team….
January 28th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Online Casino…
inhaled inanimately nondecreasing disjunctions!bombardment retroactively!Online Casino [url=http://www.1onlinecasino.org/#]Online Casino[/url] http://www.1onlinecasino.org/# …
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:07 am
another divas…
Very interesting blog! If you are interested in WWE Diva’s, check out Victoria’s site!…
March 1st, 2007 at 12:37 am
Disciples of the New Church faction…
Nice blog, very interesting post… check out my Mickie James site!…
April 15th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
E grande io ha trovato il vostro luogo! Le info importanti ottenute! ))
May 17th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
corporate incentive houston…
ComCorporate Incentive Functions Special Offers Home Sitemap 2006 Corporate incentive All Rights Reserved Corporate Incentive Houston News Corporate event ……
June 29th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
defense driving dallas…
Hi. Thanks for the good read….
June 29th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
visa business card…
Hi. Very nice blog. I\’ve been reading your other entries all day long..lol….
September 8th, 2007 at 8:15 am
[...] uncanny site now chew over this analysis http://marccooper.com/optimismo and give comments [...]