warning, warning, adorkable linkage is distracting from the cause.

Um, so seriously---I have no intention of not going to work tomorrow. I'm paid by the hour, I've taken off many days for much more urgent personal reasons and really need to make it up, not to mention really need to turn this into a real job somehow. The only people who would actually be hurt/pained by my not showing up are nice people who would simply have to do the work themselves and like me/want to keep me around significantly less. Etc. etc..

So what do I do? Wear a white t-shirt to work? Write something on said white t-shirt? I actually don't have a much more coherent statement on the subject. Would it be disrespectful to go to work but still claim solidarity when my lipservice is simply not strong enough to triumph over my own selfish self-interest? Y'all have ave about 7 hours to come up with an interesting way for me to make a statement while still putting in my 9 hours tomorrow. Suggestions please!

Then again maybe BART won't run, and this is all academic. :-) 

Posted by Saheli

I'm a reporter. Just by going and talking to people I'm working. I'm looking forward to a day without janitors in the high-rise, anyway. 

Posted by hedgehog

I should wear a t-shirt that says, "Actually, I like messy buildings and badly prepared food." 

Posted by Saheli

WARNING: UNPOPULAR OPINION AHEAD  

WhywhyWHY are people only addressing half of the issue? "Immigrant rights" is nothing to get riled up about. My husband is an immigrant. My parents were immigrants. Aside from my teachers, every role model I had growing up was an immigrant. All Americans are immigrants if you trace the ancestry back far enough.

What I don't understand here is the conflation of the terms "immigrant" and "illegal immigrant". Leaving out the first part of the phrase is just misleading, in my view.

All immigrants come to America in pursuit of a better life than the one they lead in their own country. THe difference is that some of them obtained proper documentation and came into this counrty through proper channels. They have every "right" to be here and make a better life for themselves. The ones who come here without proper documentation, and who flout the rules that are set in place really aren't in any position to protest about "rights".

Besides, they're living sort of a half-life anyway. They don't have access to health care. They can't take advantage of government programs like Medicare or Social Security, or any of the services that are offered to anyone with an alien registration number. They make FAR less than minimum wage by getting paid under the table, and they're constantly living in fear of getting found out and deported.

My view is that if they want to be in America, if they want to take advantage of all the opportunities, then they need to come here properly.

I will now go hide in my foxhole and avoid all the fire being directed at me. 

Posted by DearDarlingDidi

Didi, I'm glad you asked. I question the idea of "they need to come here properly." The proper methods of immigration are written by and for the country's existing residents, without much more than a nod at human rights -- we don't even admit refugees as often as many much poorer countries.

I find borders absurd. Basic civil rights don't exist at borders. Countries treat borders the way that individuals treat homes -- private property, no entry. There are two fallacies in this mental analogy. First, countries, especially "New World" countries, have founding statements based in human rights, the right to travel, the right to seek a better life. So immigration law as it has existed since the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 has been one exercise after another in hippo-crisy (that's the bad kind). What ever happened to "give me your tired, your poor"? Second, the idea behind private property is that you work for what is yours and then you deserve to own it. But much of the wealth in this country today has been taken through colonialism, slavery, and more recently neo-colonialism backed by a military big enough to take on and defeat every armed service in the world. How moral is it to defend wealth that was gained through coercion and violence? This includes the domestic resource wealth of this country, much of it taken by force of genocide from American Indians.

Besides, borders are unequally defended. Corporations can come and go, setting up a new headquarters in Bermuda for tax purposes, scoring a tax-free new maquiladora in Mexico, and exporting tariff-free to Germany, while the people in Bermuda, Mexico, and Germany are unable to come here to the corporation's true home to get a plum job at headquarters.

To respond to your accurate assessment of how undocumented immigrants are oppressed in the U.S.: The way to fix that is not to send them back to their NAFTA-ruined farms in Mexico but to stand up for better enforcement of labor law and wider dissemination of public health and other public benefits. That's why the unions joined today's demonstrations. As long as there is a labor pool that is outside labor law, everyone's wages are depressed. It matters little whether those people are in Tuscaloosa or Zacatecas.

Today, the U.S. is no longer Lady Liberty with her lamp. It has become the neuveau-riche bully with the bright yard lights and loud car and house alarms and a tacky house full of overpriced stuff he has no time to use, much of it taken for a nickel on the dollar in foreclosure auctions. When a visitor leaving one of those foreclosed homes drops in to beg a meal, should we invite her in, shoot her or just ignore the door until she tries the window? This is the left, right and center approaches to immigration. I think a bit more social grace toward the rest of humanity would help our domestic politics as well as the cause of world freedom. 

Posted by hedgehog

"The proper methods of immigration are written by and for the country's existing residents, without much more than a nod at human rights -- we don't even admit refugees as often as many much poorer countries. "
Are you objecting to the right of a country's residents to make laws that protect their interests? Aren't you questioning the whole concept of countries?

