Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAs the lead editorial in The Nation noted last week, the recent maelstrom surrounding Governor Eliot Spitzer's proposal to issue driver licenses to undocumented immigrants revealed the fear-mongering and racism that too often characterizes the so-called "immigration debate." It illustrated once again the desperate need to overcome the demagoguing and engage in an informed conversation – all the more challenging as people feel increasing economic anxiety and dislocation.
That's why a report released today by the Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) – Working for a Better Life: A Profile of Immigrants in the New York Economy – is such a critical contribution at this moment. FPI does rigorous analysis to promote public policies that create a strong economy in which prosperity is broadly shared by all New Yorkers. This report reveals that immigrants – making up 21 percent of the state's residents – added $229 billion to the New York State economy in 2006, representing 22.4 percent of the state's Gross Domestic Product.
"These figures should wipe away any impression that immigrants are holding the New York economy back," said David Dyssegaard Kallick, senior fellow of the Fiscal Policy Institute and principal author of the report. "In fact, immigrants are a central component of New York's economic growth." And Kallick told me, "The debate around immigration has gotten so overheated that it's become difficult to distinguish myth and hyperbole from simple reality…."
According to the report, New York City immigrants make up 37 percent of the population and 46 percent of the labor force. They are more likely than U.S.-born residents to live in families in the middle-income brackets. Immigrants represent 25 percent of CEOs who live in New York City, half of accountants, one-third of office clerks, one-third of receptionists, and one-third of building cleaners. In sector after sector, immigrants are found in the top, middle, and bottom rungs of the economic ladder.
In the downstate suburbs, 18 percent of all residents are foreign-born, with immigrants making up 23 percent of the labor force. More immigrants work as registered nurses than in any other occupation. 41 percent of physicians and surgeons in the downstate suburbs are foreign-born, as are 28 percent of college and university professors, 22 percent of accountants and auditors, and 19 percent of financial managers.
In upstate New York, five percent of the population is foreign-born, but immigrants play a disproportionately important role in some key areas: immigrants make up 20 percent of all professors; 35 percent of physicians and surgeons; 20 percent of computer software engineers and 13 percent of computer scientists and systems analysts. An estimated 80 percent of the seasonal workers who pick the crops are immigrants.
"This report clearly proves that immigrants fuel growth and vitality in every economic sector and every geographic area in New York," said Chung-Wha Hong, executive director of The New York Immigration Coalition.
"A wave of federal raids, ‘real ID' cards, or English only ordinances may be intended just to affect undocumented immigrants, but the reality is that they tear apart families and communities," Kallick told me. "If we create an anti-immigrant political climate, we run a very real risk of alienating exactly the people who are helping revitalize urban areas and contributing to economic growth…."
The report also finds that immigrants are subject to the same economic forces as everyone else in our increasingly polarized economy. "We can see that low-wage workers – both immigrants and U.S.-born – are not sharing in the economy's growth," said David R. Jones, president and CEO of the Community Service Society of NY. "The right answer is to enforce basic standards that are good for all low-wage workers, not to pit one group of workers against another."
Andrea Batista Schlesinger, executive director of the Drum Major Institute, recently wrote, "The ‘immigration debate' is a misnomer. The debate isn't just about illegal immigrants. It's not even just about immigrants. It's about the future of America and the role of all American workers in that future…. recognizing the economic contributions of immigrants while strengthening their hand in the workplace can define a progressive agenda that will unite both immigrants and native workers."
Yet we see in the presidential campaign that Republicans continue to fight over who will be "toughest on illegals", and most of the Democratic candidates tiptoe around the issues to avoid saying anything that might be used against them by any interest group. Kallick noted, "The two leading candidates in the primaries are from New York. We hope this report will make them aware of what's at stake as they fumble around for a position on immigration…. The right answer on immigration would include not just policies to help immigrants succeed, but also efforts to enforce labor laws and improve standards for all workers…. What we would hope for in a candidate is a leader who could wrench the discussion away from inflammatory talk radio and steer the country toward a sensible set of policies. We haven't seen that from the front-runners yet. But there's still time."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"and most of the Democratic candidates tiptoe around the issues to avoid saying anything that might be used against them by any interest group."
Hillary, when asked point blank last week (and feeling the heat from the debate before that) about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, said "No". Hardly tiptoeing.
And before I get accused of FRANKGRITism, no I don't think she did so out of a sense of "conviction" or "standing tough on immigration"....I think she did so because she saw the same polls as Spitzer saw....70% DISapproval for the idea, and you just don't fight that and stay alive in politics (as the Republicans are learning).
Problem is...NOBODY is above the "demogoguery", Ms vanden Heuval....and it's not just "Right-against, Left-for". You've got Big Business Repubs in bed with "We want more illegals unionized" and "Open Borders" Left....versus nativist Repubs and "They're stealing our jobs" blue-collar Dems and libs who don't think they can be unionized (or will be) and Lou Dobbs egging them on.
It's not the old "black or white" "Left or Right" paradigm. And the "open borders, no papers needed, sign up and we'll give you all the govt largesse you want" guys (ahem)....need to talk with their fellows who want to IMPROVE THINGS IN MEXICO, and not make us the pressure valve that keeps the corrupt Mexican government in power and drive down US citizen wages.
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2007 @ 3:57pm
but the repugnants need some group on which to blame the results of their own greedy stupidity in order to dupe dumbass lazy self destructive native born uhmuruhkin rubes into voting for them!
what would they do without the immigrants? blame liberals?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/26/2007 @ 4:03pm
Posted by MASK 11/26/2007 @ 3:57pm
heehee...funny how so many "hard stuff" science/technical professions...require the country to import people...
have you watched "idiocracy" yet? lol
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/26/2007 @ 4:06pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/26/2007 @ 4:06pm
Bringing in tech guys from India and China isn't the major problem, of course, IBB.
