Activism Discussion: "Illegal" As Noun Breaks Law Of Reason

"Illegal" As Noun Breaks Law Of Reason
Posts: 30

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Dan Clore
2006-04-04 11:53:05 EST
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

4/04/2006 01:00 AM
cindy rodríguez | staff columnist
"Illegal" as a noun breaks law of reason
By Cindy Rodríguez
Denver Post Staff Columnist
DenverPost.com

When figuring ways to shape public opinion, the first thing
any savvy strategist does is craft phrases that will elicit
a desired response.

Want people to have a more positive reaction to dead Iraqi
civilians? Call them "collateral damage."

Want to get Americans to feel good about government spying?
Name your law "The Patriot Act."

If you can control the words people use, you can frame the
issue. In effect, you control the way people view it.

That is exactly what is happening with the immigration debate.

To avoid dealing with complex problems in our nation --
crumbling public schools, senior citizens who have lost
their pensions, a shrinking middle class -- some politicians
are taking the easy way out by focusing on undocumented
immigrants.

Those politicians are being goaded by nativists, racists and
brainwashed people who are confused in our culture of fear.

Their term of choice: "illegals."

That shorthand term for "illegal immigrants" -- which they
use as a noun, making linguists cringe -- is being used
repeatedly by reactionary commentators and politicians in
every venue available.

They rail about "illegals" on radio talk shows. Hate groups
like the Aryan Nation spew vitriol about the "illegal
invasion" in e-mail blasts. Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs
drone on about "illegals" every night.

These distinct groups use the same language. The same words.
The same phrases.

It's an orchestrated effort designed to instill fear in
Americans. And it's working.

"The terms 'aliens' and 'illegals' provoke fear, loathing
and dread," says George Lakoff, a linguist who teaches at
the University of California at Berkeley. "There is a
physiology to this governed in the brain. Certain ideas
activate the neurons in the brain, which result in visceral
bodily reactions."

That is why if you think "chocolate," you feel happy; if
someone says "vomit," you feel disgusted.
[What if you've vomited a lot of chocolate?--DC]

Lakoff: "If you say 'illegal immigrants,' it activates an
immigrant frame. And when people think of immigrants they
think of their grandparents, they think of them as
honorable, hardworking people."

But, he said, if a person cuts out the word "immigrants" and
uses "illegals," it conjures a different image: People who
are dangerous and want to commit criminal acts.

Throw in other scary words, such as "invasion" and "alien,"
and it's bound to make people feel scared.

That's how propaganda works. Repeat the words continually
until it reshapes the way people think.

If you don't believe there is a plot to reshape the way
America thinks, Google "Frank Luntz strategy report" and
you'll find his 160-page blueprint for reactionaries,
written by the man who helped Newt Gingrich write his
"Contract for America."

In it, Luntz lists phrases reactionaries should never use.
He cautions: "Never use 'drilling for oil'; instead say
'exploring for energy.'"

Luntz also says, "Never use 'undocumented workers.' Use
'illegal aliens.'" He continues: "In fact, instead of
addressing 'immigration reform,' which polarizes Americans,
you should be talking about 'border security issues.'"

Lakoff says if we want to undo the damage done by alarmists,
we need to reframe the issue by using alternate terms, such
as "necessary workers" or "essential workers."

"It would create what's called a positive stereotype," he said.

We also would have to talk about how these workers are
"upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American
dream possible for us."

Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up
in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels,
and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where
"u-cook, u-serve."

When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I
don't feel fear. I feel gratitude.

Cindy Rodríguez's column appears Tuesdays in Scene and
Sundays in Style. Contact her at 303-820-1211 or
mailto:crodriguez@denverpost.com.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608



















G*rd*n
2006-04-04 14:22:41 EST
cindy rodr\ufffdguez | staff columnist, Denver Post:
> ...
> We also would have to talk about how these workers are
> "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American
> dream possible for us."
>
> Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up
> in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels,
> and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where
> "u-cook, u-serve."
>
> When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I
> don't feel fear. I feel gratitude.


