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

On Aug 13, 4:55 pm, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 4:21 pm, 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

Srd...how many times do I have to restate my opposition to NAFTA? I
helped organize one of the first workers conferences against NAFTA
back in the 1990s. I'm probably one of the few people on this NG that
is active against NAFTA. How can anyone be FOR NAFTA and claim to be a
socialist? I've never even hinted that I sup****t NAFTA.

Secondly, we disagree in part on Immigration/Emigration or it's
effects in quantity for the US. But I was AT the conference in Mexico
(organized...against NAFTA!) where the slogan arose about fighting
emigration. Again, the *root causes* of immigration and it's effects.
No one proposed *restricting* immigration to the US. Period. This is
the dif.

D.