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

On Aug 6, 8:36=A0pm, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>  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.
>
Yes, all correct. As maybe you've noticed, I have come to see your
political error regarding immigration as one of omission rather than
commission. You just refuse to oppose today's imperialist-sponsored
immigration wave. You will, in fact, resort to euphemism and
abstraction--anything but saying what is true--to keep the workers
from connecting their antipathy to the immigration wave with the fight
against the ex****t of jobs.

McKinney deviates from Open Borderism when she states: "You have to
address the underlying problems behind the immigration
boom ..." (See my earlier post, quoting McKinney at greater length.)
This makes the immigration boom a [surface] problem that should be
"addressed." Solving the underlying problems benefits not only the
main beneficiaries, the Mexican working class, but also benefits the
U.S. working class, by reducing immigration.

A subtle but very significant deviation from your stance, which takes,
I must say, a PC attitude toward immigration: never speak the truth
about immigration's effects.

srd