And there IS a split on the Right...and a split on the Left on illegal immigration. It's not just nativist Repubs vs "the rest of us".
If they stay "under the radar" they can't be unionized. But a lot of blue collar Dems out there (the old "Reagan Dems") don't want those here to get amnesty and KEEP the jobs they have. S'why Lou Dobbs has a following that cross the partisan spectrum.
It's also why Her Nibs felt safe in saying "No" to drivers licenses after getting burned the first time with her waffling....she saw the polls.
The "open borders" guys (and they know who they are, they just can't admit it without marginalizing themselves politically) are just as disengenuous. If they came out with their REAL plan, and ANY politician got linked to supporting it...they'd be dead.
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2007 @ 4:29pm
Posted by MASK 11/26/2007 @ 4:29pm
oh sure...anyone with any sense running now should waffle and avoid this topic until elected...then do whatever will alienate half their party and lionize them to half the opposition...lol...
sort of like old bill's "deal with the gays in the military thing first so folks will hopefully forget about it 4 years from now" deal...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/26/2007 @ 4:51pm
GUEST WORKER PROGRAM*, duh!
it works great here.
they pay taxes. they fuel rural economies. they go home, with dollars in tow and help equalize standard of livings.
GUEST WORKER PROGRAM, duh!
*for mexicans et al.
i've met mexicans here illegally who just can't find work cause there's JUST NO PROFIT IN TAKING THE CHANCE.
but there sure are a lot of mexican workers out in those greenhouses.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 5:03pm
JUST NO PROFIT IN TAKING THE CHANCE.
in hiring them, that is.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 5:03pm
i'm the son of british immigrants.
my wife is a mexican* immigrant.
immigration** rules!
*did i ever tell you about our mexican friends who have a "canadian" (i.e. anglo-saxon) nanny?
**well regulated, that is.
thanks, canada***.
and, BTW, canada,
you're welcome.
***i'm sure many of you can say the same about your experience in the u.s. of a.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 5:10pm
KVH, the problems with immigration go a lot deeper than the aspect of giving amnesty or issuing ID's to illegals. Our neighbors south of the border are heavily burdened with corruption and violence. Sometimes I often wonder what Mexico and other central American nations would look like today had they not been under the colonial thumb of Spain?
Posted by ACook at 11/26/2007 @ 5:45pm
KVDH really tip-toes around the huge differences between legal and illegal above, doesn't she? And, while economic studies like the one mentioned have some value, they don't tell the whole story. There are many costs associated with various types of immigration, and there are very significant non-financial costs associated with illegal immigration. For instance, many major banks want to profit from money that was earned illegally, and they then donate to politicians and others that enable them to continue profiting from that illegally-earned money. Even the Federal Reserve [lonewacko.com] wants a slice of the illegally-earned pie. That's what's refered to as political corruption, and it has a very significant price. Perhaps the FPI would like to quantify that and then get back to us.
Posted by HotSopDotCom at 11/26/2007 @ 6:01pm
Posted by ACOOK 11/26/2007 @ 5:45pm
and if north america hadn't been under the colonial thumb of england and/or france?
"Our neighbors south of the border are heavily burdened with corruption and violence."
well, being right next to the world's biggest consumer of drugs (why are they illegal? i can buy a gun.),
sure is going to inspire a lot of nefarious business in order make sure the shipments go through on time.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 6:01pm
Posted by ACOOK
What about being under the economic thumb of their northern neighbor?
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/26/2007 @ 6:01pm
What about being under the economic thumb of their northern neighbor?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/26/2007 @ 6:01pm
uh, that's neighbours. don't forget ¡corporate canada! is pillaging the leftovers of nafta, too.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 6:04pm
Sometimes I often wonder what Mexico and other central American nations would look like today had they not been under the colonial thumb of Spain?
Posted by ACOOK 11/26/2007 @ 5:45pm
oh definately. that, in fact, is the primary reason for the difference between anglo and latin america. the limeys let us run our own show until right before the revolution. when the tried to tighten control we went berserk and made them eff off. but the 175+/- years of british colonial neglect was the prime reason the states were able to be successful. the spanish tried to run everything in the new world, ended up screwing it all up, and the whole area has suffered since...
but this claptrap about the immigrants costing so much strikes me as bullshitty...like frosty said, institute a functional guest worker program and SLAM THE GRINGOS WHO EMPLOY ILLEGALS.
uh oh...thats a lot of heavy campaign donors!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/26/2007 @ 6:05pm
We might get better answers from politicians if journalists asked better questions. Alas, the same plutocratic pressure that reduces politicians' answers to nationalistic monosyllables (HRC's "no" to driver's licenses for immigrants) also reduces journalists' questions: "Do you favor the Spitzer plan: Yes or no?
David R. Jones is right: "The right answer is to enforce basic standards that are good for all low-wage workers, not to pit one group of workers against another."
Andrea Batista Schlesinger is also right: "The ‘immigration debate' is a misnomer […] It's about the future of America and the role of all American workers in that future…. recognizing the economic contributions of immigrants while strengthening their hand in the workplace can define a progressive agenda that will unite both immigrants and native workers."
Wouldn't it be nice if more journalists asked questions using the framework of Jones and Schlesinger, such as: "How would you raise the floor of workers' rights to stop the 'race to the bottom' that is undermining job security for both US-Americans and Mexicans?"
Plutocracy has no problem with nationalistic or even racist myth-making. It sells newspapers and diverts attention from structural problems such as (first and foremost) the unbalanced NAFTA regime, which protects trade but not the sources of tradable goods, namely WORKERS and NATURAL RESOURCES.
Democracy, however, demands journalists who do more than reinforce plutocratic myths with questions that are no less inane, cowardly, and off-target than the answers that they elicit.
Posted by JakobFabian at 11/26/2007 @ 6:13pm
but this claptrap about the immigrants costing so much strikes me as bullshitty...like frosty said, institute a functional guest worker program and SLAM THE GRINGOS WHO EMPLOY ILLEGALS.
uh oh...thats a lot of heavy campaign donors!
