Immigration Officials Turn to Schoolyard Bullying

by: Drum Major Institute

Thu May 08, 2008 at 16:16


by Corinne Ramey, cross-posted from the Dmiblog

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials in California have stooped to a new, almost unbelievable low: intimidating schoolchildren.

Allow me to state the obvious: schools should be safe.  And they should feel safe for the kids, their parents, and the teachers and staff who work there.  But for the students at four Oakland schools and Berkley High School on Wednesday, school felt anything but safe.  That day, rumors spread throughout the schools that ICE were nearby, possibly planning raids at the schools.  Parents text-messaged their kids, warning them that ICE agents were close by so that the undocumented parents couldn't come to the schools to pick their children up.   The Berkley school district became so overwhelmed with calls that they set up an automated voice message for parents, which according to the San Francisco Chronicle, stated that the administration would "not allow any child to be taken away from the school."    The schools -- including Stonehurst Elementary, where immigration officials were parked across the street -- became a panic scene.  Undocumented parents called friends and neighbors, asking them to pick up their children since the parents were afraid to come near the school.  ICE spokespeople claimed that their intention was not to raid the schools but rather to make arrests at nearby locations.

Unfortunately, yesterday's Berkley and Oakland cases are not isolated incidents.  ICE agents have routinely engaged in intimidation of workers -- both documented and undocumented -- and students.  In Tucson, Arizona, a 17-year-old undocumented student at Catalina High Magnet School was arrested for possession of marijuana.  Police came to the school, and then called the Border Control.  When Border Control found out that the student was undocumented, they deported his father, who returned to Mexico accompanied by his wife and two sons.

The incident created an outrage in the school and community.  The teenagers quoted in the Tucson Citizen article about the event state the facts that the adults around were apparently missing.  "We think that shouldn't be allowed, because school is where we're supposed to be safe," said 16-year-old Mario Portillo.  "No matter if you're an illegal alien, you have the right to an education."  Eighteen-year-old Jorge Guerrero asked the somewhat obvious question, "How can we learn if we've scared the Border Patrol is going to come for us?"  Araceli Sanchez, 14, said that she knew that the arrested student and his family were undocumented, but said that "he was just another student."  And it was up to 14-year-old Ener Lopez to state the really obvious.  "We should be safe in school," he said. Following a protest by more than 100 students in front of the Tucson Police Department headquarters, Tucson police have said that they will no longer call U.S. Border Patrol into schools or churches.  

Drum Major Institute :: Immigration Officials Turn to Schoolyard Bullying
More recently, ICE agents in the raided 11 Taqueria El Balazo restaurants in the Bay Area, detaining 63 immigrant workers, including two 17-year-olds and a 15-year-old.  Given the recent May Day protests by immigrant rights groups, it's unlikely that the timing of the raid was a mere coincidence.  As Larisa Casillas, director of Bay Area Immigrant Rights Coalition, said, "I don't think it is a coincidence that this happened a day after May Day. It wreaks havoc on the community."  She sees the target as a strategic one. "When they hit a popular taqueria with a series of raids it sends a message, and our message back is that we need immigration reform. These are people who are working and contributing to the economic health of our region," she said.  

Casillas, I think, hits the nail on the head.  Not only are these incidents -- both the school and taqueria raids -- likely part of a purposeful campaign to intimidate the Latino community, but in both cases the intimidation is bad not just for undocumented workers but for their communities at large.  School raids cause widespread fear among students, parents, and teachers, and, at the very least, cause serious disruption in the ability of students to learn and feel safe in what should be a guaranteed safe environment.  And, as Casillas says, immigrants -- even undocumented ones -- are vital to the economies of the regions where they live.

Immigrants make up 15% of the civilian workforce, and account for half of the labor force growth in the past 10 years, according to a White House report. They pay a significant amount of taxes and produce goods and provide services that are vital to the American middle class.  They're vital to keeping our social security system afloat, pumping $6-7 billion a year into the Social Security system, most of which they can't claim because of their immigrant status. According to the same White House report, immigrants increase the earnings and productivity of native-born workers a significant amount, estimated at $37 billion a year.  The bottom line is, decent, humane treatment of immigrants isn't just good for immigrants -- it's good for the current and aspiring American middle class.

