For some reason the online editor was rejecting this addition, but see this article for more on rightwing European groups embracing anti-immigrant policies as a defense of the welfare state.

Thanks for this Nathan.

In my current line of work I do a lot more traveling than I did before.  I visit a lot of major US cities, and everywhere I go I encounter extremely hard-working immigrant workers.  When I strike up a conversation, and come around to asking what brought them to the United states, the answer I get uniformly is "for a better life".

I want America to continue to be a land of opportunity, and I am more convinced than ever that liberal immigration laws, and a continuing healthy influx of new hard-working Americans from all over the world, seeking refuge from oppression, an escape from poverty, and an opportunity for a better life, is wery good for the country. Not only does immigration strengthen the country economically, but I belive it strengthens us socially by promoting diversity and tolerance, and by regenerating American ideals in each generation.

Yet I think we should draw a principled distinction between legal and illegal immigration.  The latter is an affront to self-government, and a means of doing an end run around those labor protections that already exist, and for which many people in the labor movement fought very hard.  It also undermines the legal immigration path, by creating pressures to decrease immigration quotas and a backlash against immigration as such.

It's not a matter of protecting American workers from the fair competition of hard-working newcomers, but of protecting them from competition in the deregulated laissez faire market of latter day neoliberalism.  The fair trade agenda must be consistently applied on both sides of the border.  While we work to spread progressive labor policies internationally, we must also work to make sure they are preserved here at home.

The point is not to focus attention on the people who cross the border illegally, in order to stigmatize them, but on those American buisness leaders,and their political lackeys, who look the other way to let them do it.  Americans as a people are remarkably tolerant and open to immigration. The nativism that is so strong in other countries plays a much smaller role here.  We should strongly resist calls like Lind's to garner votes by appealing not-so-subtly to the ugly nativist tradition in American thought - a tradition which remains, by the way, a minority one here in the US.  But Americans do have a right to see their democratically enacted laws upheld, and we should stand by thier attempts to regulate the economy in the way they see fit.  The opportunity for this sort of self-government is, after all, one of the things that brought immigrants here in the first place.

It seems to me that a strong anti-illegal immigration stance can be combined with an equally strong pro-immigration agenda.  Both are expressions of the same American ideal - an open society sustained by the rule of law.  Law, and sound, enlightened government protect us against both the wild west free-for-all of unregulated capitalism and the closed hearts and closed minds of xenophobic nationalism.  This is really the tradition of Roosevelt, and is the enduring philosophical basis for a Democratic majority.

Instead, though foreign aid, we must work so that they may prosper in their countries of origin.

I agree 100% that we must work so they may prosper in their countries of origin, but that doesn't mean foreign aid is the answer. Most of our problems with outsourcing are due to the very low cost of labor in other countries. If that labor cost were nearer to our own, outsourcing would not be a problem, and workers in those countries would not be trying to emigrate to America. But, it is American corporations who are paying the low wages in some of those countries. So, we have a means, other than foreign aid, to help raise worker pay in those countries.

Foreign aid to poor countries has most often ended up in the bank accounts of a few wealthy people, not in the incomes of the workers. So, foreign aid is only a part of the solution, and a small part at that.

I have long felt that import tariffs need to be based upon the ratio of labor costs in the exporting country to those in the importing country. This process shouldn't make the production costs equal in the two countries, but should make them much closer than they are now - within 50% for example. Unless something like this is done, the problem will never be solved. Business schools simply do not teach morality, and stock holders have no interest in morality, only profits.

What if it were illegal to pay people doing the same or very nearly the same work at different rates of pay? Or, if unionized work was protected from non-union workers? Suppose those who pick crops, for example, had to be paid minimum wages, and minimum wages were indexed to inflation - retroactively? What I am driving at is to reduce the incentive to under pay workers just because they are not US citizens. There are many ramifications of this, not all of which are good, but it is an approach to think about.

We are talking about the right of the masses of oppressed workers in the world have a fundamental liberty to travel.  

The Berlin Wall was illegitimate because it restricted that liberty, so why is a wall on the Rio Grande any less a violation of those rights.

Fundamentally, we see expanded freedom of capital to move around the world without similar liberty for labor.  And that restriction on liberty is fundamentally coded by race country after country.

