"Mexico’s leaders have been taking advantage of the United States by using illegal immigration to export the crime and poverty in their own country. The costs for the United States have been extraordinary: U.S. taxpayers have been asked to pick up hundreds of billions in healthcare costs, housing costs, education costs, welfare costs, etc. ...
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
According to Ole Dammegard in his well-researched book, "Coup D'etat in Slow Motion," whenever planned assassinations take place, a pansy is set up along with a trail of probable circumstantial evidence.
When the warrior-dominators who control our nation through money, military muscle, and media messaging recognize that the masses are growing restless with the crumbs that they're offered, they must put a pansy in place. And that pansy--which was given a dynamic test-run under the very martial German Nazi society--takes shape as a scapegoated population pool.
People who have not developed the power of critical thought merely connect dots:
- There ARE lots of darker-hued people living in their communities
- Wages and/or job stability have been reduced or threatened
That's why zealots who push this argument can make that case to some.
And so long as they reinforce this alternative (scapegoat/pansy) argument, the REAL causative factors and their agents need never be discovered. What are some of those? NAFTA pushing jobs offshore, changes to tax policy allowing corporations to ignore their obligations, and a general global labor pool that makes for an anti-Union, race to the bottom.
THAT is what this dynamic is really about: the magician's misdirection applied to the political landscape.
I don't recall if it was George Lakoff or someone who also studied linguistics, but the premise was that whenever a group is put on the defensive, it's at a disadvantage.
Thus for the Left to reinforce the Trump narrative makes it more widely heard, and then to counter the narrative, Progressives argue from a defensive position.
Wiser it is to make links that are more aggressive... links that show what this kind of jingoistic thinking leads to. Always.
If Sanders have some of those 80:1 ratio of mass media minutes tossed at Trump, he could certainly make that historical case clear. Then the dingbats who call Obama a Socialist might end up getting a clearer sense of what these terms mean before a genuine dose of the kind of "National Socialism" that makes for a fascist, boot-to-head society is unleashed.
Do you really believe your own framing of this issue?
Is it "we" that spend this money... is it some agreement that organically emerged among the citizenry; or was it rather the successful poison fruit of lobbying by firms like Corrections Corp. of America; entities that know they will make a major financial killing from these border patrol & refugee centers to add to their growing portfolios of private prisons?
The distinction is real and important, especially in a phase where everything from international trade policy to alleged health "care" plans are decided behind closed doors with industries actually writing the bills magically made into law.
Diversionary to the topic and meant to take the spotlight OFF this issue.
I find that it's the sources this author cites who are walled-off from reality.
The idea that increasing the size of the labor pool has no effect on wages or the wellbeing of those who lose their jobs is just plain crazy.
The Mariel Boatlift from Cuba increased unemployment in the Miami area from 5% to 7%. Given how unemployment figures are routinely dissembled and disguised, such an admitted increase is enormous.
And that wasn't all the harm: Fidel decided to get rid of at least some of his prison population via Mariel (which wasn't very socialist of him).
Bargaining position, not labor pool determines wages. Throughout US history, it has been the immigrant workers who have been the main force in organizing unions and improving the bargaining position of workers. The Anglo-USAn protestant workers in particular have been useless in this regard.
Read your labor history... Aside from the Wob's "Big Bill Haywood" - It's all Italian, Polish, Jewish, Irish, German, Ukrainian, Russian etc... names that organized the mines and mills in the late 19th and early 20th century.
and today It is Latino/a's and black USAns who are filling the ranks of the SEIU, UNITE-HERE, and other service-worker unions.
I would have to look more into these studies by economists as I find the bulk of them are charlatans hiding behind theoretical nonsense using data they manipulate to fit their particular model.
This is why no two of them can ever agree and why one will when a Nobel Prize for a theory that diametrically opposed to the theories of another Nobel Prize winner.
So as example the economist cited speaks about how average wages are in fact climbing. Excuse me but if there 9 people in a room each earning 10000 a year and a person making 1.1 million a year walks in the average wage of 9 of the people in the room just went up by 1000 percent.
An average wage increase does not reflect the fact that inflation has driven the price of all goods higher. If there a shortage of rental housing in an area and an influx of new renters than any wage increases seen will be eaten up with higher costs of living.