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/26/2007 @ 6:05pm
BUT, IF IT'S LEGAL, WAGES GO UP CAUSE THEM WETBACKS GOTTA MAKE MINIMUM WAGE INSTEAD OF THE $4.23 WE BEEN PAYIN' 'EM.
Posted by LOVEMYGARDINER 11/26/2007 @ 6:05pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 6:35pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/26/2007 @ 6:35pm
but what about the live-in illegal sex slave market? oh wait...uh...never mind...
Posted by LOVEMYSEXSLAVE 11/26/2007 @ 6:05pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/26/2007 @ 7:07pm
Actually we could use a few more immigrants from the NORTH of us...
they come down here, get high paying jobs as "starship captains"..."pet detectives"..."international men of mystery"..."girls Lost on islands in the Pacific"...and musicians, of course...and pay a lot in income taxes!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2007 @ 7:51pm
Posted by MASK 11/26/2007 @ 7:51pm
don't forget the "shit disturbers". [naomiklein.org]
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 9:29pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/26/2007 @ 9:29pm
Okay. And don't forget "bull shitters [en.wikipedia.org]!
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2007 @ 9:44pm
Posted by MASK 11/26/2007 @ 9:44pm
and don't forget ambidextrous wizards [nba.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2007 @ 10:07pm
Posted by MASK 11/26/2007 @ 3:57pm
Brilliant post. I couldn't agree more.
Posted by Sliver at 11/27/2007 @ 12:38am
It's been said that the U.S. is the only country in the world that is exporting jobs and importing people. It must be some kind of free market experiment. And it's also been said that the U.S. with 5% of the world's population uses 25% of the world's resources. Therefore when the U.S. quadruples it's population it can at last use 100% of the world's resouces. Something to look forward to. It's definitely in line with the fact that the most pressing problem in the U.S. is the fact that so much of our oil is buried under other people's countries. Thankfully our current administration is in the process of righting that wrong. "We're doomed, pass the champagne!"
Posted by Awestruck! at 11/27/2007 @ 02:44am
i distinctly remember zero defending france, en lieu of the state's decision to strictly enforce its own influx of immigrants, who presumably would replace (costly) indigenous labor.
otherwise, wonderful criticism, zero...
Posted by darladoon at 11/27/2007 @ 03:00am
Therefore when the U.S. quadruples it's population it can at last use 100% of the world's resouces.
Posted by AWESTRUCK! 11/27/2007 @ 02:44am
that's 1.2 billion. just like china.
yikes!
great post.
btw i'd love a glass of that champagne (the real stuff; none of that "freedom champagne".)
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/27/2007 @ 07:45am
VOTE HILLARY (OR ALMOST ANY OTHER ONE!):
"By November of 2002, the U.S. Department of Labor had certified 507,000 workers for extended unemployment benefits because their employers had moved their jobs south of the border. The Department of Labor stopped counting NAFTA job losses, but the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., estimated that NAFTA had eliminated 879,000 jobs. That was five years ago.
But U.S. job loss didn't produce job increases in Mexico - it eliminated them there too. In NAFTA's first year, more than a million jobs disappeared in the economic crisis NAFTA caused. To attract investment in Mexico, the treaty required privatization of factories, railroads and other large enterprises, leading to more layoffs of Mexican workers.
On the border, Ford, General Electric and other corporations built factories and moved production from the United States to take advantage of low wages. But more than 400,000 maquiladora workers lost their jobs in 2000-2001 when U.S. consumers cut back spending in the last recession, and companies found even lower wages in other countries, such as El Salvador or China.
Before NAFTA, U.S. auto plants in Mexico had to buy parts from Mexican factories, which employed thousands of local workers. But NAFTA let the auto giants bring in cheaper parts from their own subsidiaries, so Mexican auto parts workers lost their jobs, too.
The profits of U.S. grain companies, already subsidized under the U.S. farm bill, rose higher when NAFTA allowed them to dump cheap corn on the Mexican market, while at the same time it forced Mexico to cut its agricultural subsidies. As a result, small farmers in Oaxaca and Chiapas couldn't sell corn anymore at a price that would pay the cost of growing it.
When corn farmers couldn't farm, or auto parts and maquiladora workers were laid off, where did they go? They became migrants.
another newsfeed find [thenation.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/27/2007 @ 08:07am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/26/2007 @ 7:07pm
hey dude,
start building a raft,
CAUSE WE'RE MOVING TO NORWAY! [liveleak.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/27/2007 @ 10:02am
"we should have invaded Mexico instead ...cheaper and better for all in the long run as we would have build up Mexicos infrastructure and hopefully cleaned out the corruption down there, which is the real reason Mexicans can't live there or make a living in a land of energy and food self sufficiency with 2 permanent warn water ports..."
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/27/2007 @ 10:06am
One only has to look to our modern infrastructure, corruption-free government, and equitable trade policies to see that your analysis is absolutely spot--on!
Posted by drhammer at 11/27/2007 @ 11:36am
The only positive aspect of issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, or "undocumented" immigrants as KVR candy coats it, is that such a move will at least put them on the books. At that point, with such info at hand when the Feds do nothing to either force their removal or affect their legalization, we will be even more certain of what we learned earlier this year: Namely that the Feds efforts to fix the problem were & are useless, and there is no doubt a conscious effort on their part NOT to fix the problem, for various reasons.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/27/2007 @ 11:45am
Look, the solution is obvious. It isn't open borders and turning the US into the welfare state for Latin America. And it isn't draconian round-ups and building a $50 Billion dollar fence across the Rio Grande that will be as useful in keeping people from coming here illegally...as the Drug War has been at keeping plants and powders from coming here illegally.
You FIX what it is that makes people want to come HERE illegally.
