At the root of the âillegal immigrationâ issue is an exploitive situation in which the powerless are used as pawns by business interests and often subject to slavery-like conditions.
No, Iâm not advocating deporting undocumented workers back to their countries. But I canât defend and promote a system that is as exploitive and as inhumane as this. Maybeâmaybeâwe do need to build a wall (and the thought of a wall on the border of the âland of the freeâ is disconcerting). A wall not motivated by racism, but by a desire to the save lives of the powerless. Maybe we should make it difficult for undocumented workers from driving or obtaining fake Social Security numbers, so that they wonât be tempted to pay smugglers to stuff them into hot train cars for five days with no food, water or facilities.
Yes, we have to treat all people with respect and dignity. But are we being respectful to someone by allowing them to have a Massachusetts driverâs license as a reward for being treated worse than cattle? So they can drive a car to a job that will pay them below market wages and continue to be exploited?
I donât pretend to have the answers. But my moral compass can not defend a system that exploits people. And frankly, any spin that âundocumented workersâ are working towards living the âAmerican Dreamâ is bastardizing this concept and turning it into a âpeculiar institutionâ.
Conditions for some of these people have gotten so bad that they voluntarily submit to the dangers and abuses of smuggling you excelently reported in this post. But doesn’t those actions show a pattern of desparation of people who will risk anything to come. Smugglers will be able to charge more due to (perceived or real) enhanced difficulty (similar to the effects of the DEA in the war on drugs) and undocumented persons will accept more abuse. More enforcement could allow coyotes to justify their behavior, thus a wall could cause more problems then intended.
Your point seems to be: if we make it easier to come in, more people will come over and most of them will be less exploited. If we make it harder to come if, you argue, the few who try with face even worse conditions? Is that you point?
<
p>
I won’t accept a moral choice between lots of folks getting exploited or less people getting really exploited.
<
p>
Granted the long-term solution is to improve the ecomoncies (sp) in Cnetral and South America.
<
p>
Nor am I advocating for a fence. But I’m certainly trying to make a case for progressives to deplore and condemn this current system of immigrants coming into our country.
<
p>
Many of us (progressives) are enablers of a system that preys on the waek and powerless and we pat ourselves on the back when we defend policies that fundementally support a flawed and tragic situation.
By defending the status quo, I’m not advocating for making illegal immigration any easier. My point is that soley attacking the symptoms cause more proplems than they solve. Attacking businesses will force them to either offer either lower wages to offset lawsuits or pass on greater prices to the consumer for the higher wages for legal workers. The best solution to illegal immigration is more, fair, expedited legal immigration. The problem is, many anti illegal immigration conservatives are also xenophobic and want to limit immigration in general. They see tough stances on illegal immigration as the next step to further isolating the US from the world and walling us in. Its up to liberals, progressives, moderates, or who ever, to advocate for the United States to work to bring these undocumented workers out of the shadows and into mainstream America through drivers licenses, public education (historically the greatest Americanizing institution), and that way we can prevent them from abuse. We can’t help people we dont know are here, and sending them back to where they came from may be a worse decision, at least here they have jobs.
Yes, we need to improve legal immigration. I understand the problem with legal immigration is it takes to damn long. I confess, I don’t know how many legal immigrants we let in a year, but I heard from the idiot Lou Dobbs that it’s about one million a year. If that is true, that does seem like a reasonable number each year.
<
p>
I can’t defend the status quo. Many Americans already are working for far less than a living wage. Frankly wages have to increase for people to afford houses and basic necessities. Consumers are getting lower prices off the backs of people making 8 bucks (or less) an hour and getting no health insurance–is that a status quo you feel good about? If the “low-end” job market is already saturated with jobs that do not pay a living wage–whether you’re a legal worker or undocuemnted–how can you advocate increasing the labor pool? You simply undermine the already waning strength of the labor movement.
<
p>
Yes, we need to respect and treat with diginity those who are here. But the explotive cycle must stop. Dealing with this issue will not further “wall” us in. Bush invading another frigging country or stiffing world leaders is what is isolating us–not curbing immigration.