This kind of conduct by ICE is incredibly destructive to families as well.  If schools continue to be a scene of ICE intimidation, undocumented parents are less likely to send their native-born children to school, fearing that raids could result in families being deported.  With immigrant families already being hit hard by the current recession and recent crackdowns on undocumented workers -- according to a recent Times article, remittances to Latin America have dropped significantly, yet another sign of the economic squeeze on immigrant families -- worries about deportation because of their kids attending schools are the last thing that immigrant families need.

Notably, it's not all bad.  When reading news reports of the raids, in between all the eye-rolling at the fairly inane things that ICE agents said, I've been impressed by how supportive mayors and local officials have been of immigrant rights. "In my view, that is the ugly side of government," Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums said. "No way children should ever be treated to that kind of harassment and fear." Mayor Dellum said that Oakland should be free from raids.  "As a sanctuary city," Dellums said, "we're all in unison. We don't want this type of intimidation. Immigrants are human beings, and need to be dealt with respect." Vice Mayor Larry Reid said that local officials were never told about the raids.  "ICE just rolls in and tells our police department after the fact," he said. "The students are upset and crying. The school's administration said some of the kids are very shook up."  

These local officials get it.  When will ICE and the Border Control figure out that schoolyard bullying isn't an effective -- or humane, for that matter -- route to immigration reform?


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Its very unfortunate that its coming to this (4.00 / 2)
however, statements like this are actually wrong: "No matter if you're an illegal alien, you have the right to an education." Actually if you are an illegal alien you have no such right.

This problem stems from a problem on the left I think, where there is a split on what to do about in-country illegals. Part of the left feels this is a threat to low wage income earners and some do not. Even if support for deportation is ultimately agreed on, then intimidation tactics like this will go away and more humane ways of dealing with our immigration problem can rise to the surface. The problem seems to be now that because the debate between pro/anti immigration is so intense and risky to politicians that policy is being divined in the shadows and everyone, illegals and enforcement, is sneaking around. Critique of methodologies needs to be separated from the debate of pro/anti illegal immigration. But that can't happen until there is a consensus on what to do in general.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


Plyler v. Doe (4.00 / 5)
The Supreme Court, which generally gets to make the calls about this type of thing, has actually established that denying education to illegal immigrants is a violation of equal protection clause/the fundamental right to education. So um, statements like that actually aren't wrong.

And I think just about no one "on the left" (though perhaps many in the Democratic party) supports deporting 12 million people from this country, no matter what tactics are used to do so. Alleviating the economic harm from downward pressure on wages should be solved through legalization, unionization, minimum wage, health care, and all the other policies "those on the left" support to protect the most vulnerable members of society.

If a policy of mass ethnic cleansing is the outcome of the "debate of pro/anti immigration", good luck trying to convince people that you'll go about it in with the most humane "methodologies" possible.  

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
Right on (4.00 / 2)
I created a username and password to mention Plyler v. Doe, but since you beat me to it, I thought I'd just make a quick observation and give a little quote from the majority opinion, penned by Justice Brennan.  First, I don't think there's a great argument to be made that the federal government doesn't have the legal power to deport minors who are undocumented. But, what we're talking about here is a discriminatory government policy that intimidates a certain group of minority students into not attending school.  

Two quick quotes from the opinion:

"At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. . . . Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice."

The Court held that the Texas law in question, "impose[d] a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. The stigma of illiteracy will mark them for the rest of their lives. By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation."


[ Parent ]
Mea Culpa (0.00 / 0)
very interesting! had not heard of the case. So it is very clear, they are protected.

deportation is not ethnic cleansing, nobody is killed or even remotely harmed, unless physically resisting. such charges do not make for a convincing argument. you are wrong that there is not support for deportation on the left. Markos loves to wrongly scribe on this issue as if there is a cohesive left position that is sympathetic to illegals; the reality is that the majority position of America (thus requiring at least some liberals) at best is anti-amnesty. There is no clear liberal position on immigration on the left. Which is why nobody wants to talk about it. If there was a clear position on it the presidential candidates would be discussing it. Recall how hard Hillary ran away from a generally good idea to issue drivers licenses to illegals. And frankly I don't think its going to get any less polarized as white america sees itself diminish in raw percentage of population over the next ten years. Unless we experience an economic boom, in which case white America will be less freaked out.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 1)
who is "on the left" and who is not is obviously a little bit difficult to say. Without getting into that, though, I really recommend you look through the polling on the issue. http://www.pollingreport.com/i...

It is an extremely mixed bag, but the anti-amnesty and pro-amnesty contingents are pretty much within the margin of error for the population as a whole.