If Lind wants to argue that our legal quotas should be increased so that every immigrant seeking to come here illegally has a legal option, that would be all to the good.  But I don't see that anywhere in his argument.   So it is de facto an anti-immigrant policy that restricts the liberty of those seeking to immigrate.

Nathan,

Thank you very much for this post.  I have to admit that I am/was one of those on the left that bought into the stereotype that that labor espoused an anti-immigrant, protectionist view to protect their own jobs.  With that said, I have a couple of questions about about this I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on:

1. You offer quotes by Andy Stern and John Sweeney espousing an pro-immigration labor position.  I'm curious how widely shared this is among union members themselves, and if there is any discrepencies among specific unions (say, those whose jobs are more likely to be filled by immigrants)?

2. What, exactly, is this pro-immigration labor policy based on?  Is the argument that no matter what we're going to have illegal immigrants in our workforce, so we might as well offer them some form of citizenship so they're not given an unfair advantadge by being excempt from minimum wage and labor rights?

3. If labor is actually pro-immigration, why is the protectionist stereotype so successful?  Is this based purely on labor's (perceived) opposition to free trade agreements?  Is it further evidence of the right's success in unpopularly branding the left's positions?  Some combination of the two, or something entirely different?

The latter question is the easiest to answer.

Most liberals and the media generally don't pay attention to labor and have ignored a decade long debate within labor on immigration and missed labor across the AFL-CIO coming out for strong immigrant rights.  Labor sponsored a massive national Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride but didn't get much coverage.  It's easier to have discussions based on stereotypes than the actual reality of labor views today.

In fact, the unions most supportive of immigration are those where there is a strong immigrant presence -- read competition -- for those jobs.  And the reason unions embraced immigrant rights is the realization that anti-immigration policies help employers to keep a captive population without legal rights at the ready.  So better to promote rights for everyone in the country, immigrant or native, legal or undocumented.

"Americans have a fundamental right to determine who enters the country, who gets citizenship and how, and who doesn't."

Do the people of other countries have a fundamental right to decide whether or not there should be American bases in their country or overflights of American military aircraft or the refueling of American warships? Do they have a fundamental right to decide whether they should be bombed, invaded, and occupied by the American military?

America really is an empire now, not a republic, and to talk about curbing immigration in this context strikes me as plainly absurd. The neo-republican, neo-isolationist Buchananite position is at least internally coherent, however mean-spirited in certain ways, and divorced from realpolitik.

If folks want to talk about rolling back immigration they also need to be talking about ending all our occupations outside the fatherland, or the homeland, or whatever we're calling it, rolling up those more than 700 bases around the world, and ending the 24/7 patrols of much of the world's airspace and seas.

I like the idea of everyone, immigrants and American-born alike, being paid a living wage.  However, how do you reconcile the vision of granting millions of illegal immigrants legal status with two realities in modern-day America?
1) The justification for using foreign illegal labor is that it keeps consumer prices low.  The protest by big business and economists against stopping the flow is that we'd all have to pay $500 for a head of lettuce.  How could you possibly convince them that it is in their best interest to make illegal immigrants legal?
2) What message does that send to the millions who followed all of the (often difficult) legal channels to come here legally?  I doubt that they would view their legal status as a "technicality" and would not appreciate others who treated it such.
Moreover, an open border policy, which would result in unpredictable numbers of immigrants flowing into the country year after year, would put enormous pressure on local governments.  Not simply pressure on schools to accomodate thousands of new faces with limited education and language skills, or hospitals to treat thousands or millions of newly uninsured, but also city planners.  Perhaps a city like Los Angeles could accomodate thousands of new immigrants in its already congested inner limits, but must every small town face the threat of growing into formless sprawl thanks to forces over which they have no control?  (Not that they have much control now, but any problems they have would grow worse.)  
It might be true that once these immigrants got settled, after a generation or two, they would become fully integrated, but their stabilized conditions would hardly matter if a fresh wave of low-skilled, non-English speaking immigrants has replaced them.  And something tells me that many of the second-generation would not look upon the new arrivals very kindly.
This is already a reality of legal immigration, and has always existed, and always will exist even if illegal immigration were completely stopped.  Chaos is often a part of change.  However, a policy of legal immigration allows for it to happen on a smaller scale.  You can estimate how many people could come from which countries and prepare accordingly as much as possible.  With an open border policy, local governments would never be able to get their heads above water.
My personal feeling, somewhat unrelated to the above, is that if big business considers illegal labor to be so very valuable and justifiable, they be willing to state outright that they use illegal labor.  Let them print it on the packaging of every can, on the stickers for every apple, on the front window in front of every restaurant.  Let American consumers know where illegal labor is being used and where it isn't, so they can decide whether those businesses are still worth supporting.  Until Americans have knowledge about what we're buying, and our buying patterns can be judged accordingly, the claims that Americans really <i>want</i> illegal labor because we need everything to be cheap will ring hollow.

