The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is gearing up for a series of raids that would target for deportation hundreds of families who crossed the border from Central America since the beginning of last year, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
"Plane Wreck at Los Gatos"
The crops are all in and the peaches are rott'ning,
The oranges piled in their creosote dumps;
They're flying 'em back to the Mexican border
To pay all their money to wade back again
Goodbye to my Juan, goodbye, Rosalita,
Adios mis amigos, Jesus y Maria;
You won't have your names when you ride the big airplane,
All they will call you will be "deportees"
My father's own father, he waded that river,
They took all the money he made in his life;
My brothers and sisters come working the fruit trees,
And they rode the truck till they took down and died.
Some of us are illegal, and some are not wanted,
Our work contract's out and we have to move on;
Six hundred miles to that Mexican border,
They chase us like outlaws, like rustlers, like thieves.
We died in your hills, we died in your deserts,
We died in your valleys and died on your plains.
We died 'neath your trees and we died in your bushes,
Both sides of the river, we died just the same.
The sky plane caught fire over Los Gatos Canyon,
A fireball of lightning, and shook all our hills,
Who are all these friends, all scattered like dry leaves?
The radio says, "They are just deportees"
Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?
Is this the best way we can grow our good fruit?
To fall like dry leaves to rot on my topsoil
And be called by no name except "deportees"?
The guy was decades ahead of his time. He could see where it was all going. Like Pete Seeger the FBI had a thick file on him and saw him as a subversive and threat to the ruling class.
Once again Obama demonstrates that he is a two-faced grinning monster. Just how much evil can one solitary human being commit?
Of course you have to realize that people without papers take jobs and money away from local businesses and local workers EXCEPT that somehow equal numbers of tourists, emigrants from other states or retirees bring in money and that money creates jobs to service the new arrivals.
So, let's try that again - but as a rule without math's "word problem" labels which are designed to distract:
1 - arrivals bring new money to spend (the consumer market)
2 - money to spend creates jobs to service the money
= NOT-a-drain - LANDING-lightly
If immigrants are a drain because they are more people then tourists, people moving from other states, and retirees are also a drain and also need to get deported back to wherever they came from.
It is a fallacy that the Central and South American immigrants take jobs from Americans. Moreover, they consume, so they stimulate the economy. They pay into Social Security, yet they are ineligible for benefits. Poor native born will not pick our crops and move with the crops. There is another aspect to the immigrant picture. That is that NAFTA has resulted in subsidized corn being dumped south of the border, displacing the campessinos from their farms; thus, go north or die.
Finally, the population growth rate is a problem on several counts. At the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a demographer, had just published "The Population Bomb", in which he pointed out that the earth's population had been increasing, was then 4.3 billion people and was destined to increase. It is now 7 billion and counting. People are discussing how we will be able to accommodate eleven billion. The answer may be that we will not be able to do so. Already, as a result of the industrial revolution, we have developed and efficient culture such the essential work of society--feed, clothe, medicate, educate, transport and allow us to communicate-- is done by relatively few people. The rest of the word is superfluous, catering to the wealth of the first group. The military industrial complex may decrease our numbers somewhat but from an environmental perspective is a net burden.
This is actually a hornet's nest of issues, and I don't have any answers. Some facets that liberals tend to ignore: America has a poverty crisis. Whether born here or elsewhere, not everyone can work (health, etc.), and there aren't jobs for all. The US shut down/shipped out a massive number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s. The last I heard, there are 7 jobs for every 10 people who are still able to actively seek one (can't get a job once you no longer have a home address, phone, bus fare, etc.) We won't help our jobless poor, or many of the unemployable. Increasing the number of desperately poor might not be a good option. Providing jobs or aid to refugees while denying it to desperately poor Americans could be problematic. We already know how Americans would react toward those who could not quickly become employed (consider aftermath of Hurricane Katrina/contempt for those who lost everything and couldn't get jobs). These are all things that need to be taken into consideration.
How do immigrants get jobs here when so many Americans are left out? Remember that we already shut down/shipped out a massive chunk of our jobs since the 1980s, ended welfare in the 1990s, increasing the number of people desperate for any job at any wage. The last I heard, there are 7 jobs for every 10 people who urgently need one. Maybe my math is flawed, but how would increasing the number of people who need jobs improve conditions? And what would we do with those who can't secure jobs/become unemployable (seriously ill, disabled)? As it is, we can't build prisons fast enough to house our desperately poor, and we sure can't afford to increase prison populations.
To send families back into known danger zones is a criminal, in-human act.
One has to ask oneself---what is driving this action, AND...what does this action have in-store for the domestic peoples of this country in the near-future?
"You have built great borders between your countries, yet you have your backs to what really counts ..(forces from beyond....)
-(Allies of Humanity, summers).
One has to wonder how one can remove the rotten core of this Beautiful Apple in a universe of barren worlds?
Is the author suggesting the Obama administration should break the law?
Progressive ideas does not translate into anarchists. Current reasons for refugees asylum acceptance are political, religious or racial . It is not poverty or economic, otherwise we would need to accept 80% of the world. You want to accept on other grounds change the law.
No need to serve as an Obama apologist here.
All I see is scripted collusion of this administration with the rightwing, and he is comparable on many issues with Bush Jr.
O taught constitutional law for 12 years. The law in the US is written to favor fairness and justice. While the rightwing may push injustice on this issue, O has the ability and the Dept. of Justice to promote fairness and justice but he chooses not.
