Thom Hartmann: Wrong message on immigration
T.A. Barnhart
"How many?" Over and over, the same question: "How many/" A thousand? A million? As many as can walk across the border? "How many? How many?"
I picture Thom Hartmann sitting by his bedroom window at night, looking out the window, furtively, through a crack in the curtains, looking south, ticking them off on his fingers as they flood the border to take jobs away from Americans (presumably not talk show radio host jobs, however), to drive down wages, his fingers busy on his hands, counting, counting. His fixation on numbers, and his fixation of Mexicans sneaking into "our" country by the millions to take "our" jobs, to drive down "our" wages, has become intolerable to me. I might as well be listening to Rush, or O'Reilly, or, god help me, Lars. KPOJ is not where I should be hearing anti-immigrant propaganda that tears at the roots of American values and American history.
As the saying goes, we're all from somewhere else. Some of us just had better timing. The Barnharts were "lucky" enough to worship God the wrong way over 300 years ago in Germany, so they took the hint and paid their fare to move to the Puritan paradise in Pennsylvania. My friends, Marc and Susan, took care of little Liz's luck for her, adopting her and bringing her up from Mexico as an infant twelve years ago. So Liz and I, and presumably Thom, managed to get ourselves American citizenships with zero effort on our own part (all Liz had to do was be an orphan). We are citizens, thanks to other people, so we are immune from this resurgent xenophobia the neocons are trying to whip up in their desperation to deflect attention from how Bush is destroying the country. And Thom Hartmann is playing right into their hands.
It's not that he may not be right. No country can assimilate an unregulated flow of immigrants, not the way the world is currently structured. No matter how open and generous we (or at least, some of us) want to be here in the United States, if we cannot provide homes, jobs, and basic services for the people who are already here – and we cannot, not as long as we wage wars and give our wealthiest citizens big tax cuts – then we cannot provide these services to immigrants, either, legal or otherwise. So, from a practical standpoint, an open borders policy is currently untenable. To be a humane host, we have to ensure those who enter this country are treated with respect and receive basic human rights. Otherwise they are forced to live in the shadows, where exploitation becomes the de facto policy, bringing terrible shame to our country and democratic heritage.
But what angers me so much about Hartmann's on-going rants against "illegals" and his fixation on mere numbers is the comment he made Monday morning to a caller: that illegal immigration is an issue separate from trade policy. The factual untruthfulness of this statement, coming from someone who eloquently and passionately advocates progressive viewpoints on other issues , shocked me. Trade policy is the reason we have this problem, trade policy that dates back a century and more. As the United States decided to intervene in the affairs of our southern neighbors, through direct and indirect military and economic actions, we created, encouraged and sustained tyrannies that had, for us, a single objective: make money for American corporations. The Cold War simply added another aspect to that program, as has the "War on Terror." The bottom line, however, has remained constant: our country will do what it takes to get cheap bananas on American tables and high profits in American board rooms.
Today, NAFTA and CAFTA are the driving forces behind immigration into this country, along with Bush's friendship with Vincente Fox. The Mexican economy is incapable of supporting its citizens (or the Mexican government sees no need to do so), so ordinary Mexicans, who love their country and would much rather stay there, have no choice but to flee to wherever they can make the money their families need to survive and perhaps even prosper one day. The used to go to the big cities and to the border towns – the maquiladoras – but those options are played out. el norte is where the money is, the dreams; their children are hungry and their families live in ruinous poverty, and their government is doing nothing; so they act, even though it means risking their lives and freedom. They do exactly what any of us would do in the same situation: whatever it takes.
The Mexican government is content with this situation. They get rid of millions of problems, and the Mexican economy receives billions of American dollars without a single investment peso. The American corporate oligarchy is tickled pink, its domestic labor pool getting cheaper and more compliant by the day. American consumers could give a damn, since they pay no attention to the complexities of life and are oblivious to how they are undermining their own security, as well as helping to keep millions of people in poverty and near-slavery. And the neocons are ecstatic, with an issue ready-made for their sick, slavering masses to rip into, turning attention away yet again from the damage their policies are doing to America and the world.
And by singing the neocon tune of "us versus them," Thom Hartmann undermines progressive opportunity on this issue. He has the only morning radio show in the state that is dedicated to advancing liberal and progressive ideas, the only widely-heard program that counters the lies and stupidity of right-wing talk radio. As he does about the war and many other vital issues, Thom could be educating listeners about the root causes of the immigration issue. He could be hammering daily on NAFTA and what it's done to jobs in both the U.S. and Mexico (and the rest of Central and South America). He could be shedding light on the Bush-Fox connection, and, as Russell Sadler did several weeks ago, explaining why the current situation even exists. He could be bringing on progressive voices to stimulate solutions that are humane and that promote both human and workers rights.
But no, Thom Hartmann sits by his microphone and counts Mexicans sneaking across the border to steal jobs and drive down the quality of life in "our" country. He drags Cesar Chavez into his arguments as if labor politics of 1966 somehow retain currency forty years later. He underscores what the neocons spew daily and has no suggestions for a positive, progressive, humane resolution. As someone whose ancestors risked their lives to live in an alien land just so they could worship God in peace, I have to say that I stand in solidarity not with the willfully ignorant, self-satisfied consumers of North America but with those who will do whatever they must to care for their families. I know what it's like to not see my kids for weeks on end – just weeks, not years – just because I had to go where I could to make an income when there were no jobs "here". I have an inkling of what undocumented workers give up to work for sub-minimum wages and no benefits – an inkling – and I have to say: I have little sympathy for the "America first" perspective.
