Even the most optimistic Obama supporter
should cringe in response to the White House's recent "bi-partisan immigration
talks." What could Democrats and Republicans possibly have in
common over immigration? Quite a lot it turns out.
An enormous sell-out is being prepared
for the
Obama has, again, shifted another
campaign promise far to the right - pro-immigration reform has turned into its
opposite. And like all of his other betrayals, Obama is attempting to
sell this one to the public as a "compromise." But immigration,
like health care, peace, the environment, etc., has very little room for
backroom deals and finding a "middle ground" with an increasingly hysterical
right wing.
The basis for a Democrat/Republican
compromise on immigration started with a "concession" from the Democrats.
Democratic Senator Charles
Schumer is now shaping immigration policy for the party, a move that
has greatly appeased Republicans, since the formal head, Ted Kennedy, was seen
as being too liberal.
The
New York Times
noted, "[Schumer] is likely to be tougher on stemming illegal immigration, and
less prone to support civil
liberties for illegal immigrants..." (
In a recent speech, Schumer outlined the
"principles" that united the two-party
system around immigration. The New York Times explained:
"The speech was notably tough-sounding,
but the principles were solid. Illegal immigration is wrong. The borders and
workplace need tighter enforcement. Illegal immigrants must be required to
register, learn English and pay taxes - or face deportation. But they should
also be allowed to seek citizenship. The path back to a lawful system is
through legalization and an improved, well-managed immigration flow." (
Apologists for the Democrats will
undoubtedly focus on the last two sentences, but even these have dire
implications. What, for example, is a "well-managed immigration
flow?"
And this is where the Republicans offer
counsel: "border security" will be immensely strengthened to keep out
"undesirable" (mainly Latino) immigrants, while others will be allowed in the
country, legally, through "guest worker" programs.
The big corporations within the Republican Party -
much like the big corporations inside the Democratic Party - are always desperate for the
cheapest possible labor. Recruiting immigrants to work for them as
"guest workers" means that immigrants are allowed in the country on a
short-term basis, as long as they are totally compliant and do not seek higher
wages or unionization. Protesting dangerous working conditions in this
case equals deportation; fundamental worker rights are withheld.
The big labor confederations - the
A.F.L-C.I.O and Change To Win - have shamelessly agreed to the above "general
principles" of the Democrat/Republican immigration policy. However, they
correctly came out against the guest worker program... but for the wrong
reasons.
While mentioning the exploitative nature
of guest worker programs, many unions also focus on the fact that these
programs -- by denying guest workers the right to unionize -- lower the wages
of workers in the
Yes, it's true that the intentions of
guest worker programs are to get the cheapest possible labor for
corporations. And, yes, it is true that this, in turn, has the effect of
lowering the wages of
Immigrants, however, are victims of
larger socio-economic forces. These forces prevent immigrants from being
able to meet the most basic needs in their home country, such as feeding their
families. On the other hand, the mega-employers and their pet politicians
in the
It is no coincidence that the
corporate-inspired free-trade agreements - NAFTA and CAFTA - caused a sea of immigration to
the U.S., while likewise helping to off-shore U.S. manufacturing in search of
slave wages - both of these phenomena only benefit large corporations and the
super wealthy that own them.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