The above strongly implies that we want to keep using
Mexicans as serfs. Part of what keeps many of them
on the bottom, and thus available for our shitwork,
is precisely their immigration status, with, no doubt,
a strong dose of racism added in certain areas.

It may be that the present American economic order
requires a large army of underemployed, poorly paid
shitworkers. If so we are in for yet further
interesting times, because it looks like the Mexicans
and other Latin Americans are going to be either
successfully excluded or legalized. Before long
we are going to be out of serfs.

Better eat your (cheap) vegetables while you've got
them.


O*@aol.com
2006-04-04 15:13:09 EST
Dan Clore wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> 4/04/2006 01:00 AM
> cindy rodríguez | staff columnist
> "Illegal" as a noun breaks law of reason
> By Cindy Rodríguez
> Denver Post Staff Columnist
> DenverPost.com
>
> When figuring ways to shape public opinion, the first thing
> any savvy strategist does is craft phrases that will elicit
> a desired response.
>
> Want people to have a more positive reaction to dead Iraqi
> civilians? Call them "collateral damage."
>
> Want to get Americans to feel good about government spying?
> Name your law "The Patriot Act."
>
> If you can control the words people use, you can frame the
> issue. In effect, you control the way people view it.
>
> That is exactly what is happening with the immigration debate.
>
> To avoid dealing with complex problems in our nation --
> crumbling public schools, senior citizens who have lost
> their pensions, a shrinking middle class -- some politicians
> are taking the easy way out by focusing on undocumented
> immigrants.

Hilarious. While rebuking "word games," the author plays one of her
own. What a disingenuous cunt.

>
> Those politicians are being goaded by nativists, racists and
> brainwashed people who are confused in our culture of fear.
>
> Their term of choice: "illegals."
>
> That shorthand term for "illegal immigrants" -- which they
> use as a noun, making linguists cringe -- is being used
> repeatedly by reactionary commentators and politicians in
> every venue available.
>
> They rail about "illegals" on radio talk shows. Hate groups
> like the Aryan Nation spew vitriol about the "illegal
> invasion" in e-mail blasts. Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs
> drone on about "illegals" every night.
>
> These distinct groups use the same language. The same words.
> The same phrases.
>
> It's an orchestrated effort designed to instill fear in
> Americans. And it's working.
>
> "The terms 'aliens' and 'illegals' provoke fear, loathing
> and dread," says George Lakoff, a linguist who teaches at
> the University of California at Berkeley. "There is a
> physiology to this governed in the brain. Certain ideas
> activate the neurons in the brain, which result in visceral
> bodily reactions."
>
> That is why if you think "chocolate," you feel happy; if
> someone says "vomit," you feel disgusted.
> [What if you've vomited a lot of chocolate?--DC]
>
> Lakoff: "If you say 'illegal immigrants,' it activates an
> immigrant frame. And when people think of immigrants they
> think of their grandparents, they think of them as
> honorable, hardworking people."
>
> But, he said, if a person cuts out the word "immigrants" and
> uses "illegals," it conjures a different image: People who
> are dangerous and want to commit criminal acts.
>
> Throw in other scary words, such as "invasion" and "alien,"
> and it's bound to make people feel scared.
>
> That's how propaganda works. Repeat the words continually
> until it reshapes the way people think.
>
> If you don't believe there is a plot to reshape the way
> America thinks, Google "Frank Luntz strategy report" and
> you'll find his 160-page blueprint for reactionaries,
> written by the man who helped Newt Gingrich write his
> "Contract for America."
>
> In it, Luntz lists phrases reactionaries should never use.
> He cautions: "Never use 'drilling for oil'; instead say
> 'exploring for energy.'"
>
> Luntz also says, "Never use 'undocumented workers.' Use
> 'illegal aliens.'" He continues: "In fact, instead of
> addressing 'immigration reform,' which polarizes Americans,
> you should be talking about 'border security issues.'"
>
> Lakoff says if we want to undo the damage done by alarmists,
> we need to reframe the issue by using alternate terms, such
> as "necessary workers" or "essential workers."
>
> "It would create what's called a positive stereotype," he said.
>
> We also would have to talk about how these workers are
> "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American
> dream possible for us."
>
> Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up
> in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels,
> and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where
> "u-cook, u-serve."

