dr. elsewhere here
The responses to my very brief post on the immigration protests were uniformly negative, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to say a bit more, again, briefly.
First of all, the post was mine, not Joe's. I have no idea how he feels about this issue.
Second, though I do agree that population growth is the biggest hurdle for environmental health for the planet, the concern with population growth in this country on those terms is exceedingly narrow, and I'd have to say a bit self-centered of us "citizens" (never forget, we cannot call ourselves natives). I daresay we would not disagree that immigration has nothing to do with population growth the world over; that just does not make any sense. The fundamentalist irrationality with regard to contraception and abortion is the culprit there. The number of illegal immigrants in this country accounts for less than 3% of the total population. Sizable, to be sure, but not enough to make huge claims about environmental degradation, especially when compared to industrial offenses. With all due respect, this just seems like an odd issue to choose for debating immigration when considered in the larger scheme of things. I just cannot see anyone taking a stand against immigration based on environmental effects; there are no data anywhere to support that, the numbers are too low, and the real culprits are so obvious. Plus, the immigrant issue centers around social justice, not the environment.
Third, I said nothing explicit in that previous post about any evils being perpetrated on illegal immigrants, but let's do take up that issue, and the fact that they continue to come to this country to live and work, illegal or not, despite those evils. Because this, you see, is the crux of the problem.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
Why would anyone leave their countries, their homes, their families, to come to the US? Consider the first part of the question, why would they leave? They leave because living in their native countries has become untenable, either because of unspeakable poverty or horrifying oppression or both. How do these things happen? Oppression and poverty are problems as ancient as civilization, so it is not as if any single country or culture or ideology or government or even epoch can be condemned as the sole culprit. There are some awful people out there, hate-filled and greedy, in every walk of life, and these will also be found in any group of illegal immigrants. But in today's world - by which I mean the modern world of the last century plus - there are some mechanisms we can actually point to that contribute to perpetuation of these crimes against humanity. And yes, I count poverty in a world as rich as our own, where individuals can and do live beyond the wildest dreams of the richest kings, a crime.
At this level, you all know the schtick. Greedy international corporations, without conscience or shame, have for decades been exploiting as many resources as they can get their hands on, borders and boundaries be damned, here and abroad. There are lots of those based in the US who have, over the decades, gained enormous power in our own government, to the extent that, when politicians even mention our involvement overseas, it is justified by our "national interests;" read, "corporate properties and profits." You would be shocked to know how much "property" American corporations "own" in other countries (I ran across this datum some time ago, and cannot get my hands on it now; apologies). Those resources are removed from those countries, with virtually no retention of fees or compensation for the people of those countries whatsoever. Sure, this is also partially the fault of the people in power in those countries, but our corporations and our government have made quite the reputation for keeping despots in power as long as they keep this arrangement in place, regardless of how much the despots pocket and abuse their citizens.
You all know this story. Why do you think there is such a difference between the immigration profiles of Mexico and Canada? The US is unable to maintain such an arrangement with Canada, given its long history of parliamentary government and justice that we share, so they enjoy a certain autonomy with respect to us. (But bear in mind, the corporations of Canada are not innocent here; they played just about as big a role in the rape of Haiti as we did, to offer just one example.) In contrast, Mexico does not have the parliamentary history that the US and Canada share, and they have a long history of exploiting the natives there, something we do share with them. Throw into this mix the decades-long history of drug trafficking, which I believe has now been fairly well-documented as supported and exploited by the US CIA, and you have just a couple of reasons for the US to support Mexican leaders who allow American corporations to maintain their exploitation. This is the recipe for poverty and perpetual serfdom that is repeated in country after country around the world (and is bound to happen here, the way things are going; food for another post).
Now, what is done with all those resources? They are converted to goods and sold to the American middle class in great quantities to insure great profits for those corporations. Once upon a time, that industrial conversion actually happened in the US, but no more, which will become - I think - one very key crack in the economy here because these corporations are squeezing out the very consumers that kept them alive. But that's a tangent; the issue here is that what was exploited elsewhere was brought here and manufactured - requiring jobs - and sold - requiring consumers. These two components together created the biggest part of our American dream, which is - if you really think about it - our greatest export, along with our Constitution and justice system. A tantalizing and alluring dream that we are not ashamed to brag about openly; the entire world knows about the paradise of America, so who could honestly blame anyone for actually trying to come here and live that dream?