Meaning you push, even threaten Mexico to clean up its act. Get their economy going, by cutting them more favorable trade deals than China or Asia in general. And you make it into a place that Mexicans want to stay and get rich in, without having to bother learning English or dealing with gringo Americanos harassing or looking down on them.
Then spread that southward to Honduras, Guatemala, etc.
You want to fix illegal immigration from Central America....fix Central America.
Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 12:09pm
That's IT Mask... You're OFF my ignore list.
I believe that one of the major tennants of Chritianity is to "be good neighbors"...
...not to profit off of their vulnerabilities.
The war zone stops... when we extend a helping hand.
ttr
Posted by ttr at 11/27/2007 @ 12:55pm
Posted by MASK 11/27/2007 @ 12:09pm | ignore this person
Wow, you should be a nation-builder. Too bad you don't know jack about history or the real reason behind the porous border. Illegal immigrants flooding into the US are creating worker insecurity, for the gringos will be forced to travail for less money, vacation and benefits with all these desperate peasants lining up to do anything to stay the pangs of hunger and send some dollars back to their native countries. (I'm sure you realize that without the millions in remittances that are sent south of the border every year México and most of Central America would fall into anarchy.) They also serve the purpose of scaring the hell out of the average moron (MASK being at the head of the class dressed in motley but in sober earnestness), distracting him from the latest bombing of a defenseless nation, fleecing of the treasury, scandal in Washington, exodus of jobs to India, increase in poverty across Eden despite record profits for the elite, native terrorism in the classrooms and workplaces of L'America, and a whole grotesque orgy of other villainies, abuses, contradictions, failures, broken promises and designer bullshit perpetrated and spouted by the crooks who head the cartel leading the nation down a dim corridor.
Look at what NAFTA did to México. CAFTA is even worse. You need to actually allow democracy before you can "fix" things in these countries, but hell, it's lacking in the USA which explains a lot of the problems there.
Funny you should say "push, even threaten" México (or whomever) to clean up their act. The only pushing and threatening done is to give US corporations more power over the economies of these poor countries, which only creates more injustice, inequality, violence and of course, immigration north in order to escape the worsening conditions (windfall for US corporations). You have to actually care about people and believe in democracy before you can go braying hogwash like MASK. The US does not.
Posted by chimichenga at 11/27/2007 @ 1:00pm
And having lived in Central America for many years, I can tell you that the solution to the uprisings against US imperialism and its murderous, dictatorial agents in the late 70s - early 90s created a boneyard across the region. 30,000 dead in Nicaragua (country of only 3 million at the time), 75,000 in El Sal, almost 200,000 in Guatemala during teh 36-year civil war which began when the CIA and Dulles brothers overthrew Arbenz in 1954, thousands tortured and disappeared in Honduras as fascists took over the country and re-wrote the constitution...
Good neighbor? Americans act as if their impoverished, often uneducated southern neighbors are anxious to leave behind all they know, risk their lives journeying to a foreign land where they understand almost nothing in order to wash dishes or cut grass six or seven days a week for less than minimum wage? It isn't at all their first choice, but they don't even have the tools needed to construct dreams with. Helping hand from the north? That will be the day. It's the north who expects the cheap hands from the south in order to create the conditions you're now seeing (and misunderstanding).
Posted by chimichenga at 11/27/2007 @ 1:13pm
Damn, I just took a look at KVR's Book about English/Republicanisms. Guess I hadn't seen a picture of the cover before. If her stance isn't an attempt to conjour an image of Ann Coulter I don't know what is. Could Annie be her secret role model? Or more??... Heh Heh
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/27/2007 @ 1:29pm
CHIMI
I understand your animus toward MASK, but after digesting what the two of you have to say on the issue, I can't see how you're all that far apart.
Posted by drhammer at 11/27/2007 @ 2:00pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 11/27/2007 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person
???
He's talking about fixing something the US continues to break on purpose. He assumes the nations in Heaven's cellar don't want to "clean up their act" or follow their own path to development and "freedom". The US refuses to see anyone but itself as the primary beneficiaries of the resources in Latin America and is fine seeing others expiate their sins (sawing down the Amazon, for example). Why do you think groups such as the Tupamaros, FARC, ELN, Zapatistas, FMLN, Sandinistas, Sendero Luminoso and various others were born across Latin America?
Posted by chimichenga at 11/27/2007 @ 2:09pm
Tell you a story, Chimi, about the effects of our imperialist leadership on Latin America. According to Candice Millard, author of The River of Doubt, Theodore Roosevelt stopped off in Chile before making his descent down the river in Brazil. There were more than a few locals who intended to stage a rally and wreck his speech. In spite of their presence, or perhaps because of it. He answered questions about the Panama Canal and his previous policies. He said he built it because he honestly believed it would bring a measure of prosperity to people in the world, that it was the best overall thing to do in the name of progress, and if he had the opportunity he would do exactly the same again, because it was a noble deed and worth doing. At the end of his speech, his detractors stood up and cheered. The man they had come to deride. They cheered him.
Maybe we don't always handle things right in other parts of the world: Certainly we didn't in the 70's. On the other hand, maybe its time to consider just how screwed up some of these third world countries would be today if the we & the West hadn't intervened in there lives.
After all, intervening in other people's lives whether they need it or not: Isn't that what libs do? (heh)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/27/2007 @ 2:12pm
Posted by TTR 11/27/2007 @ 12:55pm
We give them a hand UP, not hand-out, TTR. Again, just enough for them to be a place to stay in, rather than run from.
Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 2:27pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 11/27/2007 @ 2:00pm
There's only ONE paradigm of CHIMICHENGA thinking, Doc....
"The US does not."----Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/27/2007 @ 1:00pm
Like a spoiled kid whose parents give him everything he wants, CHIMI hates the source of his lifestyle...in this case, his "personal out-country ATM machine"...the USA, who him lambasts for everything and ANYTHING, until he runs out of cash in Medellin and then has to hop a flight, forcefully flash his US passport, get some more dinero and then hop back down to Colombia to bitch about the place he got the cash from.
