Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

First, I appreciate the discussion that's going here, with intelligent people. As some of you may or may not know, I get extremely vehement on this issue, especially when confronted with the kossacks who have swallowed a Dobbsian anti-immigrant paranoia. Ever since my experience with Prop 187 in SoCal in 1994, I have become virulently pro-immigrant, and see a Dobbsian anti-immigrant sentiment as something to be resolutely opposed. With violence, if necessary, but that's almost certainly where you and I all part ways. "Illegal" immigrants are some of the best people I've known in my life and the hatred and scapegoating directed their way makes me shake with rage.

And I'm usually a pretty calm guy.

I think first a historical perspective is useful. Until 1882 there were no immigration restrictions of any kind in North America, whether it was British colonies or the US of A. Beginning in 1882, however, restrictions started to be put into place. From the beginning they were racist in origin.

The 1882 law was the Chinese Exclusion Act, the product of anti-immigrant sentiments in California - SF in particular. Working-class Irish folks suffering from the Depression of the 1870s believed that their problems would be solved if the racially inferior Chinese were banned from the US. They got their laws passed, but of course their economic lot was not improved.

Still, a precedent had been set. Later, in 1906, Japanese immigration was restricted. In the 1910s the situation worsened dramatically - in 1917 a blanket ban on immigration from Asia was enacted and immigration from undesirable parts of Europe - from the racially inferior east and south - was severely restricted. In 1921 and 1924 these restrictions were even further tightened and made permanent.

In 1965, as part of the Civil Rights Movement, the Hart-Cellar Immigration reform was passed, which liberalized the race-based immigration quotas. But it did not eliminate them entirely. Instead certain kinds of labor was preferenced - skilled and educated labor. Since racially undesirable peoples such as Latinos were often unskilled, restricting unskilled labor appeased those who still wished to maintain racial restrictions on the composition of immigration.

The question of race and immigration today is simple to me. But it is complex to most Americans, who falsely believe we solved all our racial problems in the 1960s. The notion that the Civil Rights Movement cured racism impacts this discussion because it makes people deny that race plays any role in demands for exclusion or restriction. I can personally attest that this is simply wrong - in Southern California in the early 1990s, the "illegal immigrant" issue was really about "Mexicans." Even today "illegal" and "Mexican" or "Latino" are virtually interchangable terms. Few Americans are concerned about illegal immigrants from Europe or Canada - it's instead about brown people.

And the rules make this clear - whereas the obvious solution to our problem is liberalization of immigration law, most resist this. I can only conclude this is because of racial anxieties.

So what should we as Dems do?

Any solution we propose must conform with our core principles. It must not be exclusionary - meaning that we're almost bound to support an amnesty proposal. This also conforms with our principle which is that you do NOT blame the victim. Immigrants have worked hard and deserve full benefits of American life, including naturalization or at the least legal residency.

Some whine that this may encourage more illegal immigration. I say "whine" because this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. People do not immigrate here illegally because they want to come that way. Virtually every illegal immigrant wishes to come here legally. They come illegally because they have to, because they believe the economic rewards are worth the high risks. In short, an amnesty has little effect on rates of illegal immigration.

Instead we need to liberalize our immigration policies to better reflect economic realities. If American businesses are seeking unskilled labor, we need to then admit this and make it easier for people immigrate legally with that skill set.

Some call this "open borders" and as I note above, there's no shame in this. But it's also false. Liberalized immigration rules actually make the border MORE secure. This is because it encourages people to cross at US Customs-staffed Ports of Entry, where security concerns are best addressed. With fewer people crossing the undefended northern and southern borders, what little security risk exists is then eliminated in whole. Trust me - people would rather go through an air-conditioned office in Nogales or a warm, dry office in Blaine than the Sonora desert or the North Cascades.

"Illegal" immigrants - and other immigrants - have seen some success in labor organizing. This is an aspect of the issue that most so-called liberals neglect. If labor is organized, all the problems identified with illegal immigration go away. No more exploitation, no more undercutting of wages. We MUST, absolutely MUST, be encouraging of labor organizing in the fields and factories of America.

Obviously, if illegal labor is organized and unionized, then it competes on an even level with other sources labor. The incentive for employers to use illegal labor is gone. So unionization has got to be a centerpiece of our efforts.

Some folks argue, as Duke1676 calls it, from an "economic development" approach. I say we call their bluff. Repeal NAFTA. Replace it with trade agreements that insist on environmental and labor protections commensurate with those enjoyed by the US. End US governmental support of corrupt regimes - something that has historically happened in concert with US corporate exploitation. Support political forces in source countries that will provide true and widespread economic improvements. This means that the US must abandon its 100-year long fight against Latin American leftist movements.

Here again the Dems are best positioned to act. Our approach has historically been to regulate private enterprise for the public interest. We must do so again.

One might notice something in the above - what I'm calling for is nothing short of the implementation of the full social democratic agenda that liberals have been calling for since 1932. That's no coincidence. To assume immigration is a problem outside other political problems - a common assumption - is to misread the situation profoundly.

In the end, though, we must insist that any discussion if immigration - legal or illegal - proceeds from this all important point:

Immigration is NOT a major factor in or cause of US economic difficulty.

Thanks for reading.

I'm not a part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

As a Closed Border Advocate, I do indeed think the use of illegal labor depresses wages. And I think they take a toll on our country economically and socially -- not the way the hard right means it, but as existing as a fearful and exploitable underclass. They're used by MegaAgriculture to depress wages, to stymie technological innovation and to get around such stalwart progressive labor issues as overtime, benefits and other labor standards.

As an Economic Development Advocate, I do believe the if the U.S. aided other countries in stabilizing their own economic system, the pull of working for shit on our side of the border -- which is much higher than they get on theirs -- would lessen.

As an Open Border Advocate, I DO believe immigration is a natural part of the economic process, and certainly of our own American history.

That said, I think we need to get a realistic grip on how much immigrant labor this country needs -- a real, honest look at it -- and then begin to set  and stick with those annual numbers. What should go into that equation, beyond the immediate labor demand, is the realization that as our population ages, we  need to have more workers. With an aging work force ourselves, and another one clamoring to be put to work, it just makes sense to let them come in.

BUT -- and this is a big BUT -- they need to be documented. We need to know who's here. Not just for national security reasons, but to enable them to NOT be exploited, to feel no fear at reporting abuses. And they need to be paid minimum wage and be offered the protection of all our labor laws.

As to undocumented workers being a strain on the social system and infrastructure ... BAH. I don't buy it. I think they bring much more to this country -- a work ethic, ambition, sales tax revenues -- than they take from it. Certain specific school districts or hospitals may need some federal help (and I think it's unfair that the state governments are having to bear the fiscal cost of a national problem), and I think that needs to be addressed.

As you can see, I don't have the traditional progressive take on this (which in my understanding is a little weak on the documentation/possible number limit issue). I don't want people here without documentation. But whether it's as a guest worker or permament resident, they need to be on record so they can't be exploited.

"But everyone is talking about this problem," she keeps telling me.

I would have to say that, among my friends and party members, illegal immigration seems to be down the list a ways--somewhere between parking tickets and eczema.  Is there a yahoo brigade I'm not hearing from?