Yes, because before the illegal invasion, no one did these jobs. Try
coming up with less easily destroyed shit, idiot.

>
> When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I
> don't feel fear. I feel gratitude.

Yes, all those closed ER's and busting-at-the-seams schools are really
great.

>
> Cindy Rodríguez's column appears Tuesdays in Scene and
> Sundays in Style. Contact her at 303-820-1211 or
> mailto:crodriguez@denverpost.com.
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
> http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
> *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
> -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
> _Detective Comics_ #608


Joseph K.
2006-04-06 06:50:23 EST
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:22:41 +0000 (UTC), gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:

>cindy rodríguez | staff columnist, Denver Post:
>> ...
>> We also would have to talk about how these workers are
>> "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American
>> dream possible for us."
>>
>> Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up
>> in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels,
>> and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where
>> "u-cook, u-serve."
>>
>> When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I
>> don't feel fear. I feel gratitude.
>
>
>The above strongly implies that we want to keep using
>Mexicans as serfs. Part of what keeps many of them
>on the bottom, and thus available for our shitwork,
>is precisely their immigration status, with, no doubt,
>a strong dose of racism added in certain areas.
>
>It may be that the present American economic order
>requires a large army of underemployed, poorly paid
>shitworkers. If so we are in for yet further
>interesting times, because it looks like the Mexicans
>and other Latin Americans are going to be either
>successfully excluded or legalized. Before long
>we are going to be out of serfs.
>
>Better eat your (cheap) vegetables while you've got
>them.

I guess it is only natural that if you have a territory where labour
relations are strongly legalized, a poorer neighboring territory with
surplus labour, and a very extensive border betwee these territories,
then there will be a net flow of labour into the strongly legalized
territory to provide for un-legalized labour. It will take a lot of
energy to stop that influx and stopping the influx will decrease
growth. Everybody loses. So I bet you will still have your serfs
walking around with humble looks and wet backs for some time, and
cheap vegetables.

G*rd*n
2006-04-06 09:25:26 EST
cindy rodr\ufffdguez | staff columnist, Denver Post:
>>> ...
>>> We also would have to talk about how these workers are
>>> "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American
>>> dream possible for us."
>>>
>>> Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up
>>> in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels,
>>> and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where
>>> "u-cook, u-serve."
>>>
>>> When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I
>>> don't feel fear. I feel gratitude.

g*f@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> >The above strongly implies that we want to keep using
> >Mexicans as serfs. Part of what keeps many of them
> >on the bottom, and thus available for our shitwork,
> >is precisely their immigration status, with, no doubt,
> >a strong dose of racism added in certain areas.
> >
> >It may be that the present American economic order
> >requires a large army of underemployed, poorly paid
> >shitworkers. If so we are in for yet further
> >interesting times, because it looks like the Mexicans
> >and other Latin Americans are going to be either
> >successfully excluded or legalized. Before long
> >we are going to be out of serfs.
> >
> >Better eat your (cheap) vegetables while you've got
> >them.

Joseph K. <nihil@none.com>:
> I guess it is only natural that if you have a territory where labour
> relations are strongly legalized, a poorer neighboring territory with
> surplus labour, and a very extensive border betwee these territories,
> then there will be a net flow of labour into the strongly legalized
> territory to provide for un-legalized labour. It will take a lot of
> energy to stop that influx and stopping the influx will decrease
> growth. Everybody loses. So I bet you will still have your serfs
> walking around with humble looks and wet backs for some time, and
> cheap vegetables.