Re: Do the people of other countries have a fundamental right to decide whether or not there should be American bases in their country or overflights of American military aircraft or the refueling of American warships?

Of course they do. And this right is exercized by the governments of those countries either agreeing or refusing to allow such bases and other military priveleges on their soil.

This is odd. First, you make a Titanic analogy imiplying that we have reached full capacity. If this were true (it's not), the logical solution would be to restrict any further immigration. Second, you say you're all for legal immigration with no restrictions.

How to reconcile the two positions? If we can absorb more immigrants, then let's do it. Let's end illegal immigration by giving people the right to travel here legally.

 

 

Moreover, an open border policy, which would result in unpredictable numbers of immigrants flowing into the country year after year, would put enormous pressure on local governments.

Actually, I don't think that's true. As it is, pretty much anyone from Mexico who wants to come work in the US can. The border does raise the transcaction costs associated with travel (that is, it makes crossing a bit more expensive), but in all likeiihood, and the best research I've read indicates, an open border would lead to a very short-term movement of people in both directions (a lot of folks would rush back to Mexico to visit familly and maybe become more seasonal in their movements) and many who were too poor to migrate illegally (don't forget, most illegal immigrants are never the poorest lot from their country -- it costs money to travel here, and since most illegal immigrants enter the country with legal tourist visas they need enough capital to convince some bureacrat at the embassy that they can be trusted to return) might take the opportunity to travel north. But ultimately the number of people entering the country would probably remain about the same, and you'd get a more well equibrated market than you have now.

Of course, allowing people to enter the country legally dosen't mean you have to have an open border, nor is that necesarily the best solution.

On the question of pressure on local governments, that's an odd claim. A twenty-two year old male illegal immigrant who works in the US saves the government the cost of his primary and secondary education -- that's been taken care of by his host country. He pays payroll taxes so he helps support social security, which he'll never claim. And he probably files anual tax statements just to avoid getting caught by the IRS (although if he's using a dummy social security number he probably won't be able to collect his refund, if any is due, so he ends up paying more in taxes). And since he's young, strong, healthy, and productive, he dosen't represent a burden on local social services.

The idea that illegal immigrants, especially from Mexico, somehow put a drain on social services is oftetimes just a thinly disguised racist discourse (usually acompanied by references to 12 kids and whatnot). That's not what you were saying, of course. But I do think it's important to clarify that this issue about drining resources is a widely held myth.