<
p>
Lastly, I couldn’t help but notice this comment you made, “The problem is, many anti illegal immigration conservatives are also xenophobic and want to limit immigration in general.” Yes there are a lot of racists pretending to be responsible citizens trying to curb illegal immigration. And frankly I think many liberals have a knee jerk reaction and say–well if the right is against this, I’m for it and know let’s look for reasons to defend it.
<
p>
Nope. Undocumented workers are being exploited–some dying–and it’s wrong. It’s lowering the wages of the working class and allows businesses to increase their profits. I can not and will not defend this system. And if we turn our back on this horrible situation, or even worse–defend it, we’re going to let the racists control the agenda in terms of “fixing the problem”
<
p>
And you can bet that the way racists will address the issue of immigration will be a whole lot different that the way progressives/liberals will. So if we turn our back to this problem, or even encourage it, we will insure that the people suffering under the current system will face even more indignities at the hands of racists.
<
p>
It’s late, I will continue this tomorrow.
The other probelm is that many anti-illegal immigration conservatives are not xenophobic and anti-immigration in general, so attempting to smear all opponents of your policy as closeted racists is somewhat less than helpful.
<
p>
I don’t pretend to have answers, either, but I don’t think that yours, alone, is much of an answer at all. So long as the degree of economic opportunity in the US is greater than that in South America, Central America, and Mexico, the demand for immigration is going to exceed, by a wide margin, any practicable supply of “legal” slots short of completely open borders.
<
p>
If the status of an illegal immigrant is not distinguishable in any substantive way from that of a legal immigrant, or even a non-immigrant native, that “policy” is really no policy at all.
If the status of an illegal immigrant is not distinguishable in any substantive way from that of a legal immigrant, or even a non-immigrant native, that “policy” is really no policy at all.
<
p>
What happens if an undocumented immigrant steals a television? What happens if you steal a television? I’m betting the differences (deportation vs. a few months in jail) are vast. So, there is at least one substansive difference.
With millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S., rounding them up and sending them back to their countries of origin forcibly would be cost-prohibitive and logistically near-impossible.
<
p>
Vigorously investigating and prosecuting businesses that hire illegals under the table would send a chilling effect to those businesses who currently employ illegals or are considering doing so. Over time, we’d likely see fewer businesses engage in that practice, and reduce the number of jobs available to illegals. If the buzz is that employers’ doors are closed to “undocumented workers”, then the influx of illegal immigration may decrease and we may find some illegals returning to their homelands.
<
p>
The other half of the equation is to push U.S. foreign policy to devote more effort to improving quality of life in the developing world, so as to reduce the desire (or desperation) of those seeking to enter the U.S. through illegal and often inhumane ways.
So they can drive a car to a job that will pay them below market wages and continue to be exploited?
<
p>
They’re above the market wages in Mexico, Central America and South America.
<
p>
I’m not happy with exploitation either. But highly restrictive immigration quotas are meant to keep the have-ots out of a country rich by most standards – given that our economy does remarkably well at absorbing newcomers without too much adverse effect, this seems grossly unfair to my moral compass.
It’s that simple. Not paying minimum wage? Then pay a big fine.
Not using proper safety equipment? Pay a big fine.
<
p>
I paid my fine when I got caught speeding, and the resulting higher insurance. And the cost made me drive more cautiously. When employers break these laws they should get fined, too. But fining Wal-Mart $11 million is like fining an ordinary person twenty-five cents, so these fines need to be raised in some cases.
<
p>
And increasing the length of jail sentences for ‘coyotes’ might discourage some of them. Hell, they should be sentenced to harvest sugar beets out of the ground in 100-degree heat.
<
p>
And the other prong to this should be working to build infrastructure and schools and clinics in Mexico and Central America. If people there can get their children food and medical care, more of them will stay at home.
