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

On Aug 13, 4:21=A0pm, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> 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.
>
As a point of general method when dealing with centrist positions, one
cannot *****s them by saying: A implies B; the centrist embraces A;
therefore, the centrist cannot be criticized as failing to sup****t B,
because logically, the centrist has taken a position that logically
impels B. The failure to follow his thinking to its logical
conclusions is just a description of the malady of centrism.

So you say, A - "Look to the root causes of emigration." I say, you
fail to sup****t B- opposing NAFTA in the U.S. with propaganda about
how NAFTA creates the immigration boom. But you counter (in effect)
with: I call for examining the root causes of emigration. Emigration
from Mexico and immigration to the U.S. from Mexico are two names for
one process. Thus, the criticism is at best a nit.

But what makes you an incorrigible centrist is that you are entirely
capable of sup****ting the premises while opposing the conclusion. The
equivalence between immigration and emigration rates is exactly what
you resist, _in practice_. My objection would indeed be a nit, were it
not your act of conscious subterfuge and obfuscation.

You can't seriously call my criticism national chauvinist one minute
and nit picking the next.

srd