And of course hates me for pointing it out.
Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 2:31pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/27/2007 @ 2:12pm | ignore this person
I'm hip to your groove, but listen:
Look at the geography of Central America and you'll see a river in between Nicaragua and Costa Rica called the Río San Juan. It flows from Lago de Nicaragua out to the Caribbean. The English used to raid the colonial city of Granada all the time using this route, which is why there's a fort built along the river in La Mosquitia (Mosquito Coast) along the river called El Castillo from whence the Spanish fought off other marauders. The canal was originally supposed to be built here utilizing the natural water way then perhaps doing some digging from the lake out to San Juan del Sur. Other options included using Río Punta Gorda. In reality, Nicaragua was used as a trade route between NY and San Fran for a time before William Walker entered Nicaragua with hopes of becoming emperor and turning Central America into an extension of slave plantations for the south. Of course, he only worsened the state of this already impoverished nation.
The plans were set for Nicaragua, contracts signed by Vanderbilt and all details were laid out, but the US had to one-up the French who failed to build a canal in Panama. The threat of the volcanoes in Lago de Nicaragua were a hoax for they are far from the intended route that would be used. In the end the Panama Canal was very much a waste of money and resulted in almost 30,000 deaths, for most of the route was formed by nature through Nicaragua and would have cost much less to complete.
Posted by chimichenga at 11/27/2007 @ 2:37pm
Posted by MASK 11/27/2007 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person
Blah, blah, blah. I make an effort to see the world, live it and learn history from the horse's mouth. What great destiny does your money enjoy? You surely don't go anywhere. I've seen more than you'll ever see and will always have more cojónes than you. I can bitch about anything I want, for I have no allegiance to anyone or anything. Money is a means to an end. What, should I become a pauper or bindle stiff? Get real. You're a poltroon and everyone here knows it.
You can whine all you want but in the end I'll always thrust my sword through your swinish posts - and with panache - before you even know what clout you. Travel is an education, no matter what currency it is purchased with. You're just another Nowhere Man, a simple Don No One who knows inside that he doesn't have what it takes to traverse Colombia, much less most other places outside this blog (hence his omnipresence as first-poster, one of the saddest rituals I can presently imagine). You'd want to have a mask on your face here, not just to hide your hoggish head (full of bogus nostrums) from the locals but also to cover the shiners I'd like to donate to your face before tipping you with a kick in the arse. Then I'll throw back a cerveza with my amigos, whistle at some cuties and ask you how you like Colombian apples...
Posted by chimichenga at 11/27/2007 @ 2:52pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/27/2007 @ 2:09pm
Well, the comment about forcing Mexico to "clean up its act" aside, it sounded to me like he was advocating trade policies that didn't plunder our neighbors to the point that their citizens couldn't even subsist in their home countries. I may be giving MASK more credit for liberal thought than he deserves, but the bulk of his comments resonated with me.
Personally, I see the issue as another fear-inducing rhetorical tool employed by politicians to wind up the base. It's not that we don't have a problem per se, but, as you asserted, it's one that no one in power really seems to want to remedy.
I don't see how anyone could doubt that our neoliberal rape of Central and South American nations has made most of their their citizens poorer, and life for the poorest untenable. No one I've spoken to from that part of the world mentions our streets paved with gold; the inability to support one's family is the dynamic at play. Why would anyone risk everything to come here if they could lead a decent life at home?
We get to profit at their expense, then paint them as the bogeymen.
Posted by drhammer at 11/27/2007 @ 3:05pm
Posted by MASK 11/27/2007 @ 2:31pm
Silly me. I thought you might elaborate on your post, despite the risk of being seen looking for the common ground.
You are painfully predictable.
Posted by drhammer at 11/27/2007 @ 3:11pm
You know, Chimi, I remember writing to Carter when the "perpetuity" controversy came up in '76 suggesting we build a new one through Nicaraugua. Looked back on it later and thought Carter probably thought "dumb college kid" till I read further and discovered lots of people, including us in our efforts to keep the French out, considered it an option.
I'm not sure I agree that its' been a waste all these years, although in any serious war today, one well placed Hiroshima sized missle would turn it back into (truely) impenatrable jungle. then its back to the Cape!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/27/2007 @ 3:12pm
BTW, save me a cutie (Ha!)
MASK No offence, I like Cuties! Sue Me!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/27/2007 @ 3:13pm
"We get to profit at their expense, then paint them as the bogeymen."
You bet. But the US has done this with immigrants throughout history. Does the mafia represent Italian-Americans? Does MS-13 symbolize the people of El Salvador? Are all Colombians drug mules? Are Arabs invariably "Islamofascists"? Did some "Coolies" toking their opium represent all those who built the US railroads or the Panama Canal? Were the Irish in the mid-19th century better known for ruling Five Points as drunken bandits or for fighting México as US citizens?
Posted by chimichenga at 11/27/2007 @ 3:17pm
Posted by MASK 11/27/2007 @ 2:31pm
Silly me. I thought you might elaborate on your post, despite the risk of being seen looking for the common ground.
You are painfully predictable.
Posted by DRHAMMER 11/27/2007 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person
I'll second that!
Posted by cka2nd at 11/27/2007 @ 3:28pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/27/2007 @ 2:52pm
See, here's the diff, CHIMI.
I'd go to Colombia, compliment its people, its food, even its "cuties", etc. And constructively criticize anything I see to constructively criticize.
YOU on the other hand, have one large and over-riding principle..."America sucks". And the reason you feel that way doesn't have a damn thing to do with how the US treated Central and South America in the past....if you lived in France, you'd complain about the US...if you lived in Papua New Guinea, you'd complain about how America treated them during the War.
If it was about constructive criticism, you wouldn't LEAP at any thread you get on to discuss SOME aspect of "how it's America's fault"....