"Actually, I don't think that's true. As it is, pretty much anyone from Mexico who wants to come work in the US can.  The border does raise the transcaction costs associated with travel (that is, it makes crossing a bit more expensive), but in all likeiihood, and the best research I've read indicates, an open border would lead to a very short-term movement of people in both directions (a lot of folks would rush back to Mexico to visit familly and maybe become more seasonal in their movements) and many who were too poor to migrate illegally (don't forget, most illegal immigrants are never the poorest lot from their country -- it costs money to travel here, and since most illegal immigrants enter the country with legal tourist visas they need enough capital to convince some bureacrat at the embassy that they can be trusted to return) might take the opportunity to travel north. But ultimately the number of people entering the country would probably remain about the same, and you'd get a more well equibrated market than you have now."
If that's the case, you then have the problem of wage reduction for the average American earner.  The assumption stated as a fact is that "they do the job Americans refuse to do."  Is that really true?  Certainly few Americans would aspire to be field pickers or meat inspectors, but you could also say that about shop clerks, coffee counter clerks, warehouse attendants, etc.  Yet Americans *do* work in these jobs, largely because most of them pay a decent wage.  Look at the relatively high satisfaction of people who work at Starbucks or Cosco -- businesses that provide good wages and benefits.  Thus, it's not much of a stretch to think that there could be able-bodied Americans who would pick strawberries if provided with safe conditions and above minimum wage.
Of course, Big Business doesn't want to pay those costs, which is why they look to cheap foreign labor and push aside the notion of having American employees, or legal immigrants subject to the same protections as an American citizen.  Would an open border policy fix this?  On the one hand, if illegal immigrants were automatically granted all of the legal protections of Americans and legal immigrants, employers would have to pay higher wages and, as they have often threatened when faced with attempts to cut off their supply of cheap labor, they would pass the cost on to consumers.  On the other hand, if illegal immigrants were granted some sort of quasi-legal status but could be paid the same low wages and work in poor conditions, we have the same problem with exploitation and race-to-the-bottom wages we have now, only legitimized.
There's also the issue of *safety* regarding an open border, which is a whole topic in and of itself.
"On the question of pressure on local governments, that's an odd claim. A twenty-two year old male illegal immigrant who works in the US saves the government the cost of his primary and secondary education -- that's been taken care of by his host country. He pays payroll taxes so he helps support social security, which he'll never claim. And he probably files anual tax statements just to avoid getting caught by the IRS (although if he's using a dummy social security number he probably won't be able to collect his refund, if any is due, so he ends up paying more in taxes). And since he's young, strong, healthy, and productive, he dosen't represent a burden on local social services."
Except that recent studies have shown that illegal immigrants with families tend to be more common than the 22-year old single male.  It doesn't matter whether they have two children or twenty -- it's still additional people to give healthcare and education to, not to mention a plethora of other services, who wouldn't receive these services if their parents hadn't broken the law.  As to how many illegal immigrants pay taxes into the system -- have we really had a conclusive study?  Yes, I've heard of the one featured in the New York Times about how illegal immigrants pay billions to Social Security, the implication being that they are keeping the system solvent.  However, I don't recall that it was able to show that every illegal immigrant who works, or even the majority, gets paid in broad daylight.  What percentage is paid under the table?  Moreover, has it been proven that the billions paid to Social Security more than offset the billions spent on providing them with services -- billions that might have otherwise gone to Social Security? 

Beliefs about whether we're filled to capacity or not often depends upon the state (and regions within the state) in which we live.

That is certainly true, just as it was true that our beliefs about integration depended on where we lived. But, in both cases the facts don't depend upon beliefs. We either have the ability to assimilate more immigrants or we don't, and what we believe shouldn't affect that. But, I don't know how one figures out our "carrying capacity" in a dispassionate way.

This post is what's well described as "crackpot realism", the idea that what has been must always be.  Most fundamental advances is human rights were considered impossible.  Of course, slavery couldn't be ended.  Of course, women couldn't vote.  And so on.

The odd thing is that the US was essentially borderless for most of the 19th century.  

Do I think borders can be abolished tomorrow?   Probably not.  But that doesn't mean we have to take seriously some ethical distinction between legal and "illegal" immigrants.  Practically, there may be measures to discourage immigration but people shouldn't act as if it is the immigrants are acting immorally, rather than the society imposing restrictions at the border.

Nathan,

  As someone who grew up with a lot of Central American immigrants, and who has a sister-in-law in Venezuela, I'm still not sure I endorse an open-door immigration policy.  I'd hardly call myself anti-immigrant, and certainly not a racist, so can I can encourage you to hold off on those terms?

You are certainly both right and justified in decrying the current gray area that immigrants operate in.  And when they are not being actively exploited because of this gray area, they are refraining from exercising most of their rights out of fear of being noticed.

But there are a broad set of reasons why simply opening our borders is a bad idea.

1) Despite middling unemployment figures, the country has an excess of labor that it does not currently have the capacity to absorb (i.e., the fraction of the labor force that's employed keeps dropping).  A rapid increase in immigration would aggravate this problem, because the people who came would on the whole have far fewer skills relevant to a modern economy than those who come now.  China's main economic hurdle is the vast number of illiterate peasants it must absorb into a modern economy, and we would face that same hurdle here, without the ability to preserve order that an authoritarain government does.  Hell, we can't even seem to make income taxes stick anymore, how can we pay for an infrastructure to accept tens or hundreds of millions of immigrants in a short period of time?