I also know that the current circumstances have to change or this already terrible situation will become disastrous. But closing the borders and sending "them" back is not an answer. It's an act of neocon vengeance, a xenophobic kneejerk that reflects the worst we have ever been in this country. My vision of America is the one shared by those who immigrated here before me: a chance to live in peace and freedom. What we need is not an open-door that lets every suffering person in the world come to our country to find peace and freedom, not to mention food for the table; that, too, is the wrong answer. What we need, and what those who run to us for help need, is a transformation of the United States' policies on economics, trade and human rights. We must insist that our trade partners uphold basic human rights. We must fix NAFTA and CAFTA to place the economic rights of workers above corporate profits. We must abandon trade policies that drive Mexicans from their home to seek whatever bits of money they can, wherever they can. As long as we sit by the border and count wetbacks, we give power to the corporations and tyrants. We can fix the immigrant "problem" by fixing our trade policies and by making human rights more important than corporate profits. And that's the message Thom Hartmann should be speaking, not the fear of jobs being lost and wages being driven down. We have enough voices speaking fear and hate. We need his voice speaking hope and truth.
(for a more progressive take on immigration, see PLAN's Nathan Newman's article in TomPaine.com.
this article in the L.A. Times shows how local governments can improve wages and living conditions for local workers with the side-effect of reducing local immigration -- doing nothing about the root causes of the problem, of course)
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 1, '06
TA, I'd love to help solve the problem of trade agreements. But, and while this may suck, I can't think of any reason American/legal immigrant low-mid blue collar workers ought to pay for the actions of the plutocrats of the US or the racist, corrupt, plutocratic governments outside the US. You offer your own countrymen the opportunity to be crushed to salve guilt? Here's the deal, wages have been frozen, dollar amount, for over a decade, and have risen about 15% in two decades. WTF? Too many workers = low wages. It's a simple equation and there's no getting around it.
I started work at $1.05 min wage in 1969, that would be pushing $11.00 today, how many blue collars make that? The gateway out of poverty employment used to be construction, now it is poverty. US News and World Report writes it off, it's done they say, let the illegals have it since they've got it already. They of course back GWB's guest worker (non-voting slave work-force) policy. You advocate humanity, but your humanity seems selective, it must be foreign and illegal, certainly not the spoiled US citizens. Here's my legal crew's demographics: Caucasian male 50 yrs - Carpenter, roofer Caucasian male 40 yrs - Carpenter, roofer, finish Hsipanic male 28 yrs - beginning carpenter, roofer all US citizens.
I pay them too much for my profit, but in good conscience I can't pay them less. The edge has been reached, though, I can go no farther, my prices are at their limit and so is my margin. A couple more years of this and I will have no employees and be back to doing it single handed, all it takes is motel room cost for 4 illegals differential and I'm done for.
Folks outside these economic scales don't get it, they don't have to deal with it. None of my guys could make it without working spouses and/or a 2nd income source. That's damn pathetic. I work the crew 4 - 10hr days and then I work side jobs. All of them work side jobs. This campaign has gutted 250hrs out of my side work, ouch.
I do not advocate inhmane treatment of illegal immigrants, making felons of them is ridiculous, they should be offered an opportunity to clean up their affairs and leave and doing so, have a place for legal re-entry and citizenship. Those staying anyhow, barred for life, arrested on the spot, no bail, no hearing, out. Services restricted to emergency life saving, then out. No exceptions. Harsh? Yes. So is the alternative for legal workers, a life of poverty.
I've been a champion of the little guy, the down-trodden all my life, and making a choice like this truly stinks, but I'll choose. Allowing the status quo is absolutely wrong. I'll also point out that some of those stinking governments might have a little problem re-absorbing their spoiled exports. Maybe it's time for them to spend some of the tears, sweat, blood, and lives that've been spent in this country fixing its messes.
By the way, our ancestors didn't advance for free, as you've noted and I've noticede that each of us is doing what we can to address our country's problems. I know I'm paying a price for it. Chuck
11:52 p.m.
May 1, '06
I think the number question is an interesting and important one. I'm still sorting out how I feel about this immigration debate (not the concept - I'm for immigrants, my mom is one. In some ways, I am too, having been born abroad -- albeit as a US citizen.)
That said, there are 330 million Americans, give or take. There are more than 330 million people in the world who would get on the next plane/boat here if we said "come on over and stay a while."
So, it seems apparent to me that wide-open borders aren't feasible. Then the question becomes, how many and under what circumstances do we let folks in? And what do we do with the folks that get here under circumstances other than the ones we prefer/require?
12:36 a.m.
May 2, '06
...which is to say, btw, that I don't disagree with you on the broader context. The question of our trade policies is a fascinating and important one.
May 2, '06
I was going to make Chuck's point, but he did it very eloquently. I would only add that yes, we can work on our trade policies, but we can also demand that the laws against employing illegals be enforced. We can do that now.
May 2, '06
There is just no way open boarders are possible. Nor is not dealing with this issue. The hole has to be plugged FIRST then deal with the people that are already here. If you give amenesty (which I don't agree with as I had to go thru the citizenship test, failing it the first time) then you'll just be doing this again in another 10 years with even more people. Let's not break up families but let's deal with it.
May 2, '06
TA -
Thanks for throwing the spotlight on what I think has been an embarrassment to the Oregon progressive community since they so uncritically embraced Hartmann when he burst on the scene here. His nativist comments on this issue have struck me as decidely non-progressive for some time. I've been particularly disturbed that Bernie Sanders has appeared as a regular guest on his Friday program since we are judged by the company we keep.
As someone I was recently critically discussing Hartmann with pointed out to me, just compare his nativist analysis of what he thinks would be good for the labor movement from his Common Dreams post a few months back:
Illegal Workers - The Con's Secret Weapon http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0308-20.htm
If Congress were to pass a law that said, quite simply, that the CEO of any business that was caught employing illegal immigrants went to jail for a year - no exceptions - then within a month there would be ten million (more or less) people lined up at the Mexican border trying to get out of the United States. The US unemployment rate would drop close to zero, and wages would begin to rise. The American middle class would begin to return to viability, as would the union movement in this nation.
with the far more enlightened (and frankly realistic) views of groups like Humane Borders:
Humane Borders Quick Facts http://www.humaneborders.org/about/about_quickfacts.html
Legislative advocacy points: (1) Legalize the undocumented now living and working in the U.S. (2) Begin a responsible guest worker program by issuing work visas directly to migrants so that they are not tied to any one employer or sector of the economy and allow workers to be organized. (3) Increase the number of visas for Mexican nationals. (4) Demilitarize border. (5) Support economic development in Mexico. (6) Federal aid for local medical service providers, law enforcement and adjudication, land owners and managers.
