(noon. – promoted by ek hornbeck)
Every once in awhile the media mouthpieces attempt to explain to the public that the immigration issue is “complex.” Would anyone here like to explain to me in real terms how this is so? I am not going to name names or point fingers here.
I was amused by the offhand discussion about immigration law prompted by SB 1070. The so-called “issue” prompted in this discussion, for those who aren’t familiar:
The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.
I suppose this discussion even spilled over into the world of sports, yesterday, with the Phoenix Suns choosing to wear their “Los Suns” uniforms on Cinco de Mayo as a protest against the law. It needs to be noted, then, that when political discussion spills over into the media-created world of sports commentary, many Americans start to pay attention. But the most amusing thing I remember hearing (from the offhand commentators), in this era of global governance, is that the politics of immigration reform is “complex.” Would someone here kindly explain how this is so?
There’s a rather simple solution to the problem of what to do about immigration: you let them all in. They’re members of the global working class, and if you’re going to forge a global working class coalition, a historic bloc or an anticapitalist big tent coalition, global freedom of movement for the working class is the first thing you need. Capital already has its global coalitions: see Trilateral Commission, WEF, WTO, Bilderberg, and so on. They also have global freedom of movement for capital — that’s what “free trade agreements” are for, it’s what the World Bank/IMF is for. They rule the world, undemocratically and as an oligarchy, this way. Denying to labor what capital already has — what could be stupider?
Worried about letting criminals into the country? Catch ’em, throw ’em in prison.
Think they’re a drag on services? They’re the work force — they built our civilization. If anything, we’re a drag on the services they provide. Remember, real value, as opposed to Ponzi scheme “value,” is created through hard work.
Worried about overcrowding? Teach ’em about birth control. You think they’re going to learn it if they stay in their home countries?
Worried about the “race to the bottom” in wages? Mobile capital is already sending the jobs to India, where they’re training Indian workers to speak with various American accents so that impoverished phone workers from Mumbai can pretend that they’re from Boston or New Orleans. How is anti-immigrant legislation going to stop that?
And it’s a myth spread by capital that there are only so much in terms of “jobs” to go around. Take a small portion of that $12.8 trillion the Feds promised the banksters, and give it to ordinary people to clean up the environmental mess we’ve made of planet Earth. Voila! Jobs.
Think they’re invaders? How are they any worse of an invasion than your ancestors were?
Worried about terrorists? The first thing you could do, of course, is to not be one, though I don’t think the issue here is one of whether Customs agents are allowed to ask people for their IDs when they cross the borders.
In short, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s claim to the moral high ground rests upon the principle of “my ancestors stole this land before you got here,” which is no principle at all. America was founded upon what Marx called “primitive accumulation,” which is basically plunder. If you want to improve upon the situation, then, you’ve got to share what your ancestors plundered.
So many social problems, from ecological devastation (e.g. global warming) to poverty to energy crisis, need to be solved through some sort of global unity among working people. What do you all think the role of national boundaries is in all this?
The solution to the problem of immigration reform is, then, let ’em all in. How is this issue complex again?