[Peace-discuss] Immigration and Black workers

[Mike Mulberry]

Barbara, Karen, et al,

 

Great questions and good systems and structures piece from James Thindwa.

 

I think, Karen, this analysis is done anectdotally.  I was confronted by an
African-American woman after I made a presentation on immigration for our
wider church in Chicago.  She referenced relatives who "shrimped" on the
Mississippi delta and had lost their jobs to undocumented workers.  This
example points out the reality that President Bush is wrong.  Undocumented
workers are not taking the jobs Americans do not want.  Americans cannot
make a living on the pay at which those jobs are offered.  The pay, in fact,
may be illegal for someone we can document.  But even though these
experiences may be more of an exception rather than a rule, anecdotal
evidence can be the strongest because it generally comes out of your own
experience.  So we have to invite folks to see a bigger picture.

 

Remember that this is how class narrative always plays out.  Jews and Greeks
killed each other in first century Rome (The baptismal formula Paul quotes
in his letter to the political associations in Galatia:  "There is neither
Jew nor Greek..in Christ Jesus"), Korean grocers and African American folk
exploding in south central L.A. after the Rodney King verdict.  Divide and
conquer, displace blame and now nobody ever asks, "What do we have in
common?" or "What is the reason we are competing for the same low-paying
job?"

 

Depending on how we define amnesty (if amnesty does not provide a path to
citizenship we have the same nameless, faceless work force to exploit),
amnesty may very well provide for the status quo and cut against the grain
of what solidarity groups seek:  an immigration policy that is secure,
ordered, and more humane.  Drugs and terrorism are real problems.  To allow
ten to twelve million people to remain nameless and faceless creates not
only the situation Mr. Thindwa describes, but also is a real security risk.
Big business profits from these folk remaining nameless and faceless (the
masses, "the ochlos" in New Testament understanding).  I believe the Bush
Administration proposal will keep folk nameless and faceless because of the
gauntlet it proposes while peppering in raids to show the American public
the executive is on the job.  The incredible danger is how the executive
branch can use discretion and target enemies or rivals with these raids.  

 

Finally, the current immigration crisis came about through U.S. foreign,
economic, and trade policy.  That is at the root of all this.  That is why
this discussion is so problematic.  We have to once again critique the
United States government (way beyond parties) to suggest that we cannot dump
tons of cheap corn into Mexico.  We call farmers thrown off their land as
just "part of economic reality.  But if these same farmers then decide to
cross the border to make a living for their families, that is to be resisted
with armed force.  The whole immigration policy and process is generating
tremendous wealth for agribusiness in the United States.  That agribusiness
has a nameless, faceless work force, however, which allows it to avoid
payments into our wider social service networks.  As a result, all the
wealth undocumented workers generate within our economy tends to go toward
huge big business.  The money undocumented workers take out tends to come
from social services.  (Although Social Security receives payments for which
it will never pay out in the future as employers take advantage of the
transitory nature of undocumented workers to register false names for Social
Security.)

 

Immigration touches on the injustice in our tax code, food justice, the
environment, labor relations, and, perhaps worst of all and hidden from our
view, the oppression of indigenous peoples (who are/were largely farmers).
For me, faith is the only thing that keeps me going on this issue.  I just
keep walking and do the next just thing.  The whole things seems too
daunting for me to think in any other way.

 

Hope that did not confuse things more.  But thanks for the discussion.

 

Grace and peace,

Mike Mulberry.  

"Courage is the first virtue.  Without it, none of the other virtues are
possible."--Rev. William Sloane Coffin

 

Community United Church

805 S. Sixth Street

Champaign, IL  61820

217-344-5091

www.community-ucc.org

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Medina [mailto:kmedina at uiuc.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:30 AM
To: Peace Discuss List; Mike Mulberry
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Immigration and Black workers

 

Dear Barbara,

 

That was a really good message from James Thindwa.

 

I have a question that is somewhat unrelated, but have been curious about. 