Hartmann has decided to ride this issue for his own reasons (although he's become a bit more guarded in how he says things, perhaps because of some criticism he has received for his regressive views) and for the most part the Northwest progressive community has failed to condemn him for it. Shame on us. And good for you T.A. for stepping forward. Focusing on the truth that trade policy is the real issue is one important step.
Another important step that progressives should be taking in every political action is to re-affirm core values against racism and nativism, and for decency and opportunity for all to improve their lot in life. Democrats are not poised right now to re-take either house of Congress because we haven't clearly and forcefully articulated our core values, much less defended them.
Instead, we talk less than dismissively about "solutions" like non-partisan primaries (running away from parties as an embodiment of value statements in representative democracy), opposing "partisanship" as a campaign plank (making defending values the problem), and waging campaigns of tactical convenience as advocated by the nitwits over at DailyKos (dissing those who actually would vote for those who defend their values). That won't win races because those aren't principled solutions.
May 2, '06
Just to keep the record straight, Liz is from Guatemala, not Mexico. Second, she just turned 14 last week so we've had the (no longer) little tyke for almost 14 years, not 12. :-)
May 2, '06
T.A.
I agree that NAFTA and CAFTA are probably more significant in terms of what is hurting American jobs than immigration or a flood of illegal immigrant workers into the US. And I believe we should be placing more emphasis on reforming trade policies than focusing on immigration issues. But in your commentary you really didn't explain how NAFTA and CAFTA adversely affect the workers in Mexico. Perhaps you could elaborate more on that. I also believe that Thom Hartmann would be receptive to your ideas if you contacted him and explained your position on NAFTA and CAFTA. I've heard Thom condemn our trade policies many times. And Thom is discussing the immigration issue because thats a hot issue for Americans and will be a big issue during the upcoming elections. Can we really afford to put our heads in the sand on the immigration issue when Republicans/Conservatives will be using immigration as a platform for their campaigns?
May 2, '06
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT.
"He drags Cesar Chavez into his arguments as if labor politics of 1966 somehow retain currency forty years later." // T.A. BARNHART
The fact is the issue has not changed much accept for NAFT/CAFTA in the past 40 years, or better yet since shortly after the migration of Americans from the "Dust Bowl" like Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas in the thirties. Then the west coast had to deal with Americans they could exploit for little wages, and no support, but they had to remember they were Americans, not immigrants legal or otherwise.That did nothing for Christian Charity, their were the worst sort of "shanty towns" all up and down the coast. We had record crop harvests all the while thousands were starving in shanties outside of town and out of sight. These were our own citizens!
We signed these treaties that encourage the signatories to maintain there low standards of wages and benefits for workers to benefit foreign investment for cheap labor, and for the import of cheap labor. We sold the farm when Clinton, and Bush pushed these agreements on us. We needed to include a basic minimum of working wages, and benefits provided labor from all signatories. We needed to extend the standard of a safety net for the poor to the signatories to the south, instead of inviting them with a wink to sneak over the boarder to become part of our welfare system, and work force.
As I posted before on this subject, on this blog, America can not extend the safety net to the whole Southern Hemisphere, and we can’t afford for the south to move their responsibilities north. If employers want immigrants to work for them, they should be paying for the privilege of the food stamps, Medicaid, and special needs of educating vast numbers of non-English speaking students.
The fact they are here in their huge numbers isn’t a mystery, they are here at beck’n’call of employers and corporation’s willingness to exploit them, and in turn exploit all labor by labor’s devaluation. We have been avoiding the elephant in the room for decades, and it’s time to climb out from under the mountain of crap we’re all buried in.
Employers and Corporations that hire undocumented workers should be made to pay the same way we made drug dealers pay when discovered. Fine them, confiscate their property, auction it for the cost of dealing with the illegal immigrants and the children they brought and children they had whom are or should be citizens. We need some presumption that the responsibility we have for our citizens well being is a responsibility they also bare for their citizens as well. This is not an American responsibility to support the whole hemisphere at our own peril and expense.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
May 2, '06
I totaly agree with Thom Hartmann. I am a LEGAL immigrant. I first had to apply for a visa, then permanent residency, then citizenship. I was told in 1968 if I so much as sold Avon I would be deported. I was to absolutely not work until I received permanent residency status. My husband had to sign papers ensuring our government that I would never go on welfare (I never have and neither has he.) All my employers always requested my green card and checked my legal status. The difference here was this; my employers were not looking for slave labor, they were hiring an employee, paying prevailing wages and giving benefits. PROSECUTE the employers that hire illegals. Slap them with huge fines. Make them pay court costs and pay for the cost of deporting the illegals they employ. Make it EXPENSIVE to hire illegals. Don't tell me Americans don't want to do construction jobs. I have never heard such B.S. in my life. What Americans don't want is to work in construction for $2.00 an hour. Anytime you hear an employer complain that they can't find employees I'll show you someone that believes they are entiteled to slave labor. Old habits die slowly I suppose.
May 2, '06
I hope all the Sob Sisters who claim the "poor undocumented immigrants (illegal aliens)" deserve amnesty and easy citizenship listen to the Legal Immigrants such as Christine above and reject the notion that just because they mnake a lot of noise, Illegals should be entitled to jump to the head of the line, ahead of those who are trying to enter legally.