"How moral is it to defend wealth that was gained through coercion and violence? This includes the domestic resource wealth of this country, much of it taken by force of genocide from American Indians."
Of course the land in this country was acquired through coercion and violence. How is that related to illegal or even legal immigration?

"Besides, borders are unequally defended. Corporations can come and go, setting up a new headquarters in Bermuda for tax purposes, scoring a tax-free new maquiladora in Mexico, and exporting tariff-free to Germany, while the people in Bermuda, Mexico, and Germany are unable to come here to the corporation's true home to get a plum job at headquarters."
Its actually quite simple... The residents of those countries decided to make laws that allow corporations to set up businesses. They did that because they feel that it is in their interest. There are of course countries like North Korea that do not allow corporations. Ultimately (most) countries make their laws to promote the interests of their citizens. I am sure you do realize that Americans are NOT allowed to enter or work in those countries without proper documentation.

"To respond to your accurate assessment of how undocumented immigrants are oppressed in the U.S.: The way to fix that is not to send them back to their NAFTA-ruined farms in Mexico but to stand up for better enforcement of labor law and wider dissemination of public health and other public benefits. That's why the unions joined today's demonstrations. As long as there is a labor pool that is outside labor law, everyone's wages are depressed. It matters little whether those people are in Tuscaloosa or Zacatecas."
There is actually an ongoing debate between economists about the real impact of immigration. Surely there is a need to improve the working conditions of all workers. However, as I understand it, the protesters are not complaining about their working conditions. They want the legal right to work in this country so that they are not deported by the immigration authorities. If the working conditions in the United States were as bad as they are in Mexico, I can assure you these people wouldn't come to here.

"Today, the U.S. is no longer Lady Liberty with her lamp. It has become the neuveau-riche bully with the bright yard lights and loud car and house alarms and a tacky house full of overpriced stuff he has no time to use, much of it taken for a nickel on the dollar in foreclosure auctions. When a visitor leaving one of those foreclosed homes drops in to beg a meal, should we invite her in, shoot her or just ignore the door until she tries the window? This is the left, right and center approaches to immigration. I think a bit more social grace toward the rest of humanity would help our domestic politics as well as the cause of world"
There is a difference between inviting people to your place and people sneaking into your place through the window. What you are advocating is leaving the door open and walking away. Why don't you leave your door open so that the homeless people in San Francisco can come in to live at your place? After all, your material belongings are the legacy of exploitation. If you think I am being absurd, I am only repeating your arguments.

What no-one in this debate talks about are immigrants who came here legally. They have to wait for years to get proper paperwork from the immigration authorities because the ammnesty schemes clog up the USCIS (formerly INS). I suppose, according to you, the best way for immigrants is to come to this country is to enter illegally.  

Posted by J3

meanwhile, the maquilladoras are heavily dependent on trucks for distributing their product in the USA. gosh what will high fuel prices mean? watch mexico drop all kinds of fees for shipping through them, in order to make up the difference, and further screw the general population. 

Posted by hibiscus

maquiladora  is the spelling. i amend any predictions relating to mexico to include the following disclaimer: with sales of oil to USA being incredibly profitable, it becomes easy to discount refined fuel for northbound cargo traffic. if similar deals can't be made north of the border, maybe USA ports will suffer as it becomes even cheaper to land/assemble goods in mexico. same for canadian assembly though i think the canadians don't yet allow european and asian freight to use the NAFTA doorway???

(related to the whole undocumented worker thing, the consumer electronics industry is starting to get nervous about the price of air freight. this is pretty big - a significant opening for mexico to move upward in the ranks of electronics manufacturers, as the gizmo makers become afeared of new investment in places with high transport costs back to market numero uno. for a variety of reasons, highly profitable electronics need to cross the pacific faster than boats can take them. so the question of pay equity may be resolved by a reasonably smart mexican government pulling a bangalore in key areas where there is political unrest. at least that's what i would do.) 

Posted by hibiscus

it really does work like this. six hours after writing something i resolve some problem raised in the writing. urgh!

here's the thing. assuming no rapture, it seems like it's safe to predict that the energy efficient industrial USA - gizmos-not-trips, green appliances, grass-fed cars - will be hecho en mexico. we're too weak and stupid from parasites to do it for ourselves. (parasites: insurance and other gambling; military and other dirty legacy industry; infotainment.) 

Posted by hibiscus

in one possible future, borders will exist to keep the economic-parasite-infested USA out  . at this point the only reason left for us not to go back to the drawing board is we can't find the stupid drawing board because of all the boxes of unpaid bills and legal documents. 

Posted by hibiscus

one more thing. in this article , the system for moving workers across the mexican border is described in detail. i had actually been thinking that for the population of undocumented residents to increase that much, i wondered how they did it. the article essentially describes a giant black market in mexican workers, riding on the back of NAFTA truck traffic.

i found a stat here that says 15,000 trucks cross that border every day. cut that to 7,500 one way. using the first article's minimum 40 people per truck, and a total increase of ~7,000,000 paperless people from latin america since 1990 (with suspicious bump around the time of FTZs and NAFTA), it would have taken 175,000 trucks to move that population. or maybe 40 trucks a day, about 5% of the traffic - even less if the average per truck is nearer to 60 as suggested.

this would make paperless laborers one of NAFTA's biggest imported goods - more than $1 billion/year, based on the coyote fees alone, when two-way USA-mexico formal trade is $100 billion total.

president bush made this even easier by pulling the requirement that mexican trucks aren't allowed to drive around in the USA. 

