>>Lind is not a nativist. He is a liberal
>>nationalist. He may be a Listian, but
>>to me that is not necessarily a Bad Thing.
>>The idea that he is a right-wing plant is
>>hallucinatory.
>>
>>mbs
While what Pugliese downloaded includes reasonable criticisms of a
neo bracero program, it soon became an assault on the poor Mexican
immigrant. He uses the excuse of a neo bracero program to call for
the exclusion of poor uneducated Mexicans as such instead of for the
granting to them of worker and citzenship rights.
The handling of complex studies on the job displacement effects of
immigration (Bhagwati rung Borjas' clock in my opinion) and welfare
burden of the poor Mexican immigrant (note Lind does not consider the
sales taxes which even trabajadores sin papeles pay though they are
probably in excess of any state benefits which they receive) is
purely demagogic. Indeed Lind descends into the worst forms of
scapegoating, and his prose becomes indistinguishable from the
Brimelow's and Murray's who think a restrictive immigration policy is
in the eugenic interests of the nation.
>Already both LEGAL and illegal immigration from Mexico are
>exacerbating America's social problems, because so many Mexican
>immigrants are uneducated and poor. Mark Krikorian of the Center for
>Immigration Studies -- a non-profit which advocates tightening
>immigration laws -- claims that 31 percent of immigrants from Mexico
>are dependent on at least one major federal welfare program. (my emphasis)
And then he goes on about their criminal propensities.
In the thrall of nationalist myth Lind does not consider why a
tougher immigration policy (and Lind seems to want to limit
immigration over and above eliminating guest worker programs) may not
necessarily improve the competitive position of poor citizens, but
Max would have to study Marx (the mascot of this list) to understand
why as a result of its laws of motion, the capitalist system will
create a reserve army of labor out of its valorization base, i.e.,
its population base, no matter how limited by restrictive immigration
policy. And taken over by nationalist myth Lind does not consider
whether there are other more effective policies than restrictive
nationalist immigration policy (Lind is not just after the neobracero
program but-it seems to me--the immigration of poor Mexicans under
any conditions) to improve the conditions of the citizen poor
(assuming his interest is genuine). And if Lind were truly concerned
with the position of poor citizen workers rather than in Bell Curve
fashion the putative dysgenic effects of poor Mexican immigration,
wouldn't he would be giving other policy advice first and
foremost--more pro union legislation, an expanded public sector,
tougher anti anti black discrimination law, etc?
On top of it, Lind seems to have written a book in defense of
genocidal US policies in Vietnam--did I understand you, right,
Pugliese? He has also called for a ban on the US import of third
world goods on the basis of the most superficial arguments that this
would be good for those poor third world people too. It would surely
thrust many peoples into a holocaust of poverty.
For Max to rise to the defense of Lind and call him a liberal
nationalist indicates what a reactionary he is. I thought Max was
only pulling toes; now I must conclude that it is actually much
uglier.
The insults will only increase from here, so Michael, I am unsubbing.
Good luck to all you progressive economists which I insist is an oxymoron.
Yours, Rakesh