I get so sick of having to listen to the demands of those who sneak into our country illegally, then obtain illegal SSN's and licenses.
9:50 a.m.
May 2, '06
As in sport, it's important to constantly review the fundementals, so here's some ground balls....
Nowhere in the world is there a greater economic disparity between bordering countries than there is between the U.S. and Mexico.
The average worker from Mexico can earn in a day here what it takes a week to earn south of the border.
Illegal immigration across the U.S./Mexican border began booming in the 80's under the Reagan adminstration.
NAFTA has contributed to the loss of thousands of jobs in Northwest Mexico.
While U.S. jobs have been outsourced worldwide, even Mexico has suffered the effects of corporations outsourcing and moving from Mexico.
Many illegal immigrants who have spent a number of years here have established families, often having children who, being born here, are U.S. citizens.
Many illegal immigrants have worked steadily over the years, contributing to the tax and social secuity base every time they receive a paycheck; they never receive refunds.
Are there immigrants who cross the border w/ the intent of commiting crimes? YEP.
Are there immigrants who cross the border who abuse the various systems of American aid? YEP
Are ther a glut of immigrant workers in specific industries, hurting American workers by driving down wages and opportunity? YEP
So what's a good Progressive to think and offer? My elevator speech always starts with: "You know, the right wants us to fight each other when the real problems were created by the Industrial powers, who've always endeavored to recruit too many people to fill too few jobs."
It usually ends with: "Hey, what would YOU do if you were broke, and a couple hundred miles away you could earn 7-10 times what you've been accustomed to?"
In the long, nuanced middle lie the solutions: 11 million folk didn't wander over in a night, a week, or a year; and building some cockamammie fence or threatening CEO's with... er... downtime (which they'd never serve) will do little to address the issues that CREATED this osmosis-like immigration.
A final reminder: it's the rightwing strategists that decided to bring up immigration as this election's wedge issue. We knew it was coming as a talking point months ago. Now that the wedge is flying back at 'em, it's important that we acknowledge their contribution in creating the situation that exists today.
Let's make sure we point the fingers NOT at immigrants, NOT at each other, but smack dab where the blame lies: with corporate industrialists and the accomodating governments on both sides of the border.
May 2, '06
Are there immigrants who cross the border w/ the intent of commiting crimes? YEP. //
Are there immigrants who cross the border who abuse the various systems of American aid? YEP
Are ther a glut of immigrant workers in specific industries, hurting American workers by driving down wages and opportunity? YEP // Posted by: KC | May 2, 2006 9:50:09 AM
Ok first thing is your sounding like Rummie doesn't help your cause. You’re a Progressive, so we'll assume your intentions are good.
I would support the same solution Cesar Chavez offered to begin with, a union affiliation as a condition of immigration for employment would ally the industry the immigrant is intending to work for in maintaining the status, services, and well being of the same. The proposed immigrant for employment would need to pay dues to a union for health insurance and protection from exploitation from the wrong kind of employer. If the union for the trade they seek should not exist, and immigrant workers union should be established. This would insure their fair treatment and the American laborers as well.
I'm sure this idea will go over like "turd pie" at a banquet of Republicans, yet for a long term, real solution to border security and illegal immigration there is no better way.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
May 2, '06
"Nowhere in the world is there a greater economic disparity between bordering countries than there is between the U.S. and Mexico."
How about between North Korea and South Korea?
May 2, '06
Ever been hit by an unlicensed drunken illegal alien driving an uninsured car?
Many people in Oregon have. If the accident is serious enough with personal injury, the alien just beats feet back across the border, only to return a few months later with a new I.D. and another old, beater car.
I blame the illegals for this. If they disregard our immigration laws, why should they respect our driving laws?
11:18 a.m.
May 2, '06
D. Grady....
Dude, you missed my point like a rookie swingin' at a curve ball.
Acknowledging certain realities doesn't put me in a category w/ our rambling, babbling Secretary of War. (Man, that's just RUDE!!) Whether you like it or not, these "YEP" facts ARE credible*, but unless you talk about 'em, you can't begin to address them in a circumspective manner.
(*Please note here that I am NOT going into speculations regarding obvious media hype and overblown assertions from the right. Suffice it to say, regardless of extent, these "YEP"s are indeed real, have been experienced or witnessed by folks, and stickin' our nose in a big fat wastecan of denial is counterproductive.)
My point is, for those that really didn't recognize MY nuance, is that in discussing the issues surrounding immigration, the 3 "YEP"s will most likely be propelled as ammunition for anti-immigrant arguments.
So, ya don't dodge a bullet by pretending that it's not flying at you.
Address these "YEP"s... and that's exactly what you did when you talked about Chavez... and you come to dialoge that offers solutions as well as preventive maintenence.
And how 'bout that, you're solution talked about unity.... Hmmm, that kinda works against the wedges I was talking about, now doesn't it? KC
May 2, '06
Ever been hit by an unlicensed drunken illegal alien driving an uninsured car? Posted by: Ben Dover | May 2, 2006 11:09:58 AM
My wife is permanently disabled by a Salvadorian, undocumented, un-repented, and uninsured. The doctor whom worked on her back was a legal immigrant whom lied about the procedure, a diskectomy, to repair her L-4 & L-5 discs. The surgery made her condition inoperable.
We took the $10,000.00 after our doctor's bills from my insurance, and started a small business.The amount the Salvadorian spent just a month before in cash on the truck he drove. We don't own an automobile, and we live close to work.
Our lives will never be anything like what it was, and we will live with these consequences for the rest of our lives. We receive no form of assistance, but would love to have either the driver or doctor step up and take responsibility, but we're not holding our breath.
The Medical Board protects the doctor, and the border protects the driver. I believe in the solution I proposed in my last post. The immigrant would more likely be insured and respectfull of the laws if they were a union member with permission to be here.