But I thought this one was interesting:

If you had to choose, what do you think should happen to most illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years? They should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status. OR, They should be deported back to their native country.

62% say they should stay. That's of Americans, not liberals or Democrats.

Meanwhile, labor is much less anti-immigration than it has been in the past and Latinos (who are generally more liberal on immigration) make up a larger portion of the Democratic coalition every day. Not everyone is a pro-amnesty pro-immigration liberal like me, but few people support wholesale deportation, and I don't think many of them could be considered liberal or on the left.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
Great link (0.00 / 0)
tons of interesting data in there. Thanks

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Looking though lots of the data (0.00 / 0)
one of the take-aways is how all over the place opinion is. lots of people supporting a wall, lots of people thinking a wall is ineffective, lots of people think various forms of amnesty are ok, lots of people think illegals contribute to america, lots think think illegal immigration is a "problem", lots think they should keep their jobs if they pay a fine, lots think employers hiring illegals should be punished. its like all over the place. though I would say that seems like a constant is that America feels that if it can collect some fees in exchange for people staying in country then they are ok with things.

thats really a very cool page.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
Public opinion polling is pretty bizarre that way.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Uh (4.00 / 2)
Ethnic cleansing isn't the same thing as genocide. There are various definitions but basically, ethnic cleansing is the use of force or intimidation to remove people of
a certain ethnic or religious group from an area. The mass deportation you're would come vary close to a war crime. I mean really think about all the communities that would be utterly decimated by this. Now rhetoric of ethnic cleansing might be a little unfair since for all but a fraction of the right don't have any plans for complete ethnic homogenization.   But the deportation of all illegal immigrants, besides being basically impossible, would constitute a major human rights violation in my mind.

And I'm not the only one who thinks so. It is true that the Democratic Party has no unified take on the issue. The Democratic Party actually includes some real hardliners on this. And in the past labor took issue with immigrant labor. But the core activist left. The student activists, the remnants of the New Left, the anti-IMF/World Bank activists, the religious left: the so-called Democratic wing of the Democratic Party (and those farther left that are, er, left out) is basically united in the view that immigration restrictions violate human rights. And then of course there is the Immigrant Right movement, a product of the left that might be the largest social justice movement in the United States today.


[ Parent ]
let's not punish kids for our immigration problems... (0.00 / 0)
No matter what your stance on immigration is, I don't see how scaring kids, whether native-born or immigrant, is good for anybody's education. These raids aren't only hurting undocumented immigrants, they're hurting all the kids who go to these schools for a quality and safe education.

If you look at it realistically, most of these undocumented immigrants are here to stay (I'll ignore the fact that they actually help our economy).  Wouldn't the best way to help our society be to educate these kids, teach them English, and integrate them into the workforce?  

www.dmiblog.com  


[ Parent ]
who supported scaring kids? (4.00 / 1)
this is why I think we're getting nowhere on this. Instantly a discussion of a border control tactic becomes a discussion about the whole issue, and this is actually to the detriment of the kids in this case.

The two need to be separated. So long as the policy of the US is to deport and prevent further illegal entry then that is the deal and INS et al will seek ways to achieve that goal. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the goal all should agree that in serving that goal the govt shouldn't be using anti-humanitarian tactics. And that's what this story is really about. If the author wants to help the children in this story then, to achieve a sympathetic majority, criticism of the tactic should be separated from criticism of the arching immigration policy. Because as soon as you conflate the two you start to lose sympathy from those who are "anti-illegal".

But, I dont have a lot of faith that these two conversations  can easily be separate due to the intensity of the overarching issue. to me, it is not going to happen until a dominant position on immigration is established and that part fades from the conversation. That's my argument, and the tension is on the left where there are many conflicting feelings - at least that's what I think as evidenced by the fact that there is no strong opposition to the more "conservative" position of border closing and deportation. Basically I think the left should get to work on hashing it out and really work out what the policy should be. But highlighting tactics like this are not an argument for amnesty or against deportation, just as highlighting crime by illegals is not an argument for deportation. crime is crime has nothing to do with what we should be defining our immigration policy on. just as policy enforcement is just policy enforcement and how it is conducted should not be defining our immigration policy. follow?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


[ Parent ]
In addition (0.00 / 0)
In addition to my argument above that liberals, while maybe not unified on the issue, are unified in rejecting deportation, I'd also just want to mention that Republicans are equally if not more divided on this issue.