So, let's review. Our American corporations exploit other countries, contributing to horrifying conditions that would send anyone fleeing. These same corporations use those exploited resources to establish a job market and consumer culture that anyone would envy. Throw into that mix the remarkable enticement of living in a free and just society (relative to most everywhere else on earth, at least until recently), and you have here both the stick and the carrot that create the huge flow of immigrants into this country. And, just for spice, add those companies who are willing to employ immigrants without papers because they stand to make so much money doing so, and whaddaya got?
A century ago and more, the vast resources of our own lands provided much of the lure, in addition to the justice system; people came from Europe and Asia seeking the opportunity to work with those resources, mostly the land through agriculture. If you watch the show on Democracy Now!, you'll get a sense of how these immigration issues are not new. And you will also get a sense for just how much the business and industrial fatcats fed into the hatred and xenophobia even then, but then the victims of that hate-mongering were the Irish and the Italians and the Germans and the Asians; we all know the affectionate names tagged to each of these groups. And how despicable of us, how hypocritical to take such an attitude now! WE ARE ALL IMMIGRANTS HERE!! Unless you can claim 100% Native American blood, folks, you are of immigrant stock.
A century ago, your family might well have been immigrants; the odds are high that they were. And the odds are jeven higher that they were laborers. And why would the fatcats be afraid of workers, especially when they needed them to work their machinery? Simple; these workers, these laborers dared to ask for fair treatment. They demanded a living wage, that children not be allowed to work, that there be a limit to the number of hours and days they could be made to work. They demanded decent working conditions, safety, and healthcare. To put it succinctly, they represented a power base that threatened the profits of those fatcats, and it is precisely the same today. Don't you realize how nervous all those WASP CEOs must get when they think about trying to corral all those millions of non-WASPs and get them to tow the corporate line, given the latest projections of the small percentage whites will soon claim of the total American population?
So you might say that you have no problems with immigrants, just illegal ones. Well, that seems reasonable on the front end. But last time I read the Constitution, there was no mention of immigration anywhere. The Constitution provides for the protection of human rights for anyone who sets foot on this soil. Period. (Even someone bent on our destruction is afforded the right to trial, though we all know that right has now been "tortured" by this administration.) Immigration laws came much later, and so far those rights have always been preserved for even illegal immigrants. If you watch that DN! show, or even read carefully what these hundreds of thousands of people are protesting, it is the brazen violation of those Constitutional rights in the bill passed in the House last December that does not only make it a felony instead of a civil crime to be in this country illegally. This bill also makes it a felony for physicians, therapists, members of the clergy, and - one has to ask (and one does in the DN! show) - even their immigration lawyers to assist these individuals! I am a mental health professional, and the USAPATRIOT Act was bad enough, but this is heinous! I for one refuse to be party to denying individuals their human rights because corporations want to exploit them, both here and in their own countries.
My final and fundamental point is simple: The problem of immigration is not caused by immigrants but caused by the pervasive and destructive cycle of exploitation perpetrated by corporate power worldwide, and supported shamelessly by the US government. Punishing the immigrants will not solve the problem. The problem will only be solved when we start punishing the corporations that employ the illegal immigrants, and punishing corporations for violations of human rights and environmental health. With so much money to be made by supplying the bodies, by turning a blind eye, by keeping them as virtual slaves so they'll never expose the truth, with so much profit to be made by keeping wages so far down, do you really think the illegal immigrants are the problem? I have no doubt there were "scabs" who hindered the Farmworkers' movement, but the real culprits were the corporations that continued to hire them.
I am not saying we should not have some rules or regulations by which to track the numbers of people who enter this country. I am not saying we should not have some sort of identity and customs check at border entries. But walls?? This is not Soviet Berlin, for chrissake. Nor is it the Occupied Territories. And making illegal entry a felony? Likewise offering humane assistance to illegals? This House bill of last December is draconian, and profoundly unAmerican. It is this bill that has sparked all these protests. I beseech you each and all to refine your education on the matter so that you don't take an emotional and unAmerican and unConstitutional position on it.