My wife would have more to say on the subject, but I don't think the lanquage would be appreciated.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
May 2, '06
Posted by: KC | May 2, 2006 11:18:53 AM
Man, I was just kidding, Rummie's strawman arguements have become a new language at the rate we hear it, not that the Republicans aren't trying to create their own "newspeak."
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
May 2, '06
Dude, you missed my point like a rookie swingin' at a curve ball. // Posted by: KC | May 2, 2006 11:18:53 AM
Man, I eat that breaking stuff for breakfast, lunch, and dinner all day long, and out of the park.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
May 2, '06
One question I've never seen addressed: How much are working class citizens and legal immigrants paying in inflated rents due to the presence of illegal immigrants?
12:28 p.m.
May 2, '06
Posted by: Bill Holmer | May 2, 2006 11:07:42 AM
"Nowhere in the world is there a greater economic disparity between bordering countries than there is between the U.S. and Mexico."
How about between North Korea and South Korea?
My sources: Some recent PBS show confirming what I'd read quite a while ago. Point is, disparity is HUGE.
.....................................................
Ever been hit by an unlicensed drunken illegal alien driving an uninsured car? Posted by: Ben Dover | May 2, 2006 11:09:58 AM
AND
My wife is permanently disabled by a Salvadorian, undocumented, un-repented, and uninsured. The doctor whom worked on her back was a legal immigrant whom lied about the procedure, a diskectomy, to repair her L-4 & L-5 discs. The surgery made her condition inoperable. Posted by: DAN GRADY | May 2, 2006 11:38:55 AM
Dan, I'm so sorry about your wife: both you and Ben illustrate yet another "YEP" point to address. Many advocate laws making it illegal for immigrants to obtain licenses and certifications because of their illegal status. Question for Progressives: Will these laws better serve victims or create more?
Please discuss...
.....................................................
Posted by: DAN GRADY | May 2, 2006 11:48:27 AM
Dude, you missed my point like a rookie swingin' at a curve ball. // Posted by: KC | May 2, 2006 11:18:53 AM
Man, I eat that breaking stuff for breakfast, lunch, and dinner all day long, and out of the park.
Yeah, but ya still missed MY pitch! ;-) And regarding the Rummification.. No worries, we're on the same team....
1:01 p.m.
May 2, '06
This isn't an either/or, and good liberals blunder when they make it so. The US economy depends on undocumented workers--call them "illegal" if you wish, but we've created a nest of laws to support their entry and work in the US. They're allowed to come because they 1) offer an exploitable, replenishable form of cheap labor, and 2), as Chuck has noted, keep labor prices for the rest of the country down.
On the other hand, no decent liberal--or decent human, for that matter--should ever tolerate the way we've allowed undocumented workers to be exploited. Further criminalizing the work we've coaxed them across the border to do is perverse and indecent.
But it's actually a winner for our team--and an ugly wedge for the right. It's possible to create laws that allow greater immigration, particularly among those already here, and pass laws to protect workers--immigrant and US-born. The righties have played this for rhetoric, appealing to the racists one day and the capitalists the next, but true immigration reform means picking a side: defending indentured servitude or removing a multi-million person workforce.
On this issue, we should demand to have it both ways. It's the right who will be wedged.
1:27 p.m.
May 2, '06
KC,
Thanks for the "YEPs".
Acknowledgement without the accusation of racism goes a hell of a long way toward fostering dialogue.
TA,
Your villification of Hartmann and by implication anyone who agrees with his points, as fellow travellers of Limbaugh, is an insult and is unwarranted.
Who died and made you God?
The first sentence of your screed goes unanswered by you, though it does get a half sentence nod about halfway through your diatribe.
<hr/>If you want any credibility on this issue, you ain't gettin' there by crapping on the heads of those of us that have lived our lives in the blue collar arena and are damned proud of it.
We get it, that blue collar work is without honor in this forum, and the rural practice of having the kids help with the harvest is really just child labor and as such is barbaric.
We also know, and so do you, that we have a 30%+ high school drop out rate in this country (despite the best efforts of the money tossing intellectuals that know what they know), and that welders and framers, and roofers, given a level playing field, can make enough money at it to by a little piece of the American Dream at the bottom of the ladder.
Burger flippers on minimum wage cannot.
Now some more of those hated numbers and facts and stuff like that, that are according to you, irrelevant to this thread. Illegal immigrants comprise over 12% of the total construction workforce nationwide. 43% of illegals work in construction or manufacturing.
They are not doing the jobs that Americans won't take.
<hr/>I read a newspaper once, so I'm up to speed on NAFTACAFTAWTO and all of this happy crap.
Show some respect.
May 2, '06
If our Federal and State lawmakers would gather up enough political courage to pass laws that discourage employers from hiring illegals and provide very harsh penalties for those who illegally enter our country, we could solve a lot of problems in our society today.
May 2, '06
T.A.,
I haven't heard Hartmann talk about immigration, so I'll take your word on what he has said. If he says that immigration is not affected by trade agreements, he is wrong; though I have trouble believing that someone with Hartmann's depth of knowledge would hold this opinion.
As to Chavez's statements on illegal immigration, the basics of economics are no different today than in the 1960's. A large supply of workers willing to accept low wages will always advantage employers over labor. Claims that illegal immigration does not disadvantage poor Americans are silly. Chavez understood this, and so does Hartmann.
It is possible to oppose illegal immigration, or immigration in general [with exceptions for political refugees] without being racist, classist, or xenophobic. The argument that almost all Americans are immigrants, so we should continue to welcome large numbers of immigrants, ad infinitum, is simplistic ad silly. Some things do change. The US population is one of them. The growth in the number of jobs is another. Like it or not, frontier days are past. We've already stolen what the Native Americans had. Water is in short supply. Energy is increasingly expensive. Our forests, wetlands, farmland, streams, and estuaries are all under pressure form development. Millions of more people make things worse, whatever their color or origin.
I second Pat's comments. Concern with immigration does not mean one has abandoned progressive principles.