Well, if you REALLY felt that America was so "vile and corrupt"...you wouldn't be PROFITING off of its vileness and corruption, by coming up here every few months to "earn" (never fully explained that) more money to go back to Medellin. You'd get a job in Colombia and earn Colombian pesos and REALLY live like a Colombian...and not a rich American living in Colombia.
See...everytime now that somebody reads your complaints about America and how awful it is...I want them (and you) to keep in the back of their minds...
"...and CHIMI is LIVING off of that evil, the whole time he complains about it!"
You (and DRHAMMER) want to discuss common ground and working on the economies of Central and South America to help their people....it doesn't start with "America sucks, they exploit the peons for their wealth....now, I (CHIMI) am running low on cash, so let me go back there and get some of that wealth so that I can come back down here, live amongst the peons, and complain on an AMERICAN blog about how rotten the USA is, to assuage my conscience!"
Sorry, DRHAMMER, I don't make common cause with hypocrites.
Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 3:38pm
Posted by CKA2ND 11/27/2007 @ 3:28pm
CKA...you can read the above too.
Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 3:39pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/27/2007 @ 3:13pm
As far as CHIMI and the cuties....isn't the term...
"sexual tourism"?
Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 3:41pm
The fact is, the "labor-left" argument in the debate over illegal immigration has been largely marginalized by the mainstream media, the right-wing and the nativists in both camps. As usual, the debate has been framed in its most narrow terms, and on the grounds favored by various factions of the ruling class: "Allow us our guest workers or illegals who we can continue to exploit at will." vs. "Take control of the borders! Restore the national manufacturing base! Buy off the working and middle classes before they get really pissed off and decide to re-run the 30's or the 60's!"
Force the government to require fair treatment for all workers, legal or not, including unionization, wages, benefits, health and safety. Force the politicians to vote down any more free trade deals that sell out the working class in any country. Look to the mutually beneficial agreements being made between some of the Latin American countries today in opposition to said free trade agreements, and independent of the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO. Make the Feds increase the number of legal immigrants allowed so there's less pressure to become illegal, but don't let corporate America target the legal slots to particular jobs so they can save money on training and education. Force the damn South to raise itself up to true first world status (schools, labor laws, etc.) so that the world's corporations can't offshore jobs to it like it was a third world country (Too bad Reconstruction ended when it did!). Force capital to invest in this country without playing states off against each other. When investing abroad, regulate capital closely.
Hell, a socialist revolution would be nice, sooner than later, but till then, a mobilized working class independent of the twin parties of capital and fighting on behalf of the public at large sounds pretty good to me. Pussy footing around with supposed "friends of labor" and cutting sell-out deal after sell-out deal with the bosses is worthless. Solidarity!
By the way, I'm not an "Open Borders" absolutist. Some on the left are, but there are circumstances where I could see why a country should restrict entry to a greater or lesser degree. The U.S., as the richest country in the world and one of the largest, does not fit any of those circumstances, beyond the demands of reasonable administration.
Posted by cka2nd at 11/27/2007 @ 3:55pm
Force the damn South to raise itself up to true first world status (schools, labor laws, etc.) so that the world's corporations can't offshore jobs to it like it was a third world country (Too bad Reconstruction ended when it did!).----Posted by CKA2ND 11/27/2007 @ 3:55pm
I assume by "South" you mean "South of the Rio Grande", CKA.
Otherwise, not sure how them evil corps are "offshoring jobs" to "Dixie"...nor how it's a "major problem" (given China and India).
Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 3:59pm
Typical, Mask. Rather than deal with the content of what Chimi wrote, you villify his personal circumstances, or at least what you've been able to glean about them. Even a hypocrite can be right sometimes. Ditto an ignorant ass like you, as I've noted on occasion.
If I can find common cause with Bob Barr and Dirk Armey, for God's sake, when it comes to defending civil liberties, maybe you could really read and absorb what Chimi wrote instead of just dismissing it as the pissings of a self-hating but hypocritical American.
Posted by cka2nd at 11/27/2007 @ 4:02pm
No, Mask, I mean the U.S. South, bad ol' Dixie. German, Japanese and Korean automakers are opening factories all over the South, every one of which is non-union at the moment. Bad for their home country workers, and bad for ours since these plants have hiring practices that are keeping out veteran U.S. autoworkers, i.e., former UAW members.
Not to mention that Northern (U.S.) Capital has used the South as its own domestic third world for a century or more, moving jobs - or threatening to do so - there to save money, free themselves from health and safety regulations or to bust a strike or become "union-free."
Posted by cka2nd at 11/27/2007 @ 4:09pm
MASK,
If I go to the US it's mainly to see friends and aging family. I don't disrespect everyone as much as I do you. So I scrape a few dollars here and there - I do fine in Colombia because there are no foreigners here, which means money is much better as I'm a novelty in a sense. (I'm also quite adept at keeping busy and getting recompensed in the process.)
If you don't agree with my complaints you're free to speak out against them. As I've said 1001 times, if the US would just admit to being an empire bent on world domination I'd respect it a lot more, and I'd think more of the dolts who see the Jolly Roger masquerading as Old Glory. It's that simple.
Of course you'd be the last person to appear to be an Ugly American and you'd give coins to lepers, feed children and try to make sense of the opulence on one side of the street opposite the indigence on the other. You'd cry foul at Uribe for the disparities of Bogotá, Cali or Medellín, curse the FARC and paramilitaries while singing hosannas to the efforts to reduce coca production despite the fact that it poisons the water, destroys legitimate crops like cocoa and puts farmers at the mercy of hunger. Blah, blah, blah.
Just stick to your little cranny in Nowhere, USA and do your work for humanity with your bland little utterances on this blog. You're a hero, MASK. Colombia (like most, if not all of Latin America) will remain a place on a map for you. At least I make an effort to leave footprints. Your feet spend more time in that tireless mouth of yours than anywhere else.