2) Rapid depopulation would take a vast toll on an economies all over the world.  So anyone who didn't have an incentive to leave right when we opened our borders would likely have that incentive before long, barring draconian tactics by poorer nations to keep people within their borders.

3) Poor and otherwise defenseless people would be subject to as many or more forms of exploitation as they are now in an effort to reach rich G8 countries.

To my mind, there are a number of fair ways to attack this problem:

a) We must increase the transparency of all immigration laws, from immigration quotas to visas to enforcement of workers' rights.

b) We should remove political prefence from immigration quotas and give weight to countries with a lot of destitution.  This could  include gradual increases in overall immigration quotas.

c) Help immigrants who decide return to their country make the most of the wealth they've accumulated here.  This could include tax rebates, investment incentives, etc.

d) A serious push by the US for transparent and fair government in the 3rd world would have a huge effect on these economies.  Combined with provisos for fair labor laws (including the right to organize), you could see a lot more progress against inequality. 

How exactly illegal immigrants destroy the rule of law is beyond me. It's not as if they gain anything from their illegal status. If any of the cities you've traveled to are in the southwest, or any of the immigrants you're conversing with are Mexicans, then chances are that you're talking about good, hard-working, honest, exploited, illegal immigrants.

Cranky, it's not the law against crossing the border illegally that most concerns me; it's the laws against hiring illegal entrants, and the laws mandating various payroll deductions for legal workers and the laws manadating a minimum wage, and the laws governing overtime, etc.  All of these laws are threatened by the black market in labor.  They are part of the social contract with American labor that we have built up over the decades.  And they are the legacy of the century-long labor movement that built the modern middle class.  When workers fall between the cracks of legal categories, the attempt to regulate the labor market for the common good is undermined.

If there is a good reason in favor of allowing in more legal immigrants from Mexico, then fine.  Secure the border and then let more in legally.  And lets let in lots more people in from Asia and Africa if that makes sense as well. Personally I love the dynamism and simmering creative fusions that are produced by the American habit of continually remaking itself.  And my wife is from Puerto Rico, so the increasingly Hispanic flow to American culture is quite attractive to me.   So let us discuss the matter rationally, and then establish laws that regulate immigration matters in the best interest of the country.  The point is that, as a Democrat, I believe in the right of Americans to decide these issuesdemocratically , and for themselves; not have them decided for them by lawless capitalist exploiters and the radically self-interested free market cult in which they worship.  And I believe in the historic Democratic attachment to labor rights and progressive labor regulation.

But no one should be suprised that employers hire illegal immigrants. When you create an artificial entry barrier for any product you're going to get the existence of a black market.

Of course we shouldn't be surprised.  That is precisely the problem.

The different outlooks we are describing have for a very long time constituted the number one difference between Democrats and Republicans.  Republicans believe that all the attempts to regulate the labor market, starting with the legalization of collective bargaining, and the challenge to "right to work" laws, minimum wage standards, and mandated benefits amount to misguided interference with the miraculous free market and its magnificently invisible hand.  But this view was, as I understand it, shown by history to be dead wrong.  The labor movement, and the progressive labor regulation it entailed, dramatically increased the standard of living, and created a thriving middle class.  It didn't hold back the American economy; it liberated it.

You seem to be suggesting that when a market is regulated a black market is inevitable, and that it is thus somehow futile to even attempt to regulate any market. It is always a challenge I admit, but I reject the fatalistic notion that there is nothing that can be done about markets that violate democratically enacted laws.  To prevent black markets, you need strong law enforcement - and even more you need general respect for the rule of law.  That's it.  The more advanced nations of the world have already shown that it is entirely possible to regulate one's markets through law, and to make those laws efficacious by giving them teeth.  All it takes is the will to do it.

There has been a lot of talk here and elsewhere about various compromises Democrats must make in their standard agenda to attract more voters. And compromise is a fine thing.  But should Democrats go over completely to the other side and become enthusiasts for laissez faire economics, and for the sanctity of the individual right to contract in preference to the rational, democratic, legislative pursuit of the common good, then there is pretty much nothing left to being a Democrat.  What's the point anymore?