Neither party is currently offering a solution to the problem. The first major component is to punish all buisnesses, organizations, and individuals that hire and exploit illegal immigrants. The second component is giving true amnesty to all current illegal immigrants so they can report to the INS, sign their papers, become documented and part of the system, and then get the benefits they deserve without bankrupting cities and towns, and also to remove any leverage the exploiters might have. The third step is to make all the borders secure, our borders with the two oceans (port security) our Canadian border (terrorists could easily sneak through) and our border with Mexico to curb the tide of illegal immigration. The last step is to make the process of becoming a legal immigrant much easier so people are encouraged to sign up, and also redrafting NAFTA so that it better benefits the working people of both nations.
I agree that illegal immigration leads to horrendous exploitation. But I don’t agree with your initial premise. By framing your posting as an explanation for “why liberals should oppose illegal immigration”, you’re suggesting that liberals are generally in “favor” of illegal immigration — a Republican talking point if I ever heard one. Well, I’m a liberal, perhaps more lefty than liberal, and I’m certainly not in “favor” of illegal immigration, and I’m not aware of any other liberals who are in “favor” of illegal immigration.
<
p>
As you say, exploitation of illegal status leads to slavery and other horrible outcomes. It also undercuts unions and union-bargained-for wages and benefits. Those are some of the reasons why I “oppose” illegal immigration, and why I favor strong, real sanctions against employers who knowingly employ illegals, real enforcement of our immigration laws including real policing of our borders (even though only 50% of illegals come across our borders), real well-funded programs for supporting those who want to pursue citizenship (including adequate numbers of ESL classes), real economic development assistance a la the Marshall Plan for Mexico and Central America, AND allowing those already here to get on the path to citizenship, while only allowing the folks who choose to get on that path a driver’s license and social security no. etc. That’s also why I disagree with you about some of your proposed solutions — because any one of those, or any one of the ones I’ve mentioned, without the others, will fail to address the problem, and in the case of your proposals, become merely punitive.
<
p>
But enough with the Republican frames, thank you very much.
Its funny, because I see a bunch of responses in this thread that seem to do just that.
<
p>
Maybe, if we just redefine all “illegal” immigrants as “legal,” then we can be opposed to illegal immigration, becasue there will be no such thing.
Leaving aside the disagreeable snarkishness of your response, it seems that you are opposing any form of normalization for illegal immigrants already here, yes? But isn’t it the case that the only real alternative that fairly addresses the problem of exploitation (which I believe was the main thrust of the post), other than allowing those already here to become citizens, is to round everyone up and ship them back to their country of origin, of course splitting families as we do so? If they aren’t shipped back, but remain in their current status, then aren’t they just as vulnerable to exploitation as ever, even if there is some more enforcement, or fewer drivers licenses, etc? So, let’s be real here. Aside from the moral issues in shipping illegal immigrants back, have any of those opposing citizenshipization ever sketched out the logistics? Costed it out? Made a budget proposal? If they did, I’d love to hear about it. My guess is they haven’t, because it would be so hugely expensive as to undercut the usefulness of immigration as a wedge issue.
<
p>
I’ve re-read the above comments, and by golly, I can’t find a single comment that “supports” illegal immigration. Maybe you can point it out to me. Ta.
as leftcenter stated, is in effect supporting illegal immigration.
<
p>
Also, you seem to be implying that I advocate deporting current undocumented workers. I said no such thing and please point out where I even imply an indirect reference to this in my comments. Also, except for a long-term solution of helping to boost Latin American economies, I have not advocated any real policies. (Not to be to snarky, but it seems you read things into my post that weren’t there and clearly missed things in other people’s post–like leftcenter–that you wanted to miss, just so things fit into your âframeâ)
<
p>
Yes, I’d consider some measures that are drastic (a wall–which as a symbol I find abhorrent to the ideals of our country, so I can’t really be in favor of it), but only as a response to people dying in the desert.