Preservation of the status quo would certainly serve many
interests, but I think the current frenzy, which has now
excited not only right-wingers but, in response, millions of
Hispanics, and even gotten the Democratic Party to stir in
its sleep, will force the issue one way or the other. My
guess is that the frenzy is due to rightist disappointment
with the Bush regime, specifically its failed imperial wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq, the soaring budget and trade deficits,
its economic problems, and its inability to save one if its
major cities from destruction. As is so often the case, the
execution of a highly ideological agenda by a state has led
to various disasters with more on the horizon. A scapegoat
issue is needed, and the influx of Mexicans is available.
But now the issue will be used up. Either the U.S. will
spend many billions of dollars in a sort of civil war against
its own economy, or it will legalize the immigrants.

The Right was better off persecuting homosexuals, but I
guess there weren't enough of them.


Joseph K.
2006-04-06 11:28:39 EST
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:25:26 +0000 (UTC), gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:

>cindy rodríguez | staff columnist, Denver Post:
>>>> ...
>>>> We also would have to talk about how these workers are
>>>> "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American
>>>> dream possible for us."
>>>>
>>>> Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up
>>>> in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels,
>>>> and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where
>>>> "u-cook, u-serve."
>>>>
>>>> When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I
>>>> don't feel fear. I feel gratitude.
>
>*f@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>> >The above strongly implies that we want to keep using
>> >Mexicans as serfs. Part of what keeps many of them
>> >on the bottom, and thus available for our shitwork,
>> >is precisely their immigration status, with, no doubt,
>> >a strong dose of racism added in certain areas.
>> >
>> >It may be that the present American economic order
>> >requires a large army of underemployed, poorly paid
>> >shitworkers. If so we are in for yet further
>> >interesting times, because it looks like the Mexicans
>> >and other Latin Americans are going to be either
>> >successfully excluded or legalized. Before long
>> >we are going to be out of serfs.
>> >
>> >Better eat your (cheap) vegetables while you've got
>> >them.
>
>Joseph K. <nihil@none.com>:
>> I guess it is only natural that if you have a territory where labour
>> relations are strongly legalized, a poorer neighboring territory with
>> surplus labour, and a very extensive border betwee these territories,
>> then there will be a net flow of labour into the strongly legalized
>> territory to provide for un-legalized labour. It will take a lot of
>> energy to stop that influx and stopping the influx will decrease
>> growth. Everybody loses. So I bet you will still have your serfs
>> walking around with humble looks and wet backs for some time, and
>> cheap vegetables.
>
>
>Preservation of the status quo would certainly serve many
>interests, but I think the current frenzy, which has now
>excited not only right-wingers but, in response, millions of
>Hispanics, and even gotten the Democratic Party to stir in
>its sleep, will force the issue one way or the other. My
>guess is that the frenzy is due to rightist disappointment
>with the Bush regime, specifically its failed imperial wars
>in Afghanistan and Iraq, the soaring budget and trade deficits,
>its economic problems, and its inability to save one if its
>major cities from destruction. As is so often the case, the
>execution of a highly ideological agenda by a state has led
>to various disasters with more on the horizon. A scapegoat
>issue is needed, and the influx of Mexicans is available.
>But now the issue will be used up. Either the U.S. will
>spend many billions of dollars in a sort of civil war against
>its own economy, or it will legalize the immigrants.

A compromise solution might be to legalize them but in such a way that
they will still be second rate cheap labour, not entitled to the full
panoply of rights and protections of the other, true American and
expensive labour.

>The Right was better off persecuting homosexuals, but I
>guess there weren't enough of them.

I guess they cann't afford more imperial wars: the Chinese and
Japanese will not provide the money. They have to re-visit some old
domestic issues.

Stevie Nichts
2006-04-06 12:23:19 EST
Dan Clore wrote:

> "Illegal" as a noun breaks law of reason
> By Cindy Rodríguez
> Denver Post Staff Columnist
> DenverPost.com
[snip]

> "The terms 'aliens' and 'illegals' provoke fear, loathing
> and dread," says George Lakoff, a linguist who teaches at
> the University of California at Berkeley.