Posted by hibiscus

apologies - the current trade numbers, i think:

USA imports from mexico, 2004: $156 billion
approx coyote fees, 2004: $1.4 billion

stats on undocumented population come from this report.

hibiscus.

last bit.

(1) nobody really knows the total paid by migrants for assistance crossing the border.

(2) in figuring the value of workers as an imported service (and part of the trade balance i guess, since it's so big), i didn't calculate labor savings by USA employers.

(3) i still want a chart or some data showing the growth of undocumented latin american residents in non-border states. because i want to know if there's any corrollation between that growth and lat 2001, when (even after 9/11) the bush administration got its desired "conditional" repeal of the ban on mexican trucks travelling farther than a few miles from the border.

(4) "even after 9/11": aw heck, what security concerns. only disgruntled former american military people put bombs in trucks. besides we looked at 'em. they're filled with lettuce, and fish. junk like that. if they're not on fahr, we just let 'em roll.

hi.

(5) 40 trucks would be 0.5% of daily northbound traffic at border, not 5% so, maybe 1 truck in 200 would be fake if everybody were really using the NAFTA railroad. given fairly light inspections, concentrated on externals and paperwork, this would be an excellent transit system.

(6) maybe the maximum value of a full truck is $160,000. maybe 20 trucks like that a day is $3 million. with a non-union driver, domestic gas, and real paperwork, what a good business that would be. 

Posted by hibiscus

most of the above was written as speculation based on one quote from the "kentucky" article:

"They come across in trucks," Coffey says he's learned, "usually in eighteen wheelers. They have fish or fruit or ice or something, and the people are in the middle. We're talking forty to eighty people in a truck." 

it's the "usually in eighteen wheelers" that got me thinking. but having done some more thinking about how this might work as a giant system, i realized that another quote from the article is a little verification:

The busboy will likely be working long hours for low pay until he earns back the two thousand or so dollars it cost in coyote fees to get across the border.

"earns back" is a little loose. if it means that the trips are not paid for in advance, my understanding is that that is a big change from the '80s, implying a large, coordinated operation capable of tracking and collecting from millions of people. my first thought was that regional racketeers would "buy" people off the truck, to be paid back directly. that's how it was done with the slave trade, but i think that's too inflexible for dealing with people who might have to move throughout the USA to make ends meet. better to have a sponsor in mexico who signs the note and have the traveller mail payments back to them. this would use family loyalty for enforcement, a better bet than muscle on the worker side.

i thought about how to get people across the border. if this model is right then crossing the border is the easiest part because NAFTA virtually mandates safe passage for any kind of cargo. the trouble is making sure that nobody gets a peek inside the truck. here's how i would do it.

1) getting to the USA this way would have to be common knowledge among the candidate population in mexico, though they wouldn't have to know that it was a widespread practice; only that it was done this way locally.

2) since you would be going to a place where you knew people (making it easier and faster to "earn back" the fees), you'd want to be on a truck that was headed the right direction. trucks that were headed the right direction - so you'd need some kind of loose terminal system, consolidating eastbound and westbound passengers on the right freight trucks.

3) truck load of stuff crosses the border.

4) truck is unloaded. thinking about this a good system would be to use an existing warehouse staffed by legit migrants. to unload the big bunch of arrived trucks, 100 enter on shift, 140 leave. all in similar vans headed for "home" whether that be san antonio or chicago. there wouldn't be a lot of concern about what was getting unloaded in the warehouse because that was supposedly already done before the border crossing process and there are just too many trucks.

5) “They usually drop them off at a truck stop in St. Louis or Memphis. They give them $60, and then they call for someone to pick them up. Family members. We have one I'm concerned about who should have been here Saturday, and he hasn't arrived yet. I don't know what happened. He may have been picked up. But eventually they get here, regardless of the law.” 

Posted by hibiscus

There is a difference between inviting people to your place and people sneaking into your place through the window. What you are advocating is leaving the door open and walking away. Why don't you leave your door open so that the homeless people in San Francisco can come in to live at your place? After all, your material belongings are the legacy of exploitation. If you think I am being absurd, I am only repeating your arguments. 

J3:  You are proving my point. Countries aren't houses. People in most parts of the world can get housing through hard work. Countries are inherited wealth. Inherited wealth is not distributed rationally. Joe is born in the U.S., Josephine born in Turkey, and Jose born in Somalia. Are you arguing that Joe deserves his higher standard of living by birthright? If so, maybe you also support the divine right of kings? 

Posted by hedgehog

(in many places where things are more equitable and honorable, people do  leave their doors open and walk away.) 

Posted by hibiscus

IHTFP. Post a comment.