<
p>
As far as “buying into the Republican” frame. I submit that defending a system that is inherently exploitive–is reinforcing a Republican frame. Ted Kennedy and others (some posters here) tell stories of people coming to America, just like our ancestors, to seek a better life for themselves and to work hard to improve the lives of their children and grandchildren. Like everything, this has some truth to it. But it also ignores terrible aspects of smuggling and exploitation and does reinforce the Republican frame the Dems are in favor of the status quo. I do wish I had a nickel for every time I read or used the word frame. But I do think this issue needs to be âreframedâ by liberalsâfrom defending a very bad status quo to a paradigm that is more consistent to progressive values that promote social justice and not exploitation.
<
p>
Also, I think I’ve tried to make a distinction of separating the people from the systemic problem. As I wrote, we need to treat current undocumented workers living in this country with dignity and respect, to me that means giving them a clear path to citizenship–not deporting them as you implied I stated.
<
p>
But I can not defend and in fact I am opposed to the current system of immigration into this country. It is flat out inhumane. To suggest their lives are better by being stuffed into railroad cars or to be left in the desert to die so that they can be given a chance to live a better life in this country is a concept I canât understand. It sounds like an argument that would have been made in the 1700’s to justify indentured servitude.
First, I was absolutely NOT implying that YOU were advocating deportation — I know you weren’t and didn’t mean to suggest you were. I apologize for any misunderstanding in that regard. I was addressing that part of my reply to CentralMassDad’s snarky comment that seemed to oppose any form of normalization for immigrants already here.
<
p>
Second, I completely agree with you that the status quo is inhumane in the extreme and cannot be morally supported, and emphatically concur with your rejection of it.
<
p>
Third, in my reply to your post, rather than in my reply to CentralMassDad’s comment, I tried to convey that I agreed with you in part, disagreed with some of the incremental responses you referenced, and mostly objected to your title’s implied claim that liberals support illegal immigration. Again, I’m unaware of any liberals who support illegal immigration, or even the status quo, including, perhaps especially including, Ted Kennedy. Most liberals I know, and certainly Ted Kennedy, support comprehensive change to the current unacceptable system, indeed much more comprehensive change than conservative “solutions,” that encompass most of the responses summarized in my post and in the comments of others. You and I may disagree about what change might be, but we certainly don’t disagree about the need for it.
<
p>
Finally, I make no apologies for the use of the word “frame” — I realize it’s not popular these days, but in my opinion it conveniently describes a concept that I find very useful, that is, a summary of more complicated moral or political ideas.
“Frames” is a concept thaqt appears to be used to simply duck difficult questions by pretending they don’t exist, and therefore irritates me. This is particularly true in this particular subject matter, in which it has been suggested that using accurate description (illgeal) rather than patently obvious euphimism (undocumented) is really just Republican “framing” the issue. Or, worse, attempting to win a policy argument by “framing” all opposing views as racist. This seems like a nice way to become a marginal political party. I apoligize for any excessive snakiness.
<
p>
With respect to “supporting illegal immigration,” if your policy is either (i) pretending there is no such thing (They’re merely “undocumented”), or (ii) amnesty, in whatever form, then you are supporting illegal immigration.
<
p>
That is because, without some mechanism to prevent future illegal immigration, all your policy does is to encourage more illegal immigrantion in the future. It is not a solution, it is a simple punt of a difficult problem. It seems to say “Let some future policy-makers solve this diffuclt problem, after it has become more difficult to solve.”
<
p>
Imagine someone in some difficult circumstance in the near-abroad. They have an uncle who paid a king’s ransom to be smuggled into the US, and has been living at the margin of American socity for a year or two. Uncle is now a citizen, or at least a legal immigrant, and is no longer at the margin of American society (or at least has the potential to move away from that margin). If I’m that someone, I’m saving my money as fast as possible to pay the same smuggler to get me in as soon as possible, so that I might have the same happy result.
<
p>
If your policy encourages more illegal immigration, then it is not unfair to state that the policy favors more illegal immigration.
<
p>
What do you propose to do in 5, 10 years with the next 11 million?