The policy differences betwee the pro-corporate guest-worker policies of the Bush/McCain wing of the party and the border security deportation plans of the nativist Tancredo/Romney wing of the party could not be greater. The Bush immigration bill certainly got support from some Democrats and not others,   but the divisions were far more radical between the Republicans. They had the stongest support and strongest opposition to the bill.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
Huh (4.00 / 2)
I'd really like to hear what a policy of mass deportation with humanitarian tactics would look like. I would say such a thing is impossible.

[ Parent ]
well, if (0.00 / 0)
if you think its not humanitarian to take people out of their illegally obtained job and send them back to their country of origin where they have no job then you'll never find agreement with someone who thinks illegals bear responsibility for knowingly taking a risk coming to a country as an illegal worker.

i have no idea where i stand on this issue personally. i see many reasonable arguments on both sides. but I doubt we have agreement on fundamental terms and thats really a meta argument rather than an argument about what policy should be. we'd have to come to an agreement about what humanitarianism is within the context of illegal immigration. but I know I don't think that immigration policy should be defined on whether a particular form of deportation practice is humanitarian or not - there are numerous ways to enforce a policy. I would prefer discussion of this sort start from trying to figure out whats best for our citizens first, and then find ways to achieve that, or make compromises as benefit us most.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


[ Parent ]
questions (4.00 / 2)
put some context into this extraordinarily liberal analysis:

who created the policy framework that allowed undocumented people to enter the country, stay here in large numbers, and seek employment?  corporate elites.
who benefits from the undercutting of wages? corporate elites.
who benefits from divisions between citizen workers,  non citizen workers, and undocumented workers?  corporate elites.

as for this:

I would prefer discussion of this sort start from trying to figure out whats best for our citizens first, and then find ways to achieve that, or make compromises as benefit us most.

how can you say this given the (continuing) history of imperialism that the united states, other settler colonies, and europe are a party to?  It is not an ACCIDENT that sending countries are poor and receiving countries are rich, and to insist otherwise is either a) obliviousness or b) willful ignorance.  You have to look at this issue in a global context - discriminating against noncitizens is no different than defending a caste system.


[ Parent ]
I take issue (4.00 / 2)
with your characterization of deportation. It sure doesn't sound bad when all you want is to "take people ouout of their illegally obtained job and send them back to their country of origin". That sure is a nice way to describe ethnic cleansing! But of course that is a ridiculous characterization of deportation. You're also tearing a family out of a community, tearing children away from their friends or parents away from their children. You're creating an atmosphere where people have to live in constant fear of being uprooted and you are destabilizing entire communities which rely on illegal immigrants.

Damn straight I have no common ground with those who support mass deportation. I'm willing to compromise so as not to sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect. I fully recognize that my position isn't popular enough right now for it to be adopted as policy. So I am willing to support a guest worker position that leads, quickly, to a path to citizenship.  I could live with a fine imposed on illegal immigrants. Policy isn't made by consensus, it's made by 60 votes.

Do you really need to establish a definition of humanitarian to see that a policy just short of ethnic cleansing is wrong? We can have a debate about what is best but why do we need to keep that one on the table?

You cannot discuss what goals we have and THEN figure out how to get there. That method very quickly leads to rights violations. All policy discussion need to be constantly constrained by a concern for human rights.

Finally: "I would prefer discussion of this sort start from trying to figure out whats best for our citizens first".

This is precisely the problem. To relegate non-citizens to secondary concerns is totally without basis and entirely immoral. You cannot disregard people on the basis of criteria they cannot control (namely their country of origin).


[ Parent ]
Guess I'm a contrarian (4.00 / 1)
But I think laws have to be followed everywhere, and that includes schools. I wouldn't last a week going to a public school in France or London or Germany if I didn't have a passport or a visa. They'd kick me out and tell me to call my consulate if I had a problem. Hell, I have known plenty of Europeans who had to leave the U.S. because their visas expired. Was this a terrible crime? No, it's the law.

Plenty of kids get arrested at school for drug possession, fighting, stealing, any number of crimes. Do I think ICE agents should set up shop at the schools and deport any illegals? No. But that's not what is being reported here. This is just about illegal immigrants and their friends getting all worried about any deportation that happens near a school, or happens to someone that is in school.

It's not like these people, even in the worst case, are being sent to hell. They return to their home countries. Big deal. We have laws and we should enforce them. If these people don't like the laws, then change them.