"Somehow" is the keyword here, meaning "it doesn't really happen, but if we believe it does, we'll feel better".
Believing stuff despite all evidence being to the contrary is how we screw ourselves. Every. Single. Time.
No, it's not. I used to travel for business. When I started, the hotel housekeeping staff were virtually all Black women, USAians. When I quit, they were all small, Central-American women with no English and a please-don't-be-la-Migra demeanor.
Is it better to leave citizen families in "known danger zones"? Because that's what we do. Lots of slums in the US of A. Lots of violence due to poverty and no choices. Why would anyone argue to take care of non-citizens while letting fellow citizens rot?
Regretably, as Lisa Scottoline has pointed out in her novels, the law in the US is written to be the law, nothing more. Any fairness and justice must be provided by the judge and/or jury.
She is a former criminal-defence attorney and now a respected fiction author whose books are used in law schools because, despite being funny and very readable, they illustrate thorny points of law.
Immigrants get jobs here because they are desperate and will work for lower wages. Congress is bribed by the moneyed elite (think Wall Street and corporate interests), so desperate immigrants enter the US to work jobs that often are rejected by US workers--like the harvest of crops. They also work in other undesirable jobs, such as meat processing plants. Increasing the number of people who need jobs does not improve conditions, but that is not a consideration for the elite--they are only concerned about the bottom dollar, and letting immigrants in who will work for lower wages serves that purpose. What "we" should do with those who can't secure jobs is to offer them a sustainable existence, which the US government could easily do if it weren't spending gazillions on war-making and 'national defense'.
Perhaps you don't mean it to sound so inhumane, but your final sentence, "As it is, we can't build prisons fast enough to house our desperately poor, and we sure can't afford to increase prison populations" sent chills up my spine. 'Affording' to increase prison populations is hardly a goal to be desired. Increasing prison populations is a solution put forward by those who are profiting by private prisons, and by those of the 1% who need someplace to put people who interfere with their goal of controlling all elements of society.
In your posts you often blame 'liberals' and the 'middle class' for the woes of the poor. I hope that you will seriously look at who controls the US, and it's not the liberals and the middle class--we are all victims of the moneyed elite, and their divide and conquer strategy seems to have worked well with you, unless you are a paid troll, as some have suggested here at CD.
"Is it better to leave citizen families in "known danger zones"? Because that's what we do. Lots of slums in the US of A. Lots of violence due to poverty and no choices. Why would anyone argue to take care of non-citizens while letting fellow citizens rot?"
No, it's not better. And just because someone argues for taking care of non-citizens, many of whom, if not most, are victims of US foreign policy ( Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Syria), does not mean that they are arguing for not taking care of US citizens.
ALL are victims, and I find it disingenuous to separate the two, thereby buying in to the storyline of the 1%. US government is very capable of taking care of all citizens and non-citizens alike who are victims of their policies--the US government(deep state interests) simply does not want to do it--they prefer to spend taxpayer dollars on war-making and weapons sales. The 1% who control government entities does not give a damn about either the domestic poor or the victims of US foreign policy.
Please see my reply to Mairead. I think you are right that we can't ignore the plight of the victims of US policies in Central America who are streaming in to the US.
It kind of does. And, while I'm certainly not blaming you since everyone does it, bringing in US foreign policy to justify focusing on non-citizens is both an admission and a distraction, since we at the sharp end of the stick in the US have essentially no power at all to modify that policy.
I suspect it would be an instructive exercise to count up the articles at CD over a year's time that hand-wring about the plight of citizens vs the plight of non-citizens. It's one of the bigger reasons why the owner class, who have essentially nothing to offer anyone not of their class, nevertheless manage to get a lot of votes from the working stiffs they're screwing: they don't hand-wring about "furriners", but they gleefully point out the way that "liberals" do.
What's that old saw? "The fascists kill us, the conservatives cheer, the moderates watch the execution on the telly, and the liberals weep over our graves and feel guilty about betraying us to the fascists".
Thanks for your response.
Perhaps I didn't state it very well, but I didn't mean to focus on the plight of non-citizens at the expense of citizens who are suffering from the same government policies, the policies of the deep state. You are correct that those at the sharp end of the stick, as you put it, have no control over foreign policy. I would argue that they have no control over domestic policies either, which is why I said that all are victims. The one major argument (specious) put forward by those who oppose domestic policies that benefit the poor is that "we" can't afford it. If it weren't for the obscene amounts of money that the US uses to impose its will on the world, and to steal other countries' resources, there would be more than enough to fund programs to help the poor domestically, and help those in need outside the US as well. We know this and the PTB know this, but they want to focus anger toward immigrants to deflect attention from the policies which hurt us all.
The owner class continues to get a lot of votes, I believe, not just because of "liberals" weeping over 'furriners', but also because of the old saw they promote that if you're poor it's because you are lazy and don't want to work, and there are those who buy in to this line. You are correct that there are fewer articles on CD that focus on the poor in the US. Chris Hedges writes a lot about poverty in the US, but I can't recall many others offhand. We all are reminded of it daily, though, as we see the homeless and hungry in almost any US town or city. It certainly isn't off the radar, to me at least, but as I mentioned before, we are powerless to change domestic policy, just as we are powerless to change foreign policy. The owner class has the world's people right where they want them, powerless to effect change on any front.