Zwarich's call for enforcing existing immigration laws is exactly consistent with the class interests he claims to oppose, not the ones he claims to defend. The whole "market" in undocumented immigrant labor, its super-profitability for the imperialist bourgeoisie and their petty bourgeois hangers-on, is predicated on its illegality. Just as the criminalization of mind-altering substances, and the creation of a black market in such substances makes them vastly more profitable without in the least reducing drug use, criminalizing immigrant labor is not designed to stop it, only to "control" in the interest of higher profits. The rulers (included various criminal elements who have no essential contradiction with capitalism) simply profit on all ends of the exchange and all phases of the system -- thus, they profit from both the drug war and the drug trade, from both border enforcement and border smuggling, as well as from the resultant more exploitable labor. Just as the drug laws were written to assure the widest possible participation of the youngest possible drug mules and small dealers, the immigration laws are written to try to guarantee a supply of labor subject to the most brutal forms of casualization, servitude and super-exploitation, including deportation without pay. It is not enforcement of existing immigration laws that will end this or improve the deal that native-born labor can cut. It is legalization -- particularly in response to a mass mobilization and radicalization of the exploited immigrant workers themselves. In defending not only borders in general, but the particular border based on conquest and colonization of the Mexican people on the territory they historically have lived on and migrated through for eons, we would not be only accepting the division of the working class in general that the imperialist system is based on, but upholding one of the key sources of strength of our class enemy. The question is, who's scabbing whom? Zwarich and others are quick to accuse the oppressed, exploited and colonized of being scabs. But what do you call those who seek sweetheart contracts based on class collaboration and loyalty to the boss at the expense of the class in general? Capitalism rests, of course, on competition among the workers. But seeking a monopoly position is not the solution to that competition -- it is simply a manifestation of a self-serving attempt to "win" the competition. It is only internationalist and anti-colonial solidarity that can break out of the box entirely.
At 02:07 PM 4/24/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Tommy King's points are very real, in fact. Borders mean less and less for >dominating, big capital (even as their governments spend more and more on >weapons to defend national capitalism). As big capital flows across the >globe the better to devour it, so they want labor free to move... for >their purposes of lower wages, benefits (known as labor/ 'human capital' >costs)maximum profit. The question is: should those here join the effort >to throw 'illegal' immigrants out and protect the U.S. 'job market'? >Should we join the movement for immigrant rights as super-exploited fellow >workers or act to 'enforce existing laws' against them and their >employers/exploiters? > >I've argued here and elsewhere that we should work to develop class >solidarity, not join the hounds chasing fellow workers. To do that, we >have to fight for workers here who, as always, are hurt by some who 'take >their jobs', that is, others more deperate take work for lower pay and no >benefits. How to reconcile this conflict within our ranks? > >The first is to explain that it's either go down or go up, together. >Concretely, that means standing for immigrant rights and against >scapegoating them. First off, 'illegal immigrants' don't cause >unemployment. We've had that long before the U.S. took the Southwest away >from Mexico. We've had unemployment, hunger, desperation as long as we've >had capitalism and folks were forced off their farms. > >Capital always seeks to increase its exploitation to increase their profit >rates. That's not new. Nor is it new for capital to use cheaper labor to >replace more expensive, with machines or lower-paid humans. I and others >have given many examples of how capital uses lower waged areas as >'resources' to exploit. Moving textile factories from North to South in >the U.S. Enticing European immigrants vs. native born workers 100 years >ago to 'open up' mines, R.R.s, steel plants. NAFTA and WTO in our days. > >Explanations alone won't cut it. People need jobs with living wages if >they're not born into the 'right' class. Either we begin to fight for jobs >with living wages for all alongside immigrant rights, or we are left with >words alone. Taking this up means fighting for shorter workweek with no >loss in pay, or for spending the military budget on the homes, schools, >health care, bridges, and other things people here need. That's billions a >day at stake; that's a huge fight. Either we fight for a future for all or >it's dog against dog with a divided working class fighting each other. > >Tommy King's states facts below. He poses the question, how do we move >forward when borders are basically used by our enemies against us yet when >masses of people strongly identify with the nations that have borders? > >While Brother Zwarich dismisses Brother King's comments as 'utopian', >isn't the challenge how to move to bridge the very real gulf dividing us? >Zwarich has yet to come out against the scapegoating of immigrants, so far >as I have read. In earlier posts, he called for 'enforcing existing >immigration laws' that would mean putting millions of workers out of the >U.S. Tommy King's ideas on borders go towards the need for building class >unity across borders, not helping persecute fellow workers driven to come >here to feed their families. In my view, we