"Of course they do. And this right is exercized by the governments of those countries either agreeing or refusing to allow such bases and other military priveleges on their soil."

Right, because every government in the world with US bases is elected and accountable to its citizens, to say nothing of the ones that are elected and simply brush off and or arrest the peons when they protest the presence of American forces in their country.

Or you could say: We have the ability to assimilate a smaller number of immigrants (both highly skilled and unskilled) very well, or the ability to assimilate large numbers very poorly.  
It's not a question of whether the U.S. can take more people, but how they can be integrated without overtaxing available resources.  With large parts of California perpetually facing drought, and cities like Los Angeles facing a strain on its existing water supply, could you honestly say that it could accept millions more people without any harm to its resources, infrastructure, or environment? 

1.  I don't think we'd have to pay an unreasonable price for lettuce if the people who picked it weren't treated like slaves.  The price would go up, but... the boost to the economy caused by giving those lettuce pickers a chance to participate in a real way would make it a wash at worst.  Lettuce would be mroe expensive, sure.  But, in the long run, you'd benefit in so many other ways (investments going up, wages, maybe, going up) that you won't care.

 

2) Yeah, a lot of people went through hell to get here legally.  But, they shouldn't have had to have gone through hell.  We gonna hang onto the present policy, which is irrational, just becase of that? 

Nick- This is such revisionism.  The abolitionists were considered obnoxious incenderies.  William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglas were threatened with assault many place they spoke, precisely because they spoke in such uncompromising terms.

Similarly, the suffragettes were attacked and ridiculed for their uncompromising stances.  

And of course, while Martin Luther King Jr. is a santified saint today, at the time he was denounced for pushing too hard, being too radical.  

What you ignore is that it is precisely the realists today, who are leading the civil rights and labor movements, who refuse to think only in national terms, since they recognize real solutions are in the international labor market and in human rights for all workers globally.

When the problem being faced is radical and deep-rooted, it is the incrementalist who are unrealistic, since their nice-sounding solutions will fail.

Mr. Brooks is also trumpeting immigration reform, I see.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/opinion/14brooks.html

Of course a significant and visible percentage were adamantly against reform.

However, the basic platforms were at their times well known ideas which had been bubbling up from populist grassroots for centuries; the issues were much less complex; and they found large numbers of supportive to ambivalent audiences at least considering the proposition. That is what made them successful, not the fiery rhetoric. The fiery rhetoric just tapped into what was already there. You sound like an activist’s activist.

What you're suggesting i.e. no borders and open workforce mobility... That's not even on the map. Now that really would be a "paradigm shift" and a "quantum leap."

they recognize real solutions are in the international labor market and in human rights for all workers globally.

Whoa wait a second here. I never said ignore the global realities. You're changing the subject and setting up a straw man. For example, recognizing that a global rush to the bottom requires global standards, and popular political support for them in the US so we can force our companies to adopt them, yea great idea. Now there is something people are actually discussing.

However, you endorsed the "right of the masses of oppressed workers in the world have a fundamental liberty to travel" <span>and compared national borders with</span&gt "The Berlin Wall..."

<span>That’s waaaay off </span&gtthe hook, which is why I said you should keep that stuff to yourself. 

When the problem being faced is radical and deep-rooted, it is the incrementalist who are unrealistic, since their nice-sounding solutions will fail.

That’s one unimpressive incantation. Just because you haven’t determined doable incremental changes don’t assume they’re nonexistent. Another way to put it is: when you’ve got tens of millions of people (maybe hundred internationally) seriously considering abolishing borders, let me know.

 

    Wanna know why illegal immigrants stay poor? It's cause we want them that way.

    You know what happens when a group of illegal immigrants tries to unionize for higher wages? I'll tell you; the employer calls the INS. The INS does a spot check, arrests the illegals, and the employer no longer has to deal with a union. The employer pays no penalty either. Ask SEIU how this works in the building maintenance business. Bet they'll tell you something real similiar

    And then there's farm workers. Here, in my home state of Oregon, PCUN, the farmworkers union has been working for collective bargaining legislation for years. What they've been offered by the State Legislature and Governor is collective bargaining legislation that delinates exactly what unionized farm workers can't do, with an emphasise on a strike or any other kind of action.

