HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Reich: So is the priority...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:37 AM

Reich: So is the priority (for immigration reform) to be those who need us, or those whom we need?

(Reich seems to have forgotten the anti-immigration wing of the republican party whose responses would be:

those who need us, - Who cares what "they" need?

or those whom we need?- We don't need no stinking immigrants for anything. The only good immigrant is a non-immigrant.

The Real Debate Over American Citizenship

On one side are those who think of citizenship as a matter of exclusion and privilege
— of protecting the nation by keeping out those who are undesirable, and putting strict limits on who is allowed to exercise the full rights of citizenship.

On the other are those who think of citizenship inclusively — as an ongoing process of helping people become full participants in America.

It’s also a question of who we want to join us. Engraved on a bronze plaque mounted inside the lower level of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty are Emma Lazarus’ immortal words, written in 1883: “Give me your tired, your poor/ Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/ The wretched refuse of your teeming shore./ Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost, to me.”

By contrast, a bipartisan group of lawmakers last week introduced a bill giving priority to the highly skilled. “Our immigration system needs to be … more welcoming of highly skilled immigrants and the enormous contributions they can make to our economy,” said one of its sponsors, Florida Senator Marco Rubio.

So is the priority to be those who need us, or those whom we need?

http://robertreich.org/post/42409183744


Reich goes on to discuss the long lines endured by Blacks and Hispanics in last year's election; the 'free speech' (campaign donations) of 'American' corporations which are increasingly 'foreign' in terms of their stock ownership, employees and customers; and the threat to due process of the 'white paper' on drones.

They may seem unrelated, but all these issueswho gets to be an American citizen, how easily American citizens can vote, whether global corporations are American citizens entitled to influence our elections, and whether American citizens are entitled to a judge and jury before being executed — are pieces of the same larger debate: Are we more fearful of “them” out there, or more confident about “us”? Is our goal to constrain and limit citizenship, or to enlarge and fulfill its promise?

It’s an old debate in America. The greatness of our nation lies in our overriding tendency to choose the latter.

6 replies, 537 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Reich: So is the priority (for immigration reform) to be those who need us, or those whom we need? (Original post)
pampango Feb 2013 OP
pipoman Feb 2013 #1
pampango Feb 2013 #2
pipoman Feb 2013 #3
pampango Feb 2013 #4
pipoman Feb 2013 #5
treestar Feb 2013 #6

Response to pampango (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:51 AM

1. Reich is a traitor to US labor.

He had the opportunity to influence or reject trade agreements with Mexico and other 3rd worlds, he chose to carry the water of big industry/business over those he was appointed to advocate for...now, he likes to feign disbelief that the economy hasn't recovered and point his stubby fingers at everyone and everything but himself. Again, he is a traitor to US labor..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:48 AM

2. So Mexico and "other 3rd worlds" are the source of all of our labor problems? (Poor foreigners

cause our problems. We don't cause them ourselves. How enlightened!)

We already had 'free trade' with Canada before NAFTA, so I guess Canada is off the hook for responsibility.

I guess Reagan is off the hook for our labor problems. He 'talked the 'free trade' talk' but did not 'walk the walk'. No 'free trade' agreements with '3rd worlds' under Ronnie. As a matter of fact, US tariffs were higher when he left office than when he entered it. Does that make him a friend of labor?

Our own Taft-Hartley laws and the resulting proliferation of 'right-to-work' states which have been helping bust unions for decades. Can't blame that on poor foreigners. We did that to ourselves. Are 'right-to-work' off the hook as responsible for our labor problems?

Germany has a "NAFTA-style" agreement with many countries including its less well-off next-door neighbor Poland. Guess what? Their "NAFTA" has not caused them labor problems. Why not? Largely because they have no Taft-Hartley or other anti-union laws. In fact they have strong legislation protecting and empowering unions.

It seems to me that our labor problems are self-inflicted and the solution to them is within us. If we want stronger unions and better labor laws in general, we need to pass them - plain and simple - just like Germany, Sweden and Canada (among many other progressive countries) have done.

The enemy is not the poor foreigner. Liberals in Germany, Sweden and Canada will tell you that.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:00 PM

3. Reich was Secretary of Labor

he supported NAFTA even though 80% of labor opposed it...corporate masters and all that..

The problem with these International Business bought politicians and their agreements, isn't that we are having trade agreements, it is there is no requirement for worker and environmental parity built in.