need ideas and proposals for >common campaigns that defend immigrant workers AND LINK THAT to >better pay and benefits FOR ALL. > >Living wage jobs and benefits will cost billions. Who's got it? The money >will have to come from the real criminals- those who take the wealth we >create and use it against us. Billions go every day for their empire, both >in day-to-day costs for invasions and to maintain their bases in 120 >countries. This is the challenge. Starting point is either building class >unity or further splitting our class and thus helping our real enemies. Up >together or down seperately. > >in solidarity and struggle, > >Earl Silbar > >"Either we shall hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall hang >seperately." Ben Franklin > >-----Original Message----- >From: Zwarich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Tommy King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL >PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:27:21 -0500 >Subject: Re: fwd: 'We Are America' Coalition Opposes May 1st General Strike > >Thanks to Mr. King for these comments. I agree substantially with these >thoughts, and like Mr. King, I dream of a world that we might someday >create in which national borders have become obsolete. But our utopian >dreams that we derive from our rhetorical theories unfortunately have >little effect on the real world in which we must operate in the meantime. >When we begin to base our political 'positions' on utopian rhetoric, we >are setting ourselves up for imminent defeat in the real world. When we >pretend that our dreams are reality, and base our policy positions on >those dreams, (rather than on actual political reality), we are indulging >ourselves in narcissism, and in doing so, we are GREATLY weakening our >political position in the actual real world. > >Anyone advocating 'abolishing national borders' as a serious 'policy >position', in a world torn by nationalistic strife, is indulging himself >or herself in narcissistic fantasies, and is marking himself or herself as >a member of what is referred to in the harsh heat of the Political Arena >as the 'lunatic fringe'. Noble dreams should inspire us, but our political >'positions' on real world issues like immigration MUST be grounded in >REALITY. If they are NOT, we are only setting ourselves up for a serious >defeat, (BIG TIME). > >RZ >----- Original Message ----- >From: <javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>Tommy King >To: <javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[email protected]');>[email protected] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Cc: ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; <javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 8:48 PM >Subject: Re: fwd: 'We Are America' Coalition Opposes May 1st General Strike > >The real issue here is: National Borders. > >National Bordrers don't exist for the Rich. >Nor do national borders exist for international corporations, >who with the backing of the U.S. military and state department and with >backing of the World Bank, freely engage in the economic exploitation of >any communities throughout the world, >often leaving formerly prosperous communities and even whole nations >bankrupt, impoverished and in civil war. > >National borders don't exist for arms dealers who sell guns to governments >and nationalist fanatics who recruit soldiers from the working class to >kill and die in defense of national borders. >Corporate folk are free to travel anywhere they want in search of cheap >sources of labour. >National borders didn't exist for my "American" boss when he fired me and >set up shop in China. > >The myths of citizenship and national borders are imposed on working >people, and only on working people, by international corporations and >their Democrat/republican political machine(& it's currupt political >allies in Europe and throughout the world). > >The myth of national borders is as dangerous to working people as are >racial purity myths or religious myths, because national borders only >exist within the working class and only for the purpose of dividing >workers against each other & to prevent international or (in this case) >national labor solidarity. > >Wealth flows from Latin America to the U.S., > All working people being equel, immigrants Latinos have as much right to > work in the U.S. as do 3rd generation Europian immigrants or anyone else. > >Peace,Love,Solidarity, >Tommy King, Milwaukee. > > ><javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Clearly, brother Zwarich is correct that the original coalition has broken >into different factions, organizing themselves around conflicting >strategies. As he notes, this happens in other truly mass movements, from >Civil Rights to Unions and beyond. The question is: what is the best way >forward? and, what are we to make of all this? > >Is it really so crazy for those of us here facing Corporate America's >all-sided war on our living, our rights, and our future to embrace the >cause of 'illegal' immigrants? I don't think so. > >Brother Zwarich argues that it's obvious that we here should oppose >illegal immigration since 'waves' of such immigrants are and will be used >to lower pay and working conditions. While that is true and cannot be >ignored or denied, there is another aspect we ignore at our peril: > >Employers have _always_ used the worst off, the most pressed upon against >the better paid, more organized sections of the working class. Think of >how employers used slave labor in the South against better paid wage labor >in the North. Should northern workers have turned their backs on their >brethren held in bondage and who were used against them, in factories for >example? Radical and revolutionary-minded norther workers, including Marx, >argued that 'labor in white skin can never be free while enslaved in black >skin'. Many white