2:22 p.m.
May 2, '06
Now some more of those hated numbers and facts and stuff like that, that are according to you, irrelevant to this thread. Illegal immigrants comprise over 12% of the total construction workforce nationwide. 43% of illegals work in construction or manufacturing.
This doesn't necessarily detract from your point, but the Pew Hispanic center released one of the most comprehensive reports on the size and characteristics of "unauthorized immigrants", and their data shows that 34 percent are in construction or manufracturing.
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf
The report is well-worth reading for anyone who is interested in this issue.
2:54 p.m.
May 2, '06
Pat, grab a breath of fresh air.
i said Thom is usually great on issues, an eloquent and passionate voice for progressive values. on this issue, i think he's wrong. i think, as AQ1st put it, his "nativist" stance completely misses the point. just because i think he is wrong on one topic, i'm being disrespectful? if i had NO respect for Thom, i'd turn him off and listen to NPR. i listen to Thom, and i wrote about this one issue, because he's the radio voice for progressivism in Oregon, and i felt he needed to called on this.
Thom apparently isn't too bent out-of-shape over my post; his producer has invited me on the show tomorrow morning. i'm not great off-keyboard, but i don't think respect will be a problem. one of Thom's great traits is the respect he shows to people with whom he disagrees; i'm a lesser mortal, but i try.
there are people who have trouble with this fact, but it is possible for people to disagree on certain issues and still maintain solidarity. it's only ONE issue i am talking about; Thom and i agree on almost everything else i've heard him cover on his show -- except, maybe, Pete Sorenson!
May 2, '06
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | May 2, 2006 2:54:00 PM
So we know you are upset with the idea that we would enforce our immigration laws, and that the hypocracy of our letting these people in as cheap labor. We should allow the greediest amoung us to exploit these people on the edge of legality, to allow immigrants to committ identity theft for work, use our welfare benefits, medical services, and cause whatever personal injury without consequence??
Solutions, solutions man. You can't assume their right to break our laws to say Americans should have nothing to say on the subject. We pay for their priveledge to be here with our tax dollars, and wages, and consequences for their living outside our laws.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
May 2, '06
Tom -
Let's look at a few definitions, shall we?
racism: Belief that a particular race is superior to others. classism: Bias based on social or economic class. xenophobia: The feeling of regarding strangers or foreign peoples as inferior.
and
nativism: Favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants.
If this was a real-time discussion, I'd ask if you purposely left out nativism, in your assertion, because it is an objective fact that your viewpoint and that of the other posters who express anti-immigrant positions are, at a minimum, nativist.
What's important then is what nativism has in common with these other terms that those who have taken anti-immigrant positions: Quite frankly, devaluing people, by saying they are entitled to less, based on nothing but the accident of their birth. I challenge those who have espoused anti-immigrant views here to first define where the moral high ground is between unmitigated nativism, and racism, classism, or xenophobia. And second to attempt to argue against the principled and noble positions of organizations like Humane Borders.
I've already dealt with the moral bankruptcy of trying to turn the debate to one of the question of "illegality" in a previous thread on this topic started by Anne Martens (whose position I essentially agree with). I hope that anyone who honestly thinks that matters will please take the time to first read the discussion there.
Dan -
I can't speak for other posters here, but my sympathies are with you for the devastatingly unfair events that have befallen you and your wife. My anger, however is directed at all of our elected leaders, and the electorate responsible for putting them in office at the state and national level, for being so completely unprincipled and incompetent that we as a society don't provide the medical care and economic assistance that you deserve. If they had, the nationality and immigration status of those involved in the accident would be an irrelevant detail.
Our failure to build a decent society is the only real issue here. I prefer to spend my energy opposing those across the political spectrum whose egos and selfishness are the biggest reason for that. And as T.A. quite properly has done here, on calling BS on folks like Thom Hartmann who claim to be hard-nosed yet principled progressives, but who take positions which are far from principled and then use their manifest intellectual gifts to rationalize them.
May 2, '06
TA & I have common ground on many things, but not this one. I have no desire to be inhumane to anyone, and I discount most of the House bill as propagandistic crap. I am not new to this debate, I've watched and crabbed and tried legal avenues, all to naught. The authorities only care at Port of Entry, the only others who seem to care are caught in the wage bind. I'm caught, I'm subsidizing a crew, their production/dollar doesn't match mine, but I cannot pay them less and maintain self-respect, I cannot raise my prices to recoup what I pay them and I cannot take less for myself. Now all the sympathy in the world for the illegals will not solve my problem, them going away will start a solution. I do not give a rat's patoot whether they are legally hired or not, they've flooded the market. That is the problem, not trade, not crappy governments, not any of the damn excuses made, the flooded market is the problem. Which part of too many workers for too few jobs is hard to understand?
Sure, give employers name/SS# match checks and they can't play ignorant and fine 1 year Davis-Bacon per incident, that'll take the profit out of it. Why should they leave then? Why would anyone pay $2000 fine to keep a job they already have if they keep their mouth shut? Why leave a nice social safety net? Break families up? What? You mean give them a choice of taking the "legal" child or leaving the child? Which part of the consequences of being illegal evaded these folks? They have to live in the shadows and get taken advantage of? What exactly is happening to your legal neighbors? Where's the out-pouring of sympathy for our own? Somehow being a progressive means American low-mid blue collars can go hang. That ought to be damn embarrassing, but no, you'll pass it off to racism and xenophobia. Damn. Chuck
May 2, '06
Chuck -
You and I have tangled before on this issue, and so I'll make it short and sweet:
Where's the out-pouring of sympathy for our own? Somehow being a progressive means American low-mid blue collars can go hang. That ought to be damn embarrassing, but no, you'll pass it off to racism and xenophobia.
You don't like being called a racist or xenophobe, fine. By your own words though, you are proud to be a nativist and there really isn't a whole lot of moral daylight between nativism and racism or xenophobia.
