3/17/2006

BEYOND BUSH AND TANCREDO

Catching up on the immigration debate that broke out amongst some of my co-bloggers over at Campus Progress while I was out of the country, I think it exemplifies an unfortunate trend in the contemporary debate: conflating the questions of how immigration should be regulated and of what rights immigrants should have in this country. Every issue has some pundit out there convinced that there are not two sides but three or seven or nineteen, but the immigration question is actually one where there are three camps - counting not the number of potentially coherent ideologies out there but the number of discrete large-scale positions people are visibly lobbying for - which can't be placed along along a single spectrum without losing a good deal of meaning. The position which has gotten the most colorful press coverage recently is the one advocated by Tom Tancredo (R-CA) and the Minutemen vigilantes who've taken it on themselves the patrol the border and chase down people who look to them like immigrants. Tancredo wants to cut immigration to this country (drastically) by building a wall and wants to curtail the rights of immigrants here (drastically) by denying their children birthright citizenship. It's a position which resonates with a significant swath of the Republican base, as well as some traditionally Democratic-voting folks. It's the position of the National Review. Shamefully, it used to be (roughly) the official position of the AFL-CIO (arguably that position would have fit better in a fourth quadrant - fewer immigrants but more rights for them - which I'll leave out here because it lacks many advocates). The position which has unfortunately been the primary alternative portrayed in the media is the cluster of policy proposals represented by George W. Bush: more legal immigration but fewer rights for immigrants. That would be the consequence of the crypto-bracero program he offered two years ago, under which undocumented immigrants are invited to come out of the shadows and into the trust of their employers, who can sponsor them for as long as they see fit but are given no reason not to have them deported if they do something the boss doesn't like. This is the position of the Wall Street Journal and the Cato foundation and the business elites they're looking out for. There's a progressive position in this debate, but it isn't either of these. It's the position for which immigrants, advocates, and allies rode from around the country to Flushing Meadows Park for two years ago: open our country to more legal immigration and protect the rights of everyone who lives here. It's the position of the national labor movement, the NAACP, and the National Council of La Raza, and it's the one reflected in the principles of the New American Opportunity Campaign: offer a path to citizenship, reunite families, protect civil liberties, and safeguard the right to organize and bargain collectively for everyone who lives and works here. That's the goal towards which the legislation offered by senators Kennedy and McCain is a crucial step. Conservatives reap the benefits from any debate which pits low-income workers against each other based on race or gender or citizenship - even when such a debate makes cracks in their electoral coalition in the short term. Building a progressive movement in this country depends on bringing together working people across such divisions to confront shared challenges and opponents with common cause. It's a task which ostensibly progressive organizations too often have failed - to their own detriment. A two-tiered workforce is bad for workers, and it's bad for America. But the right answer to that challenge, on the immigration question as on the race question and the gender question, is to welcome new workers and ensure that they have the same rights as old ones, so that they can organize and bargain together to raise their standard of living. Pushing marginalized workers out of the workforce was the wrong position then, and it's the wrong one now. It consigns more men and women to die crossing the border, and it endangers our security by perpetuating a system in which millions of people needlessly live outside of the law. And it denies the historical promise and dynamism of this country.

3 Comments:

Blogger Ali Frick said...

Not to be a nag, and not at all to brag that he is from my home state, but Tom Tancredo is a Republican from Colorado, not California.

3/20/2006 09:58:00 PM  
Blogger domingo said...

Had the aboriginal Indians, Aleuts, Alaskans, Hawaiians, Mexicans and other indigenous tribes enforced their tribal immigration laws strictly as it is now, there would not have been any problem at all in what is now the United States of America.

3/21/2006 03:32:00 AM  
Blogger Julia Consuela said...

I'm glad that the AFL-CIO's position on immigration is one that calls for responsible, comprehensive reform. Yet I am troubled by the fact, nationally, that those labor leaders are not stepping forward and agressively taking this issue on.

The AFL-CIO/CTW split breaks down along unions who are/n't actively organizing immigrant workers. It seems to me that there is a fundamental split at the local level between the unions who are willing and able to organize immigrant workers, and those other unions who are paralyzed by an inability to create a vision for growth that includes immigrants.

I've been thinking a lot about this, trying to figure out how to move those unions who don't have a clear vision forward. i'm at wit's end. Any thoughts?

And secondly, what do you think about Eliseo endorsing the Guestworker program?

3/21/2006 11:10:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home