workers in the North and in England followed this call >for class solidarity, not the call to turn their backs on our brothers and >sisters. They helped turn the tide and set the basis for a higher level of >unity and prosperity. Of course, this was not and never can be a unified >response. Just as there are different wings of the immigrants' rights >movement, with the 'moderates' telling us to 'be respectable' as if that >ever won anything. > >Think of how employers used legally 'free' but desperate Black workers as >scabs against northern white workers when they went on strike, especially >miners. The more advanced among them worked to recruit these would-be >scabs in the struggle to better us all, as memorialized in the excellent >movie " Matewan". > >Think of how employers in the Northeast used immigrants against 'native' >workers in the new factories. When those workers organized, often with >class conscious leadership like the IWW, the employers left for the warmer >climates of Southern hospitality, where racist divisions, individualism >and that 'old time religion' meant lower wages and no unions. Wasn't the >right thing to 'Organize the South'? Of course, and that's where the CIO >'moderates' kicked out the 'red's in the late '40s and never did 'Organize >the South'. > >Hopefully, my point is clear. If not, it's this: either we embrace our >fellow workers as sisters and brothers, or we are (unwitting) allies of >the employing/ exploiting class in keeping us divided and fighting each >other and not them. Their system creates the hardships that drive so many >out of their homes and away from their loved ones. Look at life in Mexico >after their NAFTA, for one example. Their class always has and always will >use the worse off against the better off so long as they hold power in >society. Either we go along with this or oppose it. > >If we do oppose this 'turn your back on our fellow workers' and work for >solidarity as a class, we cannot then just ignore the very real harm that >employers and their politicians do in using us as immigrants against us a >'natives'. > > We cannot ignore the fact that our sisters and brothers are used against > our conditions and work here. Construction is perhaps the worst example, > where $6-8/hr labor replaces $15/hr in rehabbing and building new homes. > The worse off are and will always be used against the relatively better > off, until we build a leadership wing of our class to take us all the > way. And that means creating a solid force to break their power and bring > forth a new life and a future for all. Think of solidarity as the cement > that turns loose bricks into a strong wall. Or the experience that frees > our imaginations. > >We must come forward with a program, a strategy and tactics. We need to >raise the banner of decent work, living wages, good benefits for all. We >need to encourage and join the fight for strikes, not oppose them. We need >to raise the banners and organize contingents from work, community and >church, not side with the 'moderates' like the Catholic Church and its >allies. We must get active politically as well, since the U.S. government >has worked to smash down the living conditions of most people and to crush >the people's movements for revolution, as in Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc. >Solidarity is a two way street; the defeat of those revolutions and >workers' movements across Mexico and Central America set the conditions >for the exodus under way. It is one system. What hurts our comrades there >hurts us here. One system, one future. > >In short, we must make solidarity practical as well as just. Turning our >backs here against 'illegal' immigrants is what helps Corporate America. >The challenge is on: are we joining the protectionists or creating a wing >of solidarity and class struggle for all our futures. > >in solidarity, > >Earl Silbar > > >"The strongest bond of human sympathy outside the family relation should >be one uniting all working people of all nations and tongues and kindred." >- Abraham Lincoln to the New York Working Men's Association, 1864 > >"Workers of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose except your >chains!" Karl Marx& Frederich Engels, the Communist Manifesto, 1848 > > >btw, who's the illegal immigrant, Pilgrim? Maybe the U.S. didn't steal the >Southwest from Mexico? Maybe the 'Texas Republic' and the Alamo weren't >fought to make Texas a slave state? Maybe the U.S. congress didn't make it >illegal to show solidarity in action back in 1949 with Taft-Hartley? Let's >not get so hot and bothered by this 'illegal' stuff, ok? > >Make no mistake. The movement to attack immigrants works to mask the true >cancer here. And that's Corporate America, also known as the ruling class >and their capitalist system. Does this remind anyone else of how the Nazis >used scapegoats like the Jews to mobilize fighters and distract attention >in order to save their rotten capitalist system? Now and today, the >'Minutemen' advertise themselves to do just what is proposed below: to >enforce the existing laws in communities and workplace inside the U.S. and >not just on the borders. That's a witchunt we should oppose, not support. >Those witchhunters will come after the malcontents and dissidents ('red') >next. Solidarity is a two way street. That means doing the right thing, in >action and in words. > >And, as for Cesar Chavez, he is no role model for working class politics. >He opposed farmworker unity, building on Chicano consciousness and >opposing the Filipino farmworkers as class sisters and brothers, let alone >'illegal' Mexicans. He used mind-control tactics to turn the Farm Workers >into a docile group. He cleaned house of all those who wanted a democratic >union that would actually organize workers to fight the bosses and their >politicians as part of the wider class struggle. Chavez put his undeniable >and great talents to work to make the UFWA into a semi-religious, >moralistic, and 'moderate' pressure group. Just as the CIO 'moderates' >threw out the 'reds' and embraced the masters as junior partners. Which >path is it going to be? > >In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:53:36 A.M. Central Standard Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >'We Are America Coalition' Opposes May 1st General Strike > <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "=" /> >We can now see that after the initial euphoria generated by the original >mobilization of the outpouring of energy among immigrant workers and their >families, this 'immigrant civil rights movement' is now having to grapple >with hard political realities. The masses of Hispanic immigrants >originally 'took to the streets' proudly flying the Mexican flag, but the >immediate and huge backlash this produced caused them to adjust their >tactics, and movement organizers are now calling on these immigrants, most >of whom are very naturally nationalistic toward their native Mexico, to >fly the American flag and proclaim, "we just want to be Americans". And in >the most recent development, as a Homeland Security 'crackdown' against >both undocumented immigrant workers, and the individual managers at >companies that employ them, has been dramatically announced, the >organizers of the 'immigration movement' are beginning to split into factions. > >Many of these organizers have now become aware that their primary >'position' in opposition to various 'immigration reform bills' is very >problematic, in that it has completely ignored the fact that there are >laws already on the books that could adequately enforce the nation's >borders if there was any political will to do so. And now, as these laws >are being suddenly and very selectively enforced in a dramatic public >display, the organizers of this 'new civil rights movement' are being >caught up short in some considerable tactical confusion. > >In this confusion, the 'immigration movement' is now splitting into these >major factions, with some, like the 'We Are America' Coalition, which >includes the Catholic Church, (which provided a major degree of the >organizing 'chops' that produced the original marches), now recognizing >that the upcoming May 1st 'general strike' could have the unintended >consequence of providing the clear identification of illegal workers in >the workplace, and could well lead to more firings, or even worse, >deportations. > >How will employers who are knowingly employing illegal immigrants respond? >It's hard to say. On the one hand they might be inclined to allow strike >participation by their illegal workers, out of fear that any retribution >against strikers will bring Homeland Security down on their own heads for >employing the illegal workers. On the other hand, it might make them >inclined to be more forceful themselves in threatening their workers with >retribution, such as by reporting them preemptively as 'illegals', (and >claiming they 'just discovered' that their social security numbers on >their I-9 forms are false), to avoid being arrested themselves, as the >managers of companies employing illegal workers so recently (and publicly) >were. > >I have been trying to point out for some time that we don't need new laws >to close our borders to illegal immigration. We already HAVE adequate laws >that are NOT being enforced. I am as cynical as anyone in witnessing the >recent 'crackdown' on illegal immigrants in the workplace and on the >jobsite. This is very obviously where the border could be enforced, if >there was any real political will to do so. Illegal immigrants are NOT >hard to find. Everybody knows where they are. We already have laws that >provide for severe penalties for employers who employ illegal immigrants. >But these laws have not been enforced because the Corporate Elite that >controls our nation does not WANT them enforced. I am as cynical as anyone >now because I think the Corporate Elite is playing all sides against each >other, making every side hop and dance on their always-clever strings. >These Corporate Capitalist Puppeteers clearly see the advantage to be >gained by 'playing' the semi-hysterical knee-jerk Left, which is >(incredibly, not to mention stupidly) arguing loudly for open borders, (in >full support of the policy of the Corporate Capitalist Elite, in one of >the most bizarre political alignments we have ever seen). The Left is >stupidly falling directly into the Corporate Capitalist 'trap' by railing >hysterically against any enforcement of immigration laws at ALL. > >So.......taking full advantage of this bizarre position so firmly and >loudly staked out by the Left, the Corporate Capitalists can now just put >on a big 'show' of a few grandstanding 'crackdown' efforts, (which they >are doing even now), while conveniently failing to follow through with >consistent and effective enforcement. They will then 'blame' the Left in >the Political Arena with their own propaganda, that will blare loudly (and >VERY effectively) through every media bullhorn, (which they of course >completely control), that "We tried to enforce our immigration laws, but >the latte-sipping 'liberal elite' wouldn't let us". > >This will be VERY effective in winning even MORE support from the American >working class, who, despite all the disingenuous Left-wing propaganda >claiming that immigration is GOOD for America, and GOOD for the working >class, can see with their own eyes that immigrants are taking their jobs >and causing a dramatic slashing of wages in ALL jobs. And, (sadly.... >noââ¬Â¦..much more than thatââ¬Â¦tragically), the end result of all >this, (which the Left either does not see, or else does not, for some >bizarre reason, care), will be that a majority of the American working >class will continue to vote against its own interests, and will continue >to vote to keep the Corporate Elite in power. The bizarre and misguided >position being so proudly proclaimed by a severely confused American Left, >is only serving to drive the American working class more firmly into the >confused and completely bamboozled support of its own oppressors. > >According to a story from yesterday's LA Times: > >"ââ¬Â¦Nativo Lopez, a boycott supporter and president of the Mexican >American Political Assn., said a more confrontational approach in the >model of Cesar Chavez and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was needed to >shake up the nation's power structure and demonstrate the indispensable >role that illegal immigrants play in the economy. He questioned why >organizations that celebrate the civil rights leaders through Masses and >annual memorial events balk at following their tactics. > >"Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King were extremely militant advocates of >Gandhian principles of civil disobedience, and they lived by those >principles," Lopez said in an interview. "So what's the ruckus about a >boycott? We need to put the focus of power with the worker and immigrants, >not in the hierarchies, to resolve the immigration reform debate." > >It is very interesting to watch as we see the memory of Cesar Chavez now >being brought to bear in support of illegal immigration. Cesar Chavez, >whatever his faults might have been in his later career, (many say his >insistence on keeping power undemocratically centralized in his own hands >eventually led to the demise of everything he accomplished), was a >brilliant and inspirational leader, who did indeed believe in taking >militant action, (such as civil disobedience), when it was called for. But >these organizers now invoking the memory of Chavez to inspire a movement >whose goal is to prevent enforcement of immigration laws, and prevent us >from controlling our own borders, are conveniently ignoring the fact that >Chavez was VEHEMENTLY opposed to illegal immigration, and even as he set >his energies to organize farm workers, he also lobbied tirelessly for >enforcement of immigration laws, including criminalization of employers >for employing illegal workers. He knew instinctively what should be >obvious to all of us, (but obviously is not for some reason I do not >understand), that farm workers could not gain power through organizing >workers into a union, to support collective bargaining through collective >action, (strikes, etc), if growers had a constant supply of desperate new >workers immediately at hand. > >A well known Labor activist recently asked me what my 'strategy' would be >to organize illegal immigrant workers into unions. Unfortunately, this >activist cannot see the contradiction contained within this question >itself. It's very hard to imagine how 'illegal' workers can be organized >at ALL. Oh sure, we can call them 'out into the streets', of course, but >as some organizers are now realizing, this can have serious unintended >consequences. As some factions among the organizers, such as the We Are >America Coalition, now realize, when these undocumented workers 'strike', >they are only going to help identify themselves to authorities, and since >they are 'illegal', they can be picked up and deported, (which is already >happening). > >And what organizers MUST realize, (and what they could learn from Cesar >Chavez), is that even if undocumented immigrants already in America are >granted some form of 'amnesty', by being given a legal path to earn >citizenship, they will have NO success in organizing effective unions, >(the key word here being 'effective'), until or unless the border is closed. > >As long as a million or more desperate workers are pouring into this >country each year, all of Organized Labor, and ALL of the American working >class, INCLUDING the newly 'naturalized' workers, will continue to >experience a precipitous decline, no mater how much organizing effort we >exert, or how much 'success' we might enjoy in getting people to sign >union cards. All that Labor will accomplish by 'organizing' these workers >into unions, (with the border continuing to be as porous as it is now), is >to provide a windfall bonanza of new dues revenue for Andy Stern's SEIU, >and Wilhelm and Raynor's UNITE-HERE, and other unions who will herd these >hordes of new workers into dues paying membership, but will have little >(if any) effective power to improve their wages or working conditions, as >long as new hordes of desperate workers continue to pour across the border. > >A ready supply of desperate 'scabs' has always been the 'Achilles heel' of >any effort to organize workers into EFFECTIVE unions. One would think this >most basic 'tenet' would be on page ONE of the 'Organizing 101' manual, >and that all Labor activists would clearly understand it. Unfortunately, >all too many activists on the Left do NOT, and are instead claiming that >this sudden and massive wave of illegal immigration is somehow good for >the American working class. > >Cesar Chavez, who, (whatever his faults), was one of Labor's most >brilliant organizing geniuses, understood this 'Basic Tenet' of Labor >organizing very well, and he was VEHEMENTLY opposed to illegal >immigration. But this does not stop the propagandists on the Left, whose >bizarre purpose, in their bizarre alignment with the Corporate Capitalist >Elite, is to fight AGAINST any effort to control illegal immigration, from >now disingenuously invoking the memory of Chavez to help them advance >their cause, a cause that is very clearly GREATLY damaging to the >interests of the American working class. > >Zwarich > > > > >Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. ><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=31132/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail>Get > >it on your phone. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