Codswallop. The term "illegal immigrant", in use for decades if
not longer, concisely defines the issue in a non-pejorative
manner. The INS has long defined an alien as "Any person not
a citizen or national of the United States." The definition of
"illegal" is not arguable. Any alleged 'provocation' is in the
eye of the politically correct beholder.

I do not see the point of contention. Why should any
industrialized country not require immigrants to become citizens
before they can legally enjoy most of the benefits of that nation?


Curly Surmudgeon
2006-04-06 15:34:05 EST
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:28:39 -0200, Joseph K. wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:25:26 +0000 (UTC), gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
>>cindy rodríguez | staff columnist, Denver Post:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> We also would have to talk about how these workers are
>>>>> "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American
>>>>> dream possible for us."
>>>>>
>>>>> Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up
>>>>> in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels,
>>>>> and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where
>>>>> "u-cook, u-serve."
>>>>>
>>>>> When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I
>>>>> don't feel fear. I feel gratitude.
>>
>>gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>>> >The above strongly implies that we want to keep using
>>> >Mexicans as serfs. Part of what keeps many of them
>>> >on the bottom, and thus available for our shitwork,
>>> >is precisely their immigration status, with, no doubt,
>>> >a strong dose of racism added in certain areas.
>>> >
>>> >It may be that the present American economic order
>>> >requires a large army of underemployed, poorly paid
>>> >shitworkers. If so we are in for yet further
>>> >interesting times, because it looks like the Mexicans
>>> >and other Latin Americans are going to be either
>>> >successfully excluded or legalized. Before long
>>> >we are going to be out of serfs.
>>> >
>>> >Better eat your (cheap) vegetables while you've got
>>> >them.
>>
>>Joseph K. <nihil@none.com>:
>>> I guess it is only natural that if you have a territory where labour
>>> relations are strongly legalized, a poorer neighboring territory with
>>> surplus labour, and a very extensive border betwee these territories,
>>> then there will be a net flow of labour into the strongly legalized
>>> territory to provide for un-legalized labour. It will take a lot of
>>> energy to stop that influx and stopping the influx will decrease
>>> growth. Everybody loses. So I bet you will still have your serfs
>>> walking around with humble looks and wet backs for some time, and
>>> cheap vegetables.
>>
>>
>>Preservation of the status quo would certainly serve many
>>interests, but I think the current frenzy, which has now
>>excited not only right-wingers but, in response, millions of
>>Hispanics, and even gotten the Democratic Party to stir in
>>its sleep, will force the issue one way or the other. My
>>guess is that the frenzy is due to rightist disappointment
>>with the Bush regime, specifically its failed imperial wars
>>in Afghanistan and Iraq, the soaring budget and trade deficits,
>>its economic problems, and its inability to save one if its
>>major cities from destruction. As is so often the case, the
>>execution of a highly ideological agenda by a state has led
>>to various disasters with more on the horizon. A scapegoat
>>issue is needed, and the influx of Mexicans is available.
>>But now the issue will be used up. Either the U.S. will
>>spend many billions of dollars in a sort of civil war against
>>its own economy, or it will legalize the immigrants.
>
> A compromise solution might be to legalize them but in such a way that
> they will still be second rate cheap labour, not entitled to the full
> panoply of rights and protections of the other, true American and
> expensive labour.

Or open the borders entirely accepting Mexicans as real human beings.

Naah, can't have that, they're _brown_!

