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

On Aug 13, 12:57 pm, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 8:36 pm, 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

You tend to pick nits. I have been saying, in response to our resident
Euro-chuavinist, the EXACT same thing...look at the root causes of
emigration (as opposed to "immigration"). Of course it benefits the
U.S.working class...Also, I oppose any imperialist "program" for
immigration...guest worker programs should be opposed. Not sure where
I differ with Sister McKinney..or your latest statements.

David