Some of (4.00 / 2)
"these people" get sent back to their home countries while their children, who are citizens of the United States only, stay behind. Some of them have children in their home countries who would be unable to attend school or maybe even feed themselves if not for remittances. Some of them have been here for literally decades, and don't have anyone or anywhere to go back to.

If you want to support forcible mass deportation of literally millions of tax paying people from this country, that's fine. But don't you dare fucking pretend that it is anything other than an inhumane. And please be prepared for the effective police state it will require; militarized border, national ID card, public displays of force and all.

And "these people" can't change these laws because they don't have the right to vote. Of course, they did protest... but hey, wait a second, that's what these raids are in retaliation for, isn't it?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
told you (0.00 / 0)
the left position is not even close to homogeneous. :)

btw - if you're going to win the bigger argument you are going to have to acknowledge that illegals are largely responsible for any mess they have gotten themselves into, that is illegals need to minimally acknowledge they knew the risks when they decided to skip the line.

Also, they can't vote because they are not citizens, its not an injustice, its part of our rights as US citizens not to have our vote diluted by anyone who wants to visit the US. That's not a very convincing argument either.

I think the economic arguments (although fuzzy) are where the sympathy for illegals lays. Although I suspect that alone will not be enough to convince America to support some form of amnesty. I think a culture clash is brewing and that's going to be the hardest thing for illegal sympathizers to get past.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


[ Parent ]
the left position (4.00 / 2)
the left position is not even close to homogeneous. :)

what makes you think you're on the left on this one ;)


[ Parent ]
Retaliation? (0.00 / 0)
Why shouldn't people have to follow the law?  Why shouldn't the laws be enforced?

Unless you're willing to argue that there should be no such concept as a nation-state, or no such concept as an enforceable border, I don't see how your argument can possibly hold up.


[ Parent ]
I mean (4.00 / 1)
You don't have to give up the idea of borders to have a just immigration policy. We could easily establish some system where anyone could enter the US and work so long as they past through some kind of system provided them with credentials. You could then better establish better oversight of employers to make sure all their workers were credentialed. Border enforcement would actually be easier then since anyone coming in across the river would be immediately suspect.

The question of whether or not Mexicans and Latin Americans should cross the border illegally is somewhat beside the point (though I might argue that restrictions on their rights and that therefore crossing would be justified). The issue is whether or not the federal and state governments should be pursuing a policy of hunting down illegal immigrants and deporting them. That policy, as evidenced by these stories, is terribly destructive to the social fabric of these communities and basically terrorizes children and people who came across an unguarded border to find work and feed their family.

And while we're at it I'm not sure what is wrong with the prospect of open borders. Europe didn't have many problems with it. Granted, our position isn't identical but there doesn't appear to be any inherent problem with eventually moving toward that sort of freedom of movement.


[ Parent ]
I think the Europe example is interesting (0.00 / 0)
BUT! the kink in the works is Mexico does not have an open border for our citizens and we do not have labor and environmental and healthcare standards across borders. I think a very interesting proposition would be to open Canada US Mexico and the vast majority of Caribbean nations and have equal standards on all those social issues. But thats not the deal right now and its probably not going to be the deal. I mean, unless a bunch of people read this and pick up the gauntlet and run with it :). So sadly the situation isn't anywhere close to Europe's.

I'm not moved by concern for feeding illegals and their families. There are lots of people hungry in the world who would like a better life style, we hardly care about most of them most of the time. It would be nice to feed everyone, but we actually can't do it, so I can't buy into such a guilt trip.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


[ Parent ]
on what grounds do you make this assertion (0.00 / 0)
It would be nice to feed everyone, but we actually can't do it

Here's a better way to look at it:

The current global GDP is over 60 trillion dollars, compensating for price differences in different countries.  There are about 6 billion people in the world.  60,000/6 = 10,000 dollars per capita.  Let's knock off a couple thousand dollars just to maintain the system, and call it at 8,000 dollars per capital.  This would probably satisfy a good deal of the world's population, at least as a humongous step up from what exists today.

However, if this level of living (and equality) doesn't satisfy you (and it doesn't for me, having been raised in the U.S.), i suggest that some of the money that's used for consumption in the united states and other rich countries could instead go to industrialization in poorer countries wiht no strings attached.  So that industrialization, globally, could be accomplished in the quickest amnount of time possible (to reduce the cumulative human and environmental costs that ineffectual industrialization policy generates) and global GDP would rise to a higher level more quickly and thereby generate enough money for everyone in the world to hang out the way Marcuse initended for us to.