>>The Right was better off persecuting homosexuals, but I
>>guess there weren't enough of them.
>
> I guess they cann't afford more imperial wars: the Chinese and
> Japanese will not provide the money. They have to re-visit some old
> domestic issues.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to dust off the guillotine
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Stan De SD
2006-04-06 16:20:07 EST

"G*rd*n" <gcf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:e134s6$57j$1@reader2.panix.com...
>
>
> Preservation of the status quo would certainly serve many
> interests, but I think the current frenzy, which has now
> excited not only right-wingers but, in response, millions of
> Hispanics, and even gotten the Democratic Party to stir in
> its sleep, will force the issue one way or the other. My
> guess is that the frenzy is due to rightist disappointment
> with the Bush regime, specifically its failed imperial wars
> in Afghanistan and Iraq, the soaring budget and trade deficits,
> its economic problems, and its inability to save one if its
> major cities from destruction.

As usual, your guess is tainted by your extreme-left agenda, and you are
wrong. The vocal objection is merely the realization among people all across
the political spectrum that we can't sustain an economy where people who
consume more in social services than they produce in wealth are allowed to
come across the borders unimpeded.



Stan De SD
2006-04-06 16:21:20 EST

"Curly Surmudgeon" <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
news:4435a2b9$0$28784$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:28:39 -0200, Joseph K. wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:25:26 +0000 (UTC), gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >
> >>cindy rodr\ufffdguez | staff columnist, Denver Post:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> We also would have to talk about how these workers are
> >>>>> "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American
> >>>>> dream possible for us."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up
> >>>>> in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels,
> >>>>> and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where
> >>>>> "u-cook, u-serve."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I
> >>>>> don't feel fear. I feel gratitude.
> >>
> >>gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> >>> >The above strongly implies that we want to keep using
> >>> >Mexicans as serfs. Part of what keeps many of them
> >>> >on the bottom, and thus available for our shitwork,
> >>> >is precisely their immigration status, with, no doubt,
> >>> >a strong dose of racism added in certain areas.
> >>> >
> >>> >It may be that the present American economic order
> >>> >requires a large army of underemployed, poorly paid
> >>> >shitworkers. If so we are in for yet further
> >>> >interesting times, because it looks like the Mexicans
> >>> >and other Latin Americans are going to be either
> >>> >successfully excluded or legalized. Before long
> >>> >we are going to be out of serfs.
> >>> >
> >>> >Better eat your (cheap) vegetables while you've got
> >>> >them.
> >>
> >>Joseph K. <nihil@none.com>:
> >>> I guess it is only natural that if you have a territory where labour
> >>> relations are strongly legalized, a poorer neighboring territory with
> >>> surplus labour, and a very extensive border betwee these territories,
> >>> then there will be a net flow of labour into the strongly legalized
> >>> territory to provide for un-legalized labour. It will take a lot of
> >>> energy to stop that influx and stopping the influx will decrease
> >>> growth. Everybody loses. So I bet you will still have your serfs
> >>> walking around with humble looks and wet backs for some time, and
> >>> cheap vegetables.
> >>
> >>
> >>Preservation of the status quo would certainly serve many
> >>interests, but I think the current frenzy, which has now
> >>excited not only right-wingers but, in response, millions of
> >>Hispanics, and even gotten the Democratic Party to stir in
> >>its sleep, will force the issue one way or the other. My
> >>guess is that the frenzy is due to rightist disappointment
> >>with the Bush regime, specifically its failed imperial wars
> >>in Afghanistan and Iraq, the soaring budget and trade deficits,
> >>its economic problems, and its inability to save one if its
> >>major cities from destruction. As is so often the case, the
> >>execution of a highly ideological agenda by a state has led
> >>to various disasters with more on the horizon. A scapegoat
> >>issue is needed, and the influx of Mexicans is available.
> >>But now the issue will be used up. Either the U.S. will
> >>spend many billions of dollars in a sort of civil war against
> >>its own economy, or it will legalize the immigrants.
> >
> > A compromise solution might be to legalize them but in such a way that
> > they will still be second rate cheap labour, not entitled to the full
> > panoply of rights and protections of the other, true American and
> > expensive labour.
>
> Or open the borders entirely accepting Mexicans as real human beings.

Nothing like a strawman to get the indignation of Lefty Liberals going...
:O|


Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron