Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5/12/2005 - NEO - CON munists on Border issues...and should there be an "American Union" like the "European Union" to end illegal immigration??? NO - it's to UN-racists !!

Expand Messages
  • Al Soto
    Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 09:45:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Blazingstar Subject: Neo-con fascism wrapped in racism MODNOTE: Fascio-racist
    Message 1 of 1 , May 12, 2005
       Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 09:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
         From: Blazingstar <changingworks@...>
      Subject: Neo-con fascism wrapped in racism

      MODNOTE: Fascio-racist neo-cons and their liberal counterparts should not be permitted, to
      establish, control and regulate the "immigration debate." The best action humanitarians
      (non-racists) can take against this fascio-racist movement is to actively support, promote and work toward the establishment of an American Union (AU), basically modelled after the European Union (EU), wherein citizens of all member-nations can live, work and travel freely from member-nation to member-nation throughout the Americas.

      To participate in the "legal vs. illegal immigration" debate is to promote the fascio-racist neo-con agenda aimed at exploiting, impoverishing and oppressing La Raza even more.

      La Raza does not want its gente to be forced to violate immigration law, La Raza wants U.S. laws, rules and regulations changed, to permit Latinas and Latinos, to live, work and travel freely, up and down the Americas much like Europeans live, work and travel throughout the European Union.

      Neo-cons want an apartheid regime in the White House that permits the minority
      (European-Americans) to treat the majority in the Americas (La Raza) as inferior people, much like Pretoria treated Africa's Black majority under apartheid. Their liberal counterparts may not
      want White apartheid per se, but the do want Aryan-American supremacy over La Raza -- and over all other people of color -- maintained and preserved for their own ethnocentric purposes.

      "Liberty, equality and justice for all" will not
      exist in the U.S. until these basic human rights
      are guaranteed to all people in the Americas, not
      just to Aryan-Americans and their European
      buddies in the upper classes.

      For example, Chicanas, Chicanos and other
      full-fledged U.S. citizens of color are still
      treated like second-class citizens in our own
      country, while Europeans who visit the U.S. are
      often treated like royalty, or at least as equals
      to Anglo-Americans.

      Why are European visitors and immigrants treated
      so much better than U.S. citizens of color by
      most Anglo-Americans and the U.S. government? And
      why are European visitors and immigrants
      preferred over American visitors and immigrants
      from Mexico, Central and South America, and from
      outlying territories like Haiti?

      Today's U.S. immigration policies and practices
      take all this obvious Aryan-American racism into
      account. This racism has been woven into
      immigration law, to ensure White supremacy
      throughout the Americas for so long as the rivers

      The Minutemaid "legal vs. illegal immigration"
      rhetoric incorporates this institutionalized
      racism into every word, dot and tittle spewed out
      for public consumption, as if being a "true
      American" means being a stone-cold racist.

      Humanitarians need to transcend this racist
      paradigm, by advocating for an American Union
      throughout the Americas. There will be no
      liberty, equality or justice for anyone until
      there is liberty, equality and justice for all.


        Neo-Con Logic at the Border

      A Too Convenient Crisis?
      .........  by Greg Moses  May 12, 2005  

        Texas Civil Rights Review
        At first, I wasn�t sure whether Gov.
      Schwarzenegger was caught winging it when he
      praised border vigilantes as good citizens
      patching up bad government. But as he repeated
      the account in Sunday's interview with Chris
      Wallace, I began to suspect that all these signs
      are beginning to take the appearance of a
      coherent political strategy.

      Between all the lines of nonsense posted by
      xenophobic dupes of the neo-con regime, there are
      two suggestions that crop up in internet
      discussion which hint at broad policy objectives:
      send the national guard to the border and get a
      work permit system going.

      Since the national guard suggestion is often
      accompanied by anti-terrorist rhetoric, the
      logical model feels like neo-cons coming home to
      roost. Militarize the borderland in the name of
      national security (with infrastructure projects
      outsourced to buddy contractors?).

      And capture the cheap labor coming North in a
      regime of temp workers who will be thoroughly
      fingerprinted and photographed. Just as prisoners
      are often the ones made to build prisons, I have
      visions of Mexican workers building their own
      Northern wall.

      Maybe I�m just being paranoid, but this whipped
      up border crisis when viewed in light of
      "spontaneous" suggestions coming from "concerned
      citizens" is beginning to look like a PR pincer,
      easing us all in the direction of a militarized
      and "secure" (get the word right Arnold!)
      interface between USA and global South. Not only
      do we have Bracero on steroids for Mexicans, but
      we also get new reasons to draft Yankees into
      military defense.

      A November review of immigration politics written
      by David Bacon connects dots of a steady
      political drive toward the "guest worker" idea.
      It is the policy most favored by corporate
      players, and they have worked for five years at
      getting the program ready for Congress to

      Paradoxically, says Bacon, the experience of
      immigrants suggests that a Bracero program of
      guest permits would actually disempower migrants
      by making them more exploitable than even today's
      undocumented workers.

      Yet critics who argue that illegal immigration
      serves corporate interests don't go on to say
      that legalizing this immigration through a system
      of guest permits would be even better for the
      corporate interests involved.

      Under a work-permit program, immigrants would be
      attached to designated corporate sponsors and not
      be allowed to place their labor into competition
      with other employers. A troublesome worker under
      Bracero supervision is not only fired, but
      deported. And with corporate power unified over
      work permits, the rogue companies who try to
      freelance with undocumented workers will be more
      likely to face eager immigration raids.

      Yet the logic of the anti-terrorism rhetoric that
      we find growing up around the border issue in the
      aftermath of the Minuteman Project finds its
      satisfaction in a completely permitted and
      identified workforce. "At least we will know who
      they are and where they are going," is the
      typical line.

      Note how the anti-terror justification for
      vigilante action is more recently highlighted in
      key quotes concerning Minuteman plans to patrol
      the Canadian border. Up North, the scattershot
      racism of the anti-Mexican rhetoric will not
      interfere so much with the needed anti-terrorist

      Minutemen standing at the Northern border of the
      USA can catch nationalities with which the
      Canadians play a little too freely. Here we have
      the pinpoint racism of the War on Terrorism

      In a word, if we just look at the public logics
      that are playing out, it appears that national
      opinion in the USA is being corralled toward a
      work permit scheme with accompanying
      militarization of the border:

      "WALLACE: But there are thousands of miles.

      "SCHWARZENEGGER: So what? That's what you do when
      you have a huge country. If you have thousands of
      miles and thousands of cities in America and they
      all have to be patrolled.

      "We have the money to do it. It's not a lack of
      money. When we can afford the war in Iraq, we can
      afford to control our own borders."

      If there is still time to hit a switch on this
      juggernaut, the first thing to do is speak of the
      paradoxical intensification of corporate power
      over labor that will result from a work permit
      program. Yes, corporations benefit from illegal
      immigration, but why do they still prefer

      After that, Bacon's November analysis points to
      developments in international law that should
      address the rights of an increasingly mobile
      workforce around the world.

      If the relationship between labor and employers
      is to be centered for rational strategy, then
      human rights of Mexican labor in the USA must be
      a vanguard struggle. Therefore Bacon's address to
      developing nations in the following paragraph
      should be taken to heart by progressive activists
      in the USA:

      "Developing countries do, however, have an
      alternative framework for protecting the rights
      and status of this migrant population. The UN�s
      International Convention on the Protection of the
      Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of
      Their Families proposes an alternative framework
      for dealing with migration. It supports the right
      of family reunification, establishes equality of
      treatment with citizens of the host country, and
      prohibits collective deportation.

      Both sending and receiving countries are
      responsible for protecting migrants, and retain
      the right to determine who is admitted to their
      territories, and who has the right to work. The
      Convention recognizes the global scale and
      permanence of migration, and starts by protecting
      the rights of migrants themselves."

      In the end, the lesson is old as dirt. If we do
      not insist on treating migrating workers as free
      companions who deserve human rights, then soon
      enough the corporations will have made Braceros
      of us all. Deportee or draftee? Never say you
      didn't have a choice.


      Greg Moses is editor of the Texas Civil Rights
      Review and author of Revolution of Conscience:
      Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Philosophy of
      Nonviolence. His chapter on Civil Rights under
      Clinton and Bush appears in Dime's Worth of
      Difference, edited by Alexander Cockburn and
      Jeffrey St. Clair.

      "There can be no freedom or democracy without liberty, equality and
      justice for all."

      *Blazingstar shares news, information and announcements for charitable
      and educational purposes pursuant to Title 17 USC �107.


      To visit
      "The NEO-CON munists"
      "The 911 Commission Watch"
      "Sunset the Patriot Act"
      To subscribe: go to
      Subscribe to Neo_Con_Munists
      Powered by groups.yahoo.com

      Subscribe to 911CommissionWatch
      Powered by groups.yahoo.com

      Subscribe to SunsetThePatriotAct
      Powered by groups.yahoo.com

      Buy Hydrogen or Hybrid Vehicles, not Hummers.  The government and the NEWS should reflect, not determine, the desires of the people.The news is to be reported not a melodrama of constant trivia. The founding fathers knew that government is always corrupt, that is why they gave us civil liberties.  The people must lead to survive corrupt governments. Read the constitution. (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this includes information for research and educational purposes.)  Al Soto (c) 2005

      Discover Yahoo!
      Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online & more. Check it out!
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.