O.K., well, glad we pulled ourselves back from the brink there. Now, to the merits (he says like the lawyer he is): Your point, as I understand it, is that amnesty, without more, merely encourages more illegal immigration. Fair enough. But again, no-one, that I’m aware of, is saying “let’s have amnesty!” And then walking away as if the problem has been solved. Most liberals I know support normalization for those already here and actions to try and stop illegal immigration (see above). So to join in on the “liberals support illegal immigration” bandwagon reinforces something that just isn’t true while furthering the Republican aim of using the whole issue as a wedge issue.
<
p>
But to go back to your point. In your mind, what do you think really would effectively stop immigration? I get that you don’t support normalization for those already here because you feel that would be too much of an incentive, but what do you think would be real, effective, disincentives, since clearly the existing disincentives (threat of arrest and deportation, miserable wages and living conditions, little or no support networks) don’t seem to be working. More of the same? Do you really think that will solve the problem of exploitation that the author of this post discusses? I guess I’m also asking, because I think no matter what we do, there will always be some illegal immigration. It’s really a question of what will be most effective, moral and humane in reducing it.
<
p>
Finally, on framing (yawns). Saying that all people who differ from you on immigration are racists isn’t really “framing” in my view, it’s namecalling. I think. Well, maybe it is framing. Oh, I don’t know. Let’s talk about that some other time.
Well, now I don’t seem to be in great disagreement with you.
<
p>
1. I’m not against amnesty so much as I am against amnesty ALONE. In other words, the incentive provided by an amnsety has to be linked with some corresponding disincentive in order to be something other than a punt.
<
p>
2. The present system, or lack of system, is unacceptable because it is ineffective and morally objectionable.
<
p>
3. “Disincentive” in the form of increasing the personal risk to potential migrants is unacceptrable for the same reason that the present system is unacceptable, only more so.
<
p>
A wall, though superficially appealing, is not practically possible, even on the most vulnerable southern border.
<
p>
It seems to me that, in order to reduce the demand, we have to decrease the avilable opportunity, while also increasing the cost to the potential migrant (in a form other than an even more dangerous trip through the desert). This requires a combination of cracking down on US employers who employ illegal or undumented workers, AND more vigorous deportation efforts. If it is difficult to find work in the US, and reasonably likely that even if you do, you get flagged and sent home, that could reduce the demand for immigration. I don’t think it works if ther is ONLY vigorous deportation (which permits employers to be more exploitative, with little risk) or ONLY crackdowns on employers (because any such crackdown would necessarily be too porous.)
<
p>
I agree with many of the posters in this thread who would link all of that to simpler and easier legal immigration policy.
<
p>
Would that fix the problem? I don’t know. It seems to me that, for so long as the portion of the New World to our south remains an impoverished mess, the demand to be a US resident, legal or illegal, is going to greatly exceed our capacity for legal immigration, even if the Green-Rainbow party sweeps to control of Congress and sets that policy.
<
p>
The immigration system is obsolete, unjust, and in need of radical reform. It’s easy to come to the US if you have over $500,000 to invest in the country, or if you are a highly touted weapons scientist, but if you are a farmer, or a laborer, it doesn’t matter if you’re the best farmer in the world, you’re not going to be allowed in legally. There’s only 5000 visa/yr available for “non-skilled” workers. (More than that number of workers leave our workforce through death and retirement per week.) There’s a waiting list that’s over twenty-years long for these people. The US economy desperately needs these worker, as baby-boomers are retiring, and the proportion of workers with less than a high school degree is now at less than 10%. (as opposed to 50 yrs ago when that # was around 50%)
<
p>
So the solution is fairly simple: Open up legal avenues for people to come in, with real means for them to work with full protections and wages. The unions, notably SEIU recognizes this and is working hand-in-hand with others in labor like UNITE/HERE and Jobs for Justice on pushing for meaningful reform.
<
p>
Meanwhile, the anti-immigrant nativists, who have been promoting their racist agenda for decades have won the Republican strategists over.