And, ultimately, never forget that we are ALL immigrants. And we are all human, and we are all equal.
10 comments:
But last time I read the Constitution, there was no mention of immigration anywhere.
Can't resist - does that mean we can get rid of the income tax as well?
Dr. e;
Generally I support your thrust of your arguments but would quibble a bit with your terminology.
"Greedy international corporations" has a certain lefty buzz about it but is not explicative.
Corporations, their structures and cultures, emulate the industrial strategies and processes of either extraction or harvest they employ.
Extractive industrial processes have dominated for most of the industrial age but are not sustainable in the long term.
Harvesting processes and strategies to a great extent have been cross-bred with extractive techniques yielding a kind of hybrid, perhaps, though, not necessarily a vigorous one.
Rather than slamming corporations as such, I believe it's more important to focus on the contrast between extracting industries and harvesting industries.
The corporations you assail merely mimic the dominant ethos of their industrial processes and that's where your focus should be.
--
m.jed, of course we could. where that would leave us is quite another matter. my point was only that our treatment of individuals within our borders must adhere to the word AND SPIRIT of the constititution.
jlo, i hold to my position. i have no doubt that there is a difference between harvest and extraction, but the level of exploitation and abuse by international corporations is utterly inhuman, no matter the category you use. it occurs in this country as well, based on the fact that the agenda of these companies is not the commodity or even the customer - these are just means to their end, which is - but money. that bottom line takes all the humanity away.
it may well be that this distinction can be charted in terms of how others are treated by their respective companies. however, i would argue that it would only be a matter of degree; when the bottom line is money, it's all downhill from there.
m.jed, of course we could. where that would leave us is quite another matter. my point was only that our treatment of individuals within our borders must adhere to the word AND SPIRIT of the constititution.
jlo, i hold to my position. i have no doubt that there is a difference between harvest and extraction, but the level of exploitation and abuse by international corporations is utterly inhuman, no matter the category you use. it occurs in this country as well, based on the fact that the agenda of these companies is not the commodity or even the customer - these are just means to their end, which is - but money. that bottom line takes all the humanity away.
it may well be that this distinction can be charted in terms of how others are treated by their respective companies. however, i would argue that it would only be a matter of degree; when the bottom line is money, it's all downhill from there.
Dr. E -
To start with a paraphrase from Friedman that will run through my reply, we can have open borders or a welfare state, but not both.
On the corporate greed meme, I believe to be incorrect in a broad sense and see the situation as improving. I happen to subscribe to Friedman's philosophy that the only purpose of a firm (whether corporation or small mom & pop shop) is to make money for its owners. But I also recognize, as did Friedman and as do many of the CEOs of our great corporations - that employees are assets in many ways (as cutomers, marketers, ambassadors, representatives), and accordingly deserve respect and to be paid for their productivity. As the economy becomes more service-oriented and intellectual capital continues to grow, this becomes an even bigger issue because in many industries, the primary asset of the company walks out the door every night - thus requiring the greedy corporations to pay attention to those assets.
Coming back to exploitation - when two willing parties reach an agreement without coercion, both are at least no worse off, and usually both are better off because otherwise agreement would not be reached. Immigration to geographies of better potential economic prosperity has been occuring well before corporations existed, let alone international resource-stealing corporations.
Third, on illegal versus legal immigration, and related to the history of immigration and the Founding Fathers. The issue of environmental degradation is approaching the target - as illegal immigrants make use of scarce resources, although these resources may not necessarily be environmental as you cited. But healthcare and education are two that are primarily burdened by illegal immigration, and illegals place a burden on the state in their unwillingness to assimilate - as evidenced by the recent marches where chants of Viva la Mexico were prevalent. English as a second language, governement publications printed in both Spanish and English - all add extra cost to a government that is, as noted repeatedly on this site, deeply in debt (and I thought owned by the Chinese, rather than your statement of the US owning significant property outside of its borders). Emergency rooms are not allowed to turn away patients, illegals or not, which increases the cost for legal citizens - both through government and private insurance costs. Primary education is financed mostly through property taxes - but with illegals cramming into apartments that weren't intended for multiple families, the taxes can't support the services required.