The problem ultimately is not migration or the lack of it, nor is it jobs being outsourced overseas. These are symptoms of the system itself , one that is premised on the fact that as wages go down and are kept low, greater profits are returned to the one percent.
The system called Capitalism which by its very nature only can work because of wealth inequality is to blame here.
Just to add to my post as I tried to look more into this. The average wage in the USA is around 52 k. This has increased by some 3.2 percent according to the US government website.
This number very like the increase cited by the economist in the article.
The MEDIAN wage is around 26k. As measured by inflation real median income in the USA plummets and has been dropping for decades.
Agreed. That is why I pointed out the issue is Capitalism itself and not migration.
If the person who wrote this article really wants to see the issues of the working class addressed he has to stop defining those issues using the measuring stick of the Capitalist.
When he speaks of things like increased GDP growth , average wages climbing, higher productivity and the like he is using their parameters
I work with low income families. I live in a smaller University town in the Midwest. The economy crashed and then I drove past new construction of a CVS and all of the workers were Hispanic. And then there were hispanic construction workers on most of the building sites. Construction is one of the best paying jobs for low education workers. At the same time restaurant workers also became more and more Hispanic. The money is not staying in the community either. Many Hispanic men will get a place together and their money is sent back to their families. If they move out it is to move in with a high school dropout who inevitably gets pregnant. After she has a couple of kids, he goes back home and she never hears from him again. So, yes Hispanic illegal workers do have impact on what used to be the middle class.
I am a bit shocked that someone who works with the poor, would express the sort of anti-minority anti-immigrant attitudes that you just did. So poor Hoosier white men don't get women pregnant out of marriage or a committed relationship? Shouldn't you be asking why the contractor was hiring Hispanic men and done something about it - like meeting with the Latinos and getting organized? Unlike southern Indiana, I live in a region (Western Pennsylvania) that has absorbed wave after wave of Immigrants since the mid 19th century and if there is one Iron law, that is NOTHING good comes from anti-immigrant anglo-nativism. Join the immigrants and organize or you will only lose.
His family's original home was the Mexican State of Alta California - which in 1848, was robbed with guns and troops under President Polk and along with more than a third of Mexico's territory, became part of the US.
Chavez was notoriously anti-immigrant. He presided over the UFWA like a little Stalin could be a vindictive bastard toward anyone who asked questions about his organizing. He was especially nasty toward socialists or others he regarded as "too left" - who he would turn in to the police on BS charges.
Did the local population increase as people moved into the houses built on the former farmland?
It's not always easy to spot the causal factors, but does it really seem reasonable that wages would go down when the supply of workers goes down? What would the dynamic be in that case?
A "patsy", possibly?
Why do humans emigrate? Or animals in general, for that matter? For a better chance at survival. For most of Earth's living history, this process, a huge component of ongoing evolutionary change, did not destabilize the balanced global ecosystem but enriched it. Now, in this time of industrial civilization, with myriad ecological catastrophes facing the living Earth due to human activity (filling the planet slowly at first and then increasingly rapidly through emigration driven by constant attempts to alleviate ecological pressure in overpopulated areas), we must stop talking about how things were done in the past. What is fair to any individual or group of humans does not matter anymore. Humans are a species that is overrunning the planet and the living Earth will cease to support humans and much else if we do not stop (among many other activities) whining about who deserves what. No human deserves anything. Any policy that serves to further growth of human population OR consumption is a bad policy. No one knows what would happen if humans could not just shit up a place and then leave or shit up someone else's place. My solution has two parts. First, humans wishing to emigrate must find a swap partner. Anyone can go anywhere they want on the planet, no restrictions, except that someone has to be willing to trade places. More complicated but just as important, consumption must stay local. If a country cannot grow the food, make the product or harness the energy from the bounty within that country, then that food or product or energy is not going to happen. No more exporting ecological destruction to other parts of the planet. This would crash the global economy you say? Well yes, the global economy was a very, very bad idea. Its end is the only chance that any one of us has.
I am sure Trump has no ecological motivations and that almost no American will support his immigration ideas because they themselves see the ecological advantage. I do think that Trump is tapping into an existential fear common among US voters; there are too many of us humans and no one is enjoying the increasing crowd. Can you think of one problem that wouldn't be alleviated by having fewer people?