<
p>
See http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=175
<
p>
and
<
p>
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=93
<
p>
Just take a look at the leaked Republican marketing consultant piece from last fall:
<
p>
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Luntz_frames_immigration.pdf
<
p>
The struggle for Immigrant Rights
The Bill of Rights guarantees due process rights to anyone in US jurisdiction. (That’s why we have prisoners in Guantanamo.)Yet, undocumented immigrants are being deprived of rights everyday. ICE and local police departments are routinely breaking down doors at night, and hauling people off in secret. There are people who have been in prison without ever having been tried or judged, just waiting for immigration authorities to get their records in order. see “We are All Suspects Now,” by Tram Nguyen. Beacon Press.
<
p>
Yes, it’s true. Not all anti-immigrants are motivated by racism. But it’s important to note just how racism is driving so much of the anti-immigrant politics.
See http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/20/the_new_culture_war.php
<
p>
The struggle for Immigrant Rights is the Civil Rights movement of our time. We as progressives who care about social justice must stand together, in solidarity and stand up for the most vulnerable members of our society. We have a moral obligation to end the exploitation of these workers and their families.
<
p>
There are many ways we can all get involved. There are many organizations, church groups, and community groups that have been popping up throughout the state.
<
p>
A good place to start is MIRA. see
<
p>
http://www.miracoalition.org/home
<
p>
The best way for the US to end illegal immigration is to stop the trade inequities created by its trade policy, especially in agriculture. Many illegals come to work on farms, picking fruit, and other grown commodities. All of these products are heavily subsidised by the US government. We put heavy protections on steel manufacturing and others. In effect, we have subverted competition and job growth in Latin America and the developing world to prop up our own stagnating economies. And although this does keep some jobs in America, it perverts the economy by encouraging citizens of Latin American countries to go where the jobs are and hurt American consumers when paying for manufacturing goods. Granted, Latin American countries are indeed behind the eight ball in opening up their own economies, but we must help them by opening up ours in order to remove some of the incentives for illegal immigration.
<
p>
Also, i would just like the point out in my earlier comment that i said some anti illegals are xenophobes and anti immigrant in general. Key word was some; i dont mean to pass judgement on all, i apologize if thats how it sounded.
Great idea! You realize of course, you’re going to have to change your name to RightCenter, no?
Given Bush’s inability to deal with the problems posed to developing nations by American predatory tariffs and subsidies, I would say either Bush isn’t a conservative or cutting farm subsidies isn’t conservative…or probably neither. Both parties refuse to adress this issue because they are too prone to backlash from farmers in swing states such as Iowa and industrial workers in the mid west. Gary, you seem to think that reconciling our hostile trade policy is illiberal and will not help solve the immigration problem. Should the United States continue to engage in economic imperialism by holding a monopoly on competition. That would be typical conservative.
<
p>
On a related note, my user name reflects the fact that I am left of center, but do consider myself a moderate, in part because of both parties failiure to act constructively in trade. The Doha trade talks which promise to improve the lives poor Africans, Asians, Latin Americans, and others have been held up by forces on the American Right and Left. I am proud to hold down the center and demand social justice and equality in trade for the world.
But, certainly it’s not a conservative. Free and open markets with little government interference is a trait, I think, is more closely aligned with Conservative thinking. Certainly, Libertarians seek the abandonment of tariffs.
<
p>
Probably, it’s Big Corn, Big Sugar, etc. that lobby with both sides of the aisle to keep the big pork (aka subsidies) flowing.
<
p>
But, closer to home, I’m curious to know what others think of the milk price supports in New England.
“A wall not motivated by racism, but by a desire to the save lives of the powerless.” – Frank Skeffington
<
p>
[NOTE: Before I go on, let me clarify a pervasive misconception–THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “DIFFERENT” HUMAN RACES! Mexicans, Asians, Africans–they’re all the exact same species as White Americans. Race-division is a lie that’s lived a long time and which will probably live a lot longer. The only legitimate “difference” is cultural; in other worlds, Mexicans generally have a different ethnicity than USer’s; the genetic differences required to constitute different races does not exist. Eugenics has no validity. Biology shows we’re all one race: the human race.]