    As Bob Dylan said, "money doesn't talk, it swears". Immigration policy is no exception. Might even be one of the best examples around.

    Folks can play policy wonk all they want, but the bottom line is, things are the way they are because the economic and political powers-that-be want it that way.

    You want immigration reform? You'll get immigration reform the same way we got systematic election finance reform (saecasm is intended).

    You want to change anything? You'll really have to decide if you are willing to clip the wings of the powers-that-be. If you're not willing, you'll get what we generally do get.... Re-packaged nothing.  

BTW:

You perhaps misunderstood when I said "calm measured steps" and interpreted that as tone. No, I don't mean tone, I mean policy.

I think global labor standards is itself a sisyphean task, and will not be one size fits all anytime this century. It may be even more difficult than abolition becasue it is more technically and ethically complex.

To make an analogy, if global labor standards is roughly equivilent to abolitiion, then abolishing borders is approximatly equivilent to abolishion, sufferage, and civil rights (including gay rights) at the same time.

Wait, there's a name for that and a whole lot more! Did it ever really happen? What was the actual result? 

 

Anyways, enjoyed the exchange, sure I'd support most of what you do.

I have to agree with much of the substance of Lind's position; and I strongly disagree with those who say restricting illegal immigration is counter to the principles of equitable liberalism.  It's true that in Lind's analysis (as well as in his Up From Conservatism and The Next American Nation) there seems to be nostalgia for a kind of mid-20th century civic nationalism.  But the issue of illegal immigration is one of underclass abuse and not freedom to travel.

Many posted comments suggest that clamping down on illegal immigration amounts to racism or robbing a non-citizen of his or her right to travel for a better job.  But we're not talking about legal immigration; we're talking about illegal immigration.

Rather than analyzing the situation from a strictly individualist, libertarian rights perspective, consider the institutions of power that seek to profit off of a steady stream of illegal migrant workers.  The living conditions of migrant workers here in Texas, in what we call the 'Valley' bordering Mexico, is so bad it can easily be likened to Ezekiel's "valley of bones."

The advocates for illegal immigration and migrant labor avoid the unpleasant under-belly of this phenomenon, which is captured by the concepts exile, diaspora, and exploitation.  Do you really believe that luring a poor, undocumented Mexican across the border into an abusive dynamic of power and exploitation really amounts to a flowering of economic freedom and the principles of enlightened liberalism?  This sounds like an argument in the handbook of the East India Trading Company.

 

 

 

    I guess I'll take the left, left position.... maybe with Nathan. Stop the hypocrisy, open the borders, and give full amnesty and resident rights  to immigrants. Maybe alon the lines of eliminating the whole concept of "illegal".

    I'm not opposed to barring entry to an axe murderer or folks with a criminal record eight mile long..... But that's about the only exception I can see as being worthwhile.

    The basis is that de-criminalizing immigration removes criminals...ie the coyotes who extort entry and leave the bones. And the criminals who prey on the illegality of immigration through essentially black-market employment and farm labor (semi-legal black-market exploitation).

    Frankly too, I think it's out duty in the US labor movement to use our gazillions of bucks to fund authentic and real union activity in immigrants' home countries.... Not to mention other third world areas as well..... Where we export jobs.

    I'm wondering if anybody else buys the notion that immigration to the US, and the exporting of jobs overseas are two sides of the same coin? 

    
 

Looks like illegal immigrants don't want to be picking strawberries anymore, either:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-growers14aug14,0,2202945.
story?coll=la-home-headlines

 I have worked for over 30 years in labor, and over ten years in immigrants' rights.  Yes, I agree that exporting jobs and immigration are two sides of the same problem.the U.S. expansion of 'free trade' has produced far more immigration.  It drove hundreds of thousands of poor Mexican farmers off their land. Where did they go? To the U.S.The U.S. corporate agenda of 'free trade' will continue to produce massive immigration.The U.S. government agenda of imperialism will produce even more immigration.  Look at Europe.  The immigrant communities are the people of the former colonies. Given that these major policies will increase immigration, then I am only left with the alternative; internationalism and solidarity.Enforcing the border will not work.  It has not worked. What are we left with?Legalize the workers here.  All of them.Organize the workers here. There is more on this on my blog,www.antiracismdsa.blogspot.com