Posted by chimichenga at 11/27/2007 @ 4:52pm
Posted by CKA2ND 11/27/2007 @ 4:09pm
CKA, what are those auto workers making in "bad ol' Dixie" an hour?
Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 8:17pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/27/2007 @ 4:52pm
And CHIMI, the USA will be a place on the map for you....to deride and run down...
between trips up here to "scrape a few dollars here and there", before going back down to Colombia and act like you're "just folks" and talk about those "evil rich exploitive Americans".
Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 8:18pm
we should have invaded Mexico instead ...cheaper and better for all in the long run as we would have build up Mexicos infrastructure and hopefully cleaned out the corruption down there, which is the real reason Mexicans can't live there or make a living in a land of energy and food self sufficiency with 2 permanent warn water ports...
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/27/2007 @ 10:06am
you've gotten even more crass........................
how arrogant.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/27/2007 @ 10:23pm
Mask... are you trying to say that the concept of "evil rich exploitive Americans" is entirely a product of Chimi's "self hatred"? Couldn't you... just for the sake of fairness... admit to the truth behind the admonishments? Sure.. he's a vequero bandolero... all bravado and six guns... On the other hand, why do you avoid the 'gist', and attack the poster? I'm amazed at the snoopy lengths you go to in your quest to delegitimise these blogsters... while at the same time... exposing little or nothing about yourself.
The smarmy creep award is looming... it's not too late to change your ways!
Anyway, I did find myself thinking about KVH's article today... and this 'immigration issue' is no small potato now is it...? My previous post here was made as I was running out the door... 'cause, no, I don't work at the computer... and may have been confusing to many.
It seems to me, that Mexico and beyond... looking south from the US... ought to be 'officially' treated with respect by US foreign policy with a 'hands off' approach to their internal affairs. By encouraging, and perhaps even maintaining, the practical economic development 'of choice' by the fledgeling democracies as they 'come of age'... we make ourselves stronger. I believe it is of the utmost importance that US citizens be more aware of how powerful US influence is, and has been, in Central and South America... places many folks here in the states deem to be "less fortunate" and in need of 'guidance'...
But in fact... the majority of the 'guidance' actually delivered has been manipulative and quite disparaging to the establishment of 'free democracy'... and this 'policy'... consistantly carried out over a hundred years... (if not a thousand...;^)) has left a 'few scars'... leading to the unassailable conflicts of intrest faced by good, potentially hard working artists all over the world.
And now... from the 'warm hearts' of liberal America, afraid as we are of making waves with the source of our conundrums... we try to make it all better by welcoming as many 'refugees' as is charitably possible... on iffy terms, and outlawish premises... under the steamy presumption of profit for all.
And for those of us, like myself, who choose to work with their hands in an artful way... both guiding and accomplishing the labour... with our brains, body and soul... for the betterment and beautification of our hometowns and local communities... for spiritual as well as health reasons... it is WE who are disenfranchised. And thus... one of the foremost and original pillars of the 'American dream', namely the artisan... standing squarely in the path of the 'charity work' of the 'deciders' on one side, and big business on the other... becomes the object of ridicule.
Meanwhile... the industrial capacity of the American people and the creative quality worker that made America great... ...( f i l l i n t h e b l a n k )...
ttr
Posted by ttr at 11/27/2007 @ 10:33pm
Posted by TTR 11/27/2007 @ 10:33pm
TTR, CHIMI is perfectly welcome to preach against "evil exploitive rich Americans" all he wants....
but then he doesn't get to come up here, grab some quick cash (cash MADE by that "evil exploitive rich American economy"), go back down to Colombia and act all high-n-mighty about how he's not part of the exploitation!
Funny how you convey "smarmy creep" on me...and don't see that in CHIMI. And the reason is obvious...you share his political views therefore you overlook his hypocrisy...making yourself one as well.
On an "Animal Farm" kick lately, but Orwell missed an important character...he needed ANOTHER pig, named, oh, Ex-pat, who would stay out in the barn with the other animals, talk about how evil and exploitive the pigs in the Manor House were...and then sneak off to eat the fancy food with them or sleep in one of the human beds every so often....before coming back to the barn to tell the animals how evil and exploitive the other pigs were for sleeping in beds and eating the fancy food!
Posted by Mask at 11/27/2007 @ 10:37pm
Ms. VH,
In your 800+ word essay on immigration, the word "illegal" appears twice; once each in the final two paragraphs. You ignore this component of the discussion but 70% of New York residents did not. Speaking of percentages, what percent of NY CEOs, accountants, office clerks, receptionists and building cleaners are in this country illegally?
Posted by Econ Major at 11/27/2007 @ 10:55pm
i see many people here saying "mexicans need to fix their seriously messed up deal"
yep. messed up stuff there, no doubt.
colonialism usually leaves a big mess.
20th century u.s. supported one-party PRI rule for 73 years.
i imagine they meddled in 2006 election.
american mandated neo-liberal economic policy since the 90's really mucked up the poor. and made some new billionaires.
obviously not all america's fault, but the meddling hasn't been helpful.
if someone responds, i'll elaborate.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/27/2007 @ 10:59pm
Mask... you are tiresome... ad hominem retorts are a fascist's feast...
I am in no danger of 'accepting' Chimi's point of view. I see it as a parody of the hollywood ex-pat rumination... a Mosquito Coast bummer, if you will... and it serves as light entertainment for the 'ex hippy' in all of us. I didn't think it even deserved comment, but as usual, you INSIST on provoking a banal reply from a fellow blogster.
ttr
Posted by ttr at 11/27/2007 @ 11:34pm
MASK,
Funny you should criticize me for making a few dollars (but of course without the slighest inkling how) after apparently seeing the places I've visited. Didn't catch the week in the jungle when I went out to Ciudad Perdida and slept in hammocks draped in mosquito nets - and busted my knee for good measure on the grueling march through the most dense forest I've ever seen (which was also being bombarded by the Colombian military at regular intervals)? I've put plenty out there for public inspection - thoughts, pictures, experiences - yet you make me out to be some rich kid who lives it up and stays in 5-star hotels while chortling over martinis as I sling arrows at the US. Freelance English classes make me an elitist?