And so the issue isn't we descendants of immigrants pulling up the drawbridge once we've crossed the moat and are safely behind the castle walls. The very big difference is that our ancestors didn't have the welfare state that exists today. Take that away, and you'll see libertarians embrace open borders faster than you can say Ayn Rand.
The income tax is in the constitution -- the 16th amendment. Which WAS legally ratified, despite the UTTER HORSEHIT you hear form tax protestors.
Yes, I know. But we can all agree that 14 comes before 16. And it was the Fourteenth Amendment that first dealt with immigration in a Constitutional framework, beginning, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . .". However, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was the first law to deal with immigration.
So to say that "immigration laws came much later" and "But last time I read the Constitution, there was no mention of immigration anywhere" implies reference to the original Constitution and Bill of Rights - not the subsequent amendments.
Either that, or Dr. E last read the Constitution in 1868.
ah, i do stand corrected on the 16th amendment, and the 14th. i was in fact referring to the original, but the constitution does include all amendments, and these do address taxes and immigration, respectively. it is true, however, that those acts of 1790 and 1795 established the ground rules, which each nation must have, and which eliminated women, slaves, and asians. nothing changed until 1868 when slaves were allowed, and it was later still for women and then asians. not exactly the model of an open and democratic society, but there it is.
m.jed, (1) we actually observe too well how highly corporations "value" us workers as "assets." it's a lovely theory, but because the bottom line profit is the motivator, those assets are marginalized at every opportunity. it is a very rare, and very small, corporation that truly treats its workers as real humans.
(2) i would find it hard to believe that immigration of any substance occurred prior to corporations. even the colonization of the americas was funded by the east india company, an arm of the crown. the company essentially ruled india, not the crown, and it likely would have ruled the american colonies, had the subjects not revolted.
(3) i did not say us owned foreign property, but corporate owned foreign property. the power of those corporations is rapidly rendering the us government, as a voice of its people, obsolete and quaint (to coin a phrase), essential only to protect the interests of those corporations with its overblown defense department.
(4) the burden of illegal immigrants is nominal, both in terms of education/welfare and in terms of the environment, compared to the burden of corporate welfare. you do NOT want to get me started on that one, a truly pet peeve.
you have clearly missed my fundamental point, which is that those numbers of illegals would shrink quite rapidly if the companies who hired them were punished with some real consequence for their crimes, not just hiring illegals but raping the planet and promoting not "the general welfare," which the constitution requires, but their own personal greedy and selfish wealth.
finally and frankly, i could not possibly care less what libertarians embrace or don't; their "principles" are hopelessly garbled and internally contradicting, at best. you should know that from our previous debate, and i will not revisit it, here or anywhere.
dr. e,
there seems to be an over abundance of pessimism on your behalf with the way corporations treat their employees. Look at the top recruiters at the top 25 academic institutions. Your views on how corporations treat employees is in stark contrast to the success of the largest corporations in recruiting the most highly sought after college grads (I refuse to call them our best and brightest) - many of whom I assume, and I'm sure you'll agree, have families that would be willing and able to allow their children to hold out for a better offer than from one of those exploitive corporations. Microsoft, GE, Proctor & Gamble, Coca Cola, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, McKinsey, Viacom, Exxon-Mobil etc. all large corporations, in all sorts of industries are all successful in recruiting those with a plethora of alternatives. Many of these companies take pride in being "one of the top XX companies to work for", because it provides a competitive advantage in recruiting and reduces employee turnover.
i refrained from this point in my last comment, m.jed, but you played right into it:
clearly you have no clue how corporations treat the bulk of their employees. your example of the near "best and brightest" says it all. of course these elite few will get great packages, and of course they'll be happy. hell yeah, of course the upper 10% of the us population is happy.
duh.
you obviously do not get the obvious, that the problems arise from the way the "privileged" treat the poor. the myopia comes from looking down one's nose too long. unfortunately, new glasses won't give you a clue, and a nose job does not come with an attitude adjustment.
Post a Comment