I can agree with you that a lot of the people who post here only care about working people to the extent it doesn't cost them anything or incovenience them. But your empty blustering is the kind of regressive populist demagoguery that does no good for working people, and to that extent shows the same disrespect.
1:05 a.m.
May 3, '06
anyone reading this late tonight or early enough tomorrow (wednesday) -- and thru frothing at the mouth that i'm not ready to go help build the wall and frogmarch "them" back south -- i'll be on with Thom around 8:15 tomorrow. i hope we can talk about what this post was about: how we progressives address an issue like immigration. i'm sorry i wrote so much about immigration; i guess that was misleading. i should keep it more simple, and use a title like "A post about progressivism" or such. (and no more late-night commenting; it gets grumpy and snotty)(why snotty was left out of the 7 dwarves, i'll never know). anyway, tune in to kpoj and see if Thom can make me cry! i've got a tenner says he can.
5:59 a.m.
May 3, '06
You mean give them a choice of taking the "legal" child or leaving the child?
Just curious, Chuck, why did you put the term "legal" in quotes? If this is about following the law, those kids are legal, just like everyone else who is born in the United States. No quotes needed.
I think we've seen the beginnings of what a hard-line policy on illegal immigration will look like in the United States. The raids last week resulted in 1100 people or so being seized by Homeland Security.
Now we have women and children who are U.S. citizens who have no idea where their husbands and fathers are, or if they'll ever see or hear from them again. Under the USA Patriot Act, it's unclear how long the Federal Government can hold these people, or whether the Feds have an obligation to tell the families anything.
Think about this for a minute: According to the AP, Jaime Esteva, a 14-year old citizen of this country came home from high school last week to find that neither of his parents were home. Both had been swept up in the immigration raids last week. Mom came home a few days later. He still hasn't heard from his dad. Can anyone here imagine what that kid must have gone through? Think about it.
I'm all for securing the border; for going after employers who continue to use undocumented labor as a tool to skirt Oregon or federal wage laws; for going after coyotes, etc.
But I will not side with those who will not treat the existing population of undocumented workers, many of whom have been here for years and have families with a mixed legal status, in an inhumane fashion. There is no way that anyone is going to convince me that creating 5-6 million cases like Jaime Esteva is good public policy.
And that's just dealing with the existing law. We haven't really even discussed HB4437, which is what these people are marching against.
9:20 a.m.
May 3, '06
TA,
There are a couple of basic question as far as I'm concerned, that I've received little response to:
In 2006 is a nation state a valid entity?
Does a nation state have a right to determine how many people cross its borders in a given time frame?
AND FOR ALL THE KIDDIES UP ON THE VERY HIGH HORSES:
Are all advocates of the enforcement of border security automatically racists, or nativists, or whatever the perjorative of the day is?
<hr/>So TA, when you begin your post with "How many?" Over and over, the same question: "How many/" A thousand? A million? As many as can walk across the border? "How many? How many?" and then ridicule the idea that such a question is relevant, nay CENTRAL to the debate, Welp, there's no debate left.
May 3, '06
T.A.,
I think your use of the terms racism, classism, xenophobia, and nativism in this discussion obstructs it with emotionally charged language. Let's begin from here: do national governments have the right and a legitimate need to control immigration? I believe they do, and in fact, [almost?] all do control immigration.
Frankly, I don't care where immigrants come from, what color they are, how much money they have, or whether they are distinguishable from someone who is "native", whatever that means in the US. My concern is population growth and its effects on the environment and labor markets.
Now, this could be considered nativist, since it differentiates between those who are here and those who are not, but it makes no value judgment on the worth of individuals in either group. Since all nations control immigration, I suppose you could hurl charges of nativism all over the world. Perhaps you should organize a passport burning party in Pioneer Courthouse Square in protest.
Now, feel free to argue for a borderless world with complete freedom to live and work where you like. In a perfect world, I would support this as well, but the world as we inhabit it is far from perfect. It's screwed up big time, actually. Given the lowest common denominator approach to globalization, I believe we can better deal with our problems within a national context. I wish this were not so. I am an internationalist at heart, but internationalism is in retrograde motion, and our problems are serious and impending.
Again, the argument that immigration is sacrosanct, because we are a nation of immigrants and their descendents, is silly. It is not unlike arguing that, since I opened the hot water tap to fill my bathtub, it would be wrong to ever close it, even if my house is flooding.
10:44 a.m.
May 3, '06
Pat, the sitting-by-the-window thing was just a gimmick. Thom wasn't bothered by it, so why are you? it is just my opinion, and nothing more, that mere numbers are not central here.
Tom, the current debate on this was begun by racisists & xenophobes. the wingnuts have to find some way to change the subject. in 2004, faced with losing Ohio & the presidency, they dragged out gay marriage. it worked. they thought attacking illegal "aliens" (none of whom come from Mars or Alpha Centauri) would do the trick, but it may well backfire on them. serve their asses right.
somebody tell me where i argue for open borders, loss of national sovereignity, etc. i said it's not practical even if we did want it. my point, and Thom agreed with it (though he still gives priority to the pragmatic aspects of the issue), is that there is a progressive argument to be made here, and it's about trade policy, unions, human rights, etc. you may disagree, but i will never put mere economics above justice. we need to do something, yes, but attacking the impoverished people of the world for seeking respite and hope is the wrong thing to do.
11:31 a.m.
May 3, '06
It looks to me like demagoguery and poorly chosen language -- from both sides -- is creating a bigger divide between T.A., and some of the other folks who are speaking in this thread. Folks seem to be spending more time building strawmen than they do actually responding to one another.
The compromise that was nearly brokered in the Senate creates a reasonably fair resolution:
Those who advocate for increasing border security; fining businesses that use undocumented labor to circumvent paying the minimum wage; implementing a rational guest worker program; and fining people who have been here for years illegally but who have broken no other laws, then putting them in line, at the end of the line, for a path to citizenship deserve support, in my view.