I believe in the brutality of honesty. Where are your private memoirs and pictures? That's why you use the moniker MASK - you're a humbugger.
Posted by chimichenga at 11/28/2007 @ 01:06am
PHOENIX (AP) - A 9-year-old boy looking for help after his mother crashed their van in the southern Arizona desert was rescued by a man entering the U.S. illegally, who stayed with him until help arrived the next day, an official said.
The 45-year-old woman, who eventually died while awaiting help, had been driving on a U.S. Forest Service road in a remote area just north of the Mexican border when she lost control of her van on a curve on Thanksgiving, Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said.
The van vaulted into a canyon and landed 300 feet from the road, he said. The woman, from Rimrock, north of Phoenix, survived the impact but was pinned inside, Estrada said.
Her son, unhurt but disoriented, crawled out to get help and was found about two hours later by Jesus Manuel Cordova, 26, of Magdalena de Kino in the northern Mexican state of Sonora. Unable to pull the mother out, he comforted the boy while they waited for help.
The woman died a short time later.
"He stayed with him, told him that everything was going to be all right," Estrada said.
As temperatures dropped, he gave him a jacket, built a bonfire and stayed with him until about 8 a.m. Friday, when hunters passed by and called authorities, Estrada said. The boy was flown to University Medical Center in Tucson as a precaution but appeared unhurt.
"We suspect that they communicated somehow, but we don't know if he knows Spanish or if the gentleman knew English," Estrada said of the boy.
"For a 9-year-old it has to be completely traumatic, being out there alone with his mother dead," Estrada said. "Fortunately for the kid, (Cordova) was there. That was his angel."
Cordova was taken into custody by Border Patrol agents, who were the first to respond to the call for help. He had been trying to walk into the U.S. when he came across the boy.
The boy and his mother were in the area camping, Estrada said. The woman's husband, the boy's father, had died only two months ago. The names of the woman and her son were not being released until relatives were notified.
Cordova likely saved the boy, Estrada said, and his actions should remind people not to quickly characterize illegal immigrants as criminals.
"They do get demonized for a lot of reasons, and they do a lot of good. Obviously this is one example of what an individual can do," he said.
Posted by Lillian at 11/28/2007 @ 03:17am
Frosty
You should read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine".
Scholarly, but very accessible.
(And disturbing.)
Posted by drhammer at 11/28/2007 @ 08:38am
Posted by LILLIAN 11/28/2007 @ 03:17am
Assuming that your report is acccurate, it would appear that...
...in less than a day, Jesus Manuel Cordova did more in the name of humanity than Tom Tancredo will in his whole sorry, fear-mongering life.
Posted by drhammer at 11/28/2007 @ 08:45am
I am in no danger of 'accepting' Chimi's point of view. I see it as a parody of the hollywood ex-pat rumination... a Mosquito Coast bummer, if you will...----Posted by TTR 11/27/2007 @ 11:34pm
I believe that's what I was saying, too, TTR.
Posted by Mask at 11/28/2007 @ 09:46am
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/28/2007 @ 01:06am
You want to bash "fat, rich America" and live like a Colombian???
Live like a Colombian, not as a fat, rich American in Colombia!
Posted by Mask at 11/28/2007 @ 09:48am
Posted by DRHAMMER 11/28/2007 @ 08:45am
i learned a lot about humanity and friendship from my mexican brothers and sisters.
a lot.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/28/2007 @ 10:26am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/28/2007 @ 10:26am | ignore this person
And I learned a LOT about hard work, saving, sacrifice, and devotion to family from my hispanic friends, family members, and co-workers.
What's funny is how, when the talk is of the war in Iraq, Bush bashing, etc., the wingnuts LOVE to cry about how 'the good news never gets reported.'
However, when the story is about illegal immigrants risking everything to find a better life here, and all of the 'good' things that routinely come from thier blood, sweat, and sacrifice, all we hear from the wingnuts is...
...crickets.
Posted by Lillian at 11/29/2007 @ 12:36am
Granted, US interference has contributed to problems in parts of Latin America, especially over the last century. But many of these Ibero-American societies have existed for more than 400 years, yet most of them are still trying to get their act together (striving toward but not yet fully reaching the rule of law, real democracy nationally and locally, an expansive civil society, relatively low levels of corruption, reduced income extremes, women's rights such as legal abortion, healthcare, etc.). I'm not trying to say these societies should be remade in the US image--there are certainly flaws in that image. But why can't Mexico or Bolivia or Argentina achieve something like what Canada, for example, has achieved? Canada is by most measures one of the best countries in the world to live in. How about Norway, a country that beats out even Canada. Norway has North Sea oil today, but that has only been a factor in recent decades. Before that, Norway's natural resources were run-of-the-mill: fish, some arable land, waterpower, and trees. Why can't Venezuela or Ecuador achieve what Norway achieved even before it found oil? How about aiming for societies on a par with New Zealand's? Or South Korea's or Malaysia's or Taiwan's?
There are some glimmers of hope. Altho Argentina was a wealthy society in the 19th century which fell far in the 20th century, it has now at least gone beyond military juntas and fascist dictatorships. Chile seems to be a bright spot as does Brazil--but the latter with all the favelas and the landless peasants and the coppers shooting down street kids hardly looks like a "developed country."
As far as I'm concerned, Latin America is welcome to join the developed nations of the world and do so in a manner that accommodates its cultures (Uncle Sam couldn't get away with preventing it even if he wanted to). So how's about it?
Posted by feinfein at 11/30/2007 @ 03:28am