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

On Jul 30, 10:39 am, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 7:37 am, 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

SRD,
 I stand with McKinney on this question. This is a *working class*
anaylsis she gives. Not sure where you see her even *imply* that
"excessive immigration if bad for American workers" (she may of, I
didn't see it) she said "globalization is bad for American workers"
and I stand by her analysis of this. She got a good education in
Mexico by militant trade unionists there that have been fighting
NAFTA. She sup****ts the demand of "The right NOT to emigrate". She is
against "scapegoating" immigrants. all correct.

David