<
p>
Whether explicitly motivated by prejudice, the wall would be implicitly representative of one area the whole country would agree on: they’re Mexicans who shouldn’t be coming into the United States.
<
p>
This conclusion is so because whether it’s outright extreme Minuteman-style hatred or you’re proposed “liberal[humanist]” motivation to erect the “Wall of the Western Hemishpere”, BOTH positions in the end say “You are Mexicans and Southern Americans and Therefore Aren’t Permitted Into Our Land of Liberty.”
<
p>
Your proposal would indiscriminately shut out those purposefully crossing (which probably comprise the majority) as well as those few Mexican-born people unwillingly smuggled.
This seems like an “Injustice for All” solution.
<
p>
As well, all the details of your proposal include the same ideas offered by the right–just make it way more difficult for the non-USers. No where did you propose new ways of dealing with the American smugglers whose greedy ambitions are the source for worker-smuggling in the first place.
<
p>
<
p>
To address a more general yet still related issue, I have to say that all those on the left who RAGE against American jobs going overseas or become HARSH opponents of immigrants taking jobs away from US citizens right in their own country–all the progressives, liberals, etc. who support such positions are essentially betraying their political values and revealing their lack of a TOTAL conception of progressive world-views. Maybe its out of ignorance or maybe its a tactic to get votes, who knows.
<
p>
Are we saying those not born in America aren’t deserving of jobs, or at least not deserving of work that could come here? We balk at the conditions and pay sweat-shop workers endure in the Third World, esp. because we could be making more if those jobs were here–but whatever pay they are earning they WEREN’T before. Globalization is in principle a good thing. The only problem is the problem that’s existed forever–elite & powerful minorities robbing the world of more than they deserve for the role they play in global economics.
<
p>
In the end it’s nothing more than a sentiment of discrimination engendered by either a hidden or exposed nationalist orientation.
…I did not propose one damn thing you accuse me of. You just wanted to hear yourself rant in your own little head.
1. ” …I did not propose one damn thing you accuse me of.”
<
p>
1.1 I am not accusing you of malicious intentions. I quite clearly attribute good faith on your part with regard to your proposal; however, from your short and…uhh.. cavalier reply, I must assume you judged otherwise.
<
p>
1.2 The explanation of my disagreement STRESSES to provide you the benefit of the doubt while trying to identify the unintended, symbolic, and implicit message of descrimination the practical execution of your proposal would contain, and how that would contradict its intended cause and function. I was trying, in other words, to explain the why the consequances of the solution would only reinforce and legitimize the problem.
<
p>
1.3 And yes, outside the unintentional symbolism of your proposal, the practicalities of is DO lead to the things I stated, and that those consequences ARE manifestly anti-liberal.
<
p>
2.“You just wanted to hear yourself rant in your own little head.”
<
p>
2.1 This sentence cements your response as little more than a reactionary ad hominem attack. It is not appreciated, substantiated, or warranted.
<
p>
2.2 The character of the forum your personal attack was made in–which isn’t even one of lofty disdain but rather defensively vicious incomprehension–makes it all the worse because you not only miss the mark of my post, but also go against the purpose of a liberal Democratic discussion group.
…the reason that I suggest you “learn how to read” is that you keep referring to a “proposal” I made. What proposal are you talking about? You maybe referring to my allusion to building a wall. Well read carefully, my reservations about that concept–based on some of the very same points you mentioned–lead me to reject that idea.
<
p>
At best I suggest that I’m morally conflicted–when I see the death and suffering of people trying to cross the border and folks (at least some commentators on this site) ignoring these realities and call for so called remedies that may increase the level of human exploitation that currently exists.
<
p>
That was the reason for my post. What “proposals” am I suggesting? There were none and that is why I suggested you did not read my post carefully. Granted I may not have articulated things perfectly, but I never advocated any policies.
<
p>
I do ascribe to you a common tendency of people to read something that does not fit their value system and then assume intentions or beliefs (or proposals) that the writer never advocated. I resent your implication that I made proposalsâsuch as building a wallâthat I did not make.
<
p>
So who needs to learn how to analyze?