I'm not sure where T.A., Thom, Tom, or Pat come down on that approach, but I'd be interested to know.
To folks like Thom, Tom, and Pat, who argue that undocumented workers are destroying the labor movement, let me say this: When was the last time you saw 3 million people march in solidarity for any cause in this country, including the Iraq war and then follow it up a few weeks later with larger marches? Labor hasn't done anything on that scale in this country since the 1930's (if then). The only real parallel, so far as I can see, is the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's, or possibly Vietnam.
I believe that immigrant laborers and their families may hold the key to re-invigorating the labor movement in this country. These are people who have not traded the American dream for the comfort of cable television and a comfy couch. These are people who sacrificed a great deal to come to this country to fight for a better life, and now they are fighting to keep their families together, and to win a piece of the American dream.
I agree that we need to change our immigration policy and enforce our borders, but let's not do it at the expense of people who have already built lives here because we chose to look the other way until they started moving up the economic ladder.
May 3, '06
ta writes: "Tom, the current debate on this was begun by racisists & xenophobes. the wingnuts have to find some way to change the subject. in 2004, faced with losing Ohio & the presidency, they dragged out gay marriage. it worked. they thought attacking illegal "aliens" (none of whom come from Mars or Alpha Centauri)"
Now the 'racisists & xenophobes' are the wingnuts, eh? Well, better them than us progressives. Blame them.
But the real discussion needs to be, "what is the Progressive response?" And blaming the wingnuts for trying to change the subject when faced with losing an election is a rather weak Progressive solution.
I rather like Sen Kennedy's proposed solution that he advocated prior to the Easter break. But the rest of the Senatorial Democrats did not like Kennedy's solution, because it actually moved towards solving the problem.
Why solve the problem, when it is so much more to our electoral advantage to demogogue the Republicans all the way until November?
Isn't that what ta says in the quote above, blame the wingnuts?
The illegals can wait another 6 months, can't they? Lets use this issue to our political advantage!!
11:49 a.m.
May 3, '06
I rather like Sen Kennedy's proposed solution that he advocated prior to the Easter break. But the rest of the Senatorial Democrats did not like Kennedy's solution, because it actually moved towards solving the problem.
Your statement is flat-out false. The Senate Democrats unanimously supported McCain-Feingold. The deal broke down because Republicans wanted to include up to 120 Amendments to the legislation as drafted.
May 3, '06
Well, whatever the reason for the collapse in moving the legislation through the Senate, my question stands.
Do Progressives gain more or less to get this solved prior to November? I say less, since the Repulicans are already on record with their stance (House bill already passed).
What do you say?
May 3, '06
T.A. wrote "Tom, the current debate on this was begun by racisists & xenophobes."
If I agree with a Nazi that 2+2=4, that does not make me a Nazi. Yes, there are many racist, xenophobic voices in the immigration debate. I don't need to share their viewpoint to believe that controlling immigration is a good idea.
Also, how is arguing against restrictions on immigration different from arguing for open borders?
sjp wrote:
"When was the last time you saw 3 million people march in solidarity for any cause in this country, including the Iraq war and then follow it up a few weeks later with larger marches? Labor hasn't done anything on that scale in this country since the 1930's (if then). The only real parallel, so far as I can see, is the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's, or possibly Vietnam".
It just goes to show you that people get into the streets when they perceive their economic interests are seriously imperilled by political decisions.
Honesty should be the first step in the discussion of immigration. We can't allow millions of people in to take low-paying jobs as undocumented workers and then complain about illegal immigration. Sanction employers consistently and seriously, and the reason for most illegal immigration will disappear. We also need to realize that deporting people who have lived here illegally for many years just won't work.
2:02 p.m.
May 3, '06
SJP,
I was and am for the McCain-Kennedy bill as originally written, with the Durbin DREAM amendment to protect the children of illegals seeking higher education.
<hr/>Now let's address what we're planning on doing about the 2,500 illegals per day that will continue to cross until some action is taken.
I favor employer sanctions, but it's a fact that no local Dem had better take my position. My entire House District runs on illegal labor.
May 3, '06
Well, if nothing else - this discussion sure proves that the R's have yet again struck gold. I'll bet this is better than abortion, property rights and civil unions - combined...
I think Chuck Butcher got it right in his first post. Of course, people have put time and effort into building their lives here... but so have the rest of us.
We are talking about economic not political asylum, here.
At some point, where is the difference between laborers who cross a political border for work, and strike-breakers who cross a picket line for work?. Both take jobs at lower wages, with little or no OSHA compliance, no job security and no benefits. Tell me again how that makes us a stronger or better people?
Union or no - people in this country have shed blood -in this country- to help build and protect the middle class and 'The American Dream' by creating living wage jobs with benefits and security. Do you really think that there could possibly be ANY good reason for Dubya to support a Guest Worker program?
Here's a thought. How about if the Democrats start by agreeing and stating that citizenship is a privilege more valuable than gold (or virginity, depending on your preference).
AND - That we do not believe it is something to be demanded, or given away freely.
If we can't even agree on that - then see Sentence #1 and 2 above.
May 13, '06
Dear Mr. Barnhart,
Let's see how you feel about illegal immigration after some pepperbelly Mexican border jumper, er ah, I mean "Latino American" comes up to Corvallis and starts posting gibberish here that's 30% percent more interesting than the gibberish you post at half the cost.
It will be interesting to hear the irony in your voice when we hear it cry out "Dey tuck arr jawbz!"
May 13, '06
TA,
You wouldn't know a xenophobe if one crawled out your butt.
Say you're sorry and do something useful like going down to Arizona and helping the Minutemen build the new Border Fence. And bring some sandwiches and cookies with you when you come.
<h2>Now go listen to some Ted Nugent music and get your mind right!!!!</h2>