 

When women entered the work force, some people were predicting that women
would take the jobs of men and male unemployment would be a problem. But
from what I have experienced in my 43 years of living is that a larger
workforce has increased the demand for more workers -- more childcare
facilities, more restaurants, more time-saving services so that working
people can actually go to work. 

 

I don't understand how legal immigrant workers are seen to take the jobs of
citizens. If they are kept as illegal workers, then yes, they would be
taking the jobs of others and  not entering the economic exchange which
includes both a supply and an increased demand.

 

-karen medina

 

---- Original message ----

>Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:27:05 -0500

>From: "Barbara kessel" <barkes at gmail.com>  

>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Immigration and Black workers  

>To: "Peace Discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>, "Mike
Mulberry" <mike at community-ucc.org>, sf-core <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>

> 

>I wrote to ask James Thindwa, the Illinois Director of Jobs with

>Justice and a Black American organizer and writer, for his views on

>the subject that Jenifer Cartwright has put before us on

>Peace-discuss. He responded...

> 

>Barbara, re. "Another view of amnesty for illegal workers," here is what

>I think, and feel free to distribute, even in edited form.:

> 

>It is beyond dispute that undocumented immigration disproportionately

>impacts low wage, mostly African American workers. The debate ought to

>be about what the solution is.

> 

>Certainly, Black Americans should view with suspicion the right wing's

>newfound interest in their economic plight. If Republicans cared about

>low wage black workers, they would have supported the proposed minimum

>wage hike, living wage protocols across the country and health care

>reform, all of which disproportionately impact poor blacks. So, we know

>their motives are suspect. They are simply exploiting the plight of

>black workers to advance an anti-immigrant agenda.

> 

>The fact is, what conservatives are prescribing as a solution will

>exacerbate, rather than ameliorate, the job crisis in the black community.

>Their insistence on punitive measures to further isolate and marginalize

>immigrants will guarantee a permanent reservoir of exploitable labor for

>employers. Undocumented immigrants with no rights cannot exercise basic

>workplace rights, such as joining a union. That is exactly what

>employers want. That vulnerability is what puts downward pressure on

>wages and hurts native born workers.

> 

>If we agree that it is not feasible to deport 12 million undocumented

>people, then we must ask: what is the best solution? Our (the

>progressive) solution that calls for status legalization will confer

>rights on undocumented immigrants, and thus deny employers the cheap

>labor they want. With their newfound rights, immigrant workers can work

>with African American workers to build power in the workplace, form or

>join unions and fight for better wages-together. They can join other

>movements and organize around a broader, far reaching political agenda

>that includes national health care, global warming, school funding, Iraq

>War, post-Bush civil rights restoration, and so on.

> 

>We need to force a public debate on these two alternative visions of

>immigration reform. The marginalization course sought by conservatives

>will ensure continued distress for low wage American workers, while the

>more humane, morally compelling course advocated by progressives

>promises to benefit both categories of workers, is consistent with

>American constitutional tenets of "freedom and equality for all" and

>imposes accountability on policy makers who have supported NAFTA-style

>trade deals. Indeed, policy makers should be put on the defensive for

>these trade agreements. That NAFTA and CAFTA have exacerbated

>undocumented immigration is no longer debatable. Where is the

>accountability of the politicians who continue to push these trade

>deals, even as we speak? I think we spend way too much time defending

>immigrants, instead of attacking trade policy. The Democrats and

>Republicans who gave us these trade agreements should be put on trial,

>not their immigrant victims.

> 

>Finally, we should force Americans to reflect on what America will look

>like with 12 million people existing on the margins of politics and

>economy, devoid of all rights? Is that an America people can be

>comfortable with? And about the "border wall" as a solution, few believe

>it will work, and in a post-Cold War Era, this should be an insult to

>those who celebrate "freedom."

> 

>James Thindwa

>_______________________________________________

>Peace-discuss mailing list

>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net

>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070607/9b57d9ab/attachment.html