However, given that the world we live in is actually an ingegrated global system of domination based on nation-states (among other ideologies), we don't see that; the best we can probbaly hope for is for the U.S. and any other regional or imperialist powers to simply give states like China and India the space to create their own policies.  Which it refuses to do.  Part of this is probably looser borders (i..e free movement of the factor of labor) which, for some extraordinary reason, never got broached in the free trade discussions ;)  This allows technology transferse, skills transfers, capital accumulation, and the benefits of higher wages etc. to go from the wealthy parts of the world to the poorer parts of the world - in however ass backwards a way.


[ Parent ]
Sure (0.00 / 0)
I'm not advocating immediate North American integration or anything. But the notion that borders are some necessary, important feature of a society is definitely wrong.

And yeah, there are a lot of hungry people in the world. Usually though, we don't intentionally take away the means they have for feeding themselves.


[ Parent ]
Inconsistent (0.00 / 0)
Above you said that we the left are "basically united in the view that immigration restrictions violate human rights".  I disagree that we're united, and I disagree (or at least I'm not yet convinced) with your proposition--but at least you've put one forward that is logically consistent with the policy outcome many people seem to want.

As I said, I don't see how anyone can argue against the enforcement of current law without taking that position.  But here you are saying something different--that the problem is our current policy, and whether or not it's just.  That's a debate we can and should have, in my opinion, but I don't see how we can get anywhere unless everyone accepts that the US has a right and duty to set and enforce the law in the first place.


[ Parent ]
Ah (0.00 / 0)
(A)The US has the right and duty to set and enforce the law in the first place.

(B)The US has immigration restrictions.

(Con.)The US has the right and the duty to enforce immigration restrictions.

(D- my position) Whether or not immigration restrictions are justified the current policy is wrong.

Our confusion is that America has a whole bunch of immigration restrictions. I believe one can hold that the US is justified in closing the border AND that the deportation of illegal resident aliens is wrong. You're right that I can't hold that   America's immigration restrictions are justified AND America should not enforce them without forfeiting premise (A). But I could hold that Some of America's immigration restrictions are justified (like a closed border) but that enforcement by way of deportation is always wrong.

Does that work?


[ Parent ]
Damn (0.00 / 0)
I used dashes and it turned in to strike out. Sorry.

[ Parent ]
LOL (0.00 / 0)
nice disclaimer! thats funny.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)
It dates from one of those multi-hundred comment threads from a while back, as you might guess.  :-)

[ Parent ]
let them eat laws (4.00 / 1)
enforce all the laws because, you know, laws are completely apolitical and devoid of any economic and social bases ;)

Start with these and then get back to me on the undocumented people.  Also, I assume you'll be with me in demanding a refund of the billions of dollars they've put into socail security and medicare for Americans that they're probably never going to see a dime of.


[ Parent ]
i don't even know where to start (4.00 / 4)
have you ever met an undocumented person?  Have you talked to them about the property they mortgaged or the debt their family incurred to come to the United States?  Have you met their children?  Have you talked to kids who moved to the United States at age 4 or 5 and ended up living the life of an undocumented person instead of what they had originally planned to do?  Have you ever seen a family split apart by deportations?  Have you ever seen the conditions in county jails that undocumented people are kept in?  Have you heard of Operation Wetback?  Have you talked to the family back in the sending country - or perhaps the policymakers of that country - on the importance of the remittances going in that direction?

Have you considered what this issue means for labor rights FOR CITIZENS AND IMMIGRANTS?  for the prison-industrial complex?  for race relations?  For the POLITICS of the country, thoughout its history?  Have you looked into The Alien and Sedition Acts?  The Red Scare?  Haven't you ever wondered what happened to Marcus Garvey and Emma Goldman, why the American left is so much farther to the right than in most other industrialized countries?

Most of all, have you considered who is most benefiting from strife among working class citizens and immigrants and undocumented people and who is not?


[ Parent ]
Labor supporting immigrant workers (4.00 / 2)
One good thing about the threatening ICE actions around East Bay schools was that I got an alert about it from -- get this -- the Alameda Country Labor Council. In support of the threatened kids and their families.

If labor is to have a chance among the actual, on the ground, working class as it exists in California, that's getting it right.

Can it happen here?


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox