=?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_The_Immigration_Question_in_the_Workers=92_Movem?=

On Jul 24, 7:37=A0am, dave.walt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

> Yes, yes, no, maybe, no.

Not sure how to line these up. Specifically, what does "maybe" apply
to?
>
> Yes, any opposition to NAFTA will seek to solidiarize with immigrant
> rights. It means rejecting anti-immigrant behavoir by the gov't and
> the unions (should that occur). the only internationalist approach is
> to veiw all workers as allies not opponents. Putting in coversly,
> there IS no fight against NAFTA that includes the "fight against
> immigrattion". Doesn't exist outside the Pat Bucahnan and CNN Lou
> Dobbs. So you are posting a non-existent juxtiposition of forces.

You mean no tendency has taken the combined positions? Well, that's
the problem I'm pointing to. How is it a criticism of my view?

You create an amalgam, to use O'Callaghan's favorite term, between an
anti-immigration position and an anti-immigrant position like
Buchanan's. To say that aboli****ng NAFTA will eliminate the root cause
of excessive immigration is not anti-immigrant. What you seem to fear
(giving you the benefit of the doubt) is that workers will create the
same amalgam that you have created. I don't dismiss that danger. Thus
in the initial implementation, the immigration-reduction arguments
should be stated softly, which is exactly what McKinney is doing. But
she openly recognizes (see my quote in earlier post) that excessive
immigration is bad for American workers, and she at least mentions
that aboli****ng NAFTA will ameliorate that _problem_.

Do you sup****t the McKinley presidential candidacy (or "candidature,"
as the Lambertistes say).

srd
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> > srd