Here's an article about the traitor in question:

Apparently, some people think it's big news that Robert Reich has decided to publicly endorse Barack Obama. We shouldn't be surprised. For months now, Reich has been criticizing Hillary Clinton on his blog and elsewhere, distorting her policies and her positions. He's criticized Senator Clinton's solutions on the foreclosure crisis, on health care and trade. He's been in the Obama camp for some time.

Despite his reputation as a liberal and a friend of working men and women, Reich knows how to walk both sides of the street. I recall that he rarely, if ever, mentioned unions during his four years as Secretary of Labor. He has no problem backing proposals that cheer business more than labor, like ending the corporate income tax. If you read his recent book, Supercapitalism, you would think Steve Forbes was the writer. But no, it's the former Secretary of Labor calling for eliminating a tax that helps keep down the tax burden on working men and women across this nation. Does Senator Obama support that Reich idea? Is eliminating the corporate income tax going to be part of the "change we can believe in"?

Reich says that corporate responsibility is counterproductive. He thinks it's a distraction. That's beautiful. Here we have a former Secretary of Labor, someone who should know better, taking the GOP line that corporations need to focus on making money and forget about everything else. The movement for social responsibility has promoted ethical decision-making in business, community development programs, day-care centers, HIV-AIDS training, family-friendly workplaces, and more. To suggest that those developments are a distraction from the responsibility of corporations to amass profits for shareholders, as Secretary Reich does in his book, is shameful.

-more-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-mcentee/robert-reichs-endorsement_b_97450.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:15 PM

4. So a trade agreement that did include "requirement(s) for worker and environmental parity" would

look better?

The problem ... isn't that we are having trade agreements, it is there is no requirement for worker and environmental parity built in.

Of course one problem with an agreement that did include labor and environmental protections is that the 'national sovereignty' hawks will not want us to sacrifice any of our 'sovereignty' by subjecting the US to an international panel that could rule on violations of "worker and environmental" requirements after the agreement goes into effect. (And every country has it 'sovereignty' hawks.)

These hawks largely, but not solely, on the right will squawk very loudly if some international panel finds that the US is not adhering to worker or environmental standards. (Given that our labor and environmental standards do not compare favorably with just about any other developed country, that is not too farfetched.) "How dare the foreigners at (fill in the name of an international panel) tell us what do with our workers or our environment."

That is one advantage that Germany, France and Poland (among others) have is that they belong to the EU and are all subject to the same progressive labor and environmental regulations that they cannot violate without jeopardizing their membership. Of course, they each sacrifice some 'sovereignty' in order to join and agree to comply with these regulations - something that many Americans are reluctant to do. Europeans are different now because they have had decades of realizing the benefits of 'sacrificing sovereignty". Many Americans still view that idea with a lot of suspicion.

(Can you imagine the right wing American reaction if an international panel said that our labor law was "unfair" because it did not protect and encourage unions like in Europe and Canada? Or we have no carbon tax or other effective environmental legislation? I can hear the reactions now. "How dare they tell us how to run our country!")

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:16 PM

5. That is certainly

a sensible position. The problem I have with it is that it perpetuates corrupt, oppressive regimes. Almost 20 years after NAFTA the people working in the maquiladoras incomes increased 10 or 15 % shortly after NAFTA because the numbers of employees needed increased so rapidly..since then, wages have been static and people still live in the same shacks..just as was predicted by the 80% of the population who opposed the agreement..the result is and has been a reduction in the standard of living in the US, just as was predicted. Pollution is a problem just as predicted. Farmers 100 miles south of the border use Hansel & Grettle wells to fill buckets to water their livestock. Infrastructure is as shitty as ever. Mexicans are still seeking a better life sneaking across the border. Who has benefited from this? As they say, "follow the money", eh? The factory owners...multi-mational corporations. Again,

I recall that he rarely, if ever, mentioned unions during his four years as Secretary of Labor. He has no problem backing proposals that cheer business more than labor, like ending the corporate income tax.

Reich says unfair trade pacts bear no responsibility for the decline in manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Two months ago, Reich wrote that "it's a shame the Democratic candidates for president feel they have to make trade - specifically NAFTA - the enemy of blue-collar workers and the putative cause of their difficulties. NAFTA is not to blame.


He won't take responsibility for his actions, he is a corporate shill traitor to US labor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:18 PM

6. This country was built by immigrants

Leading directly to its dominance of the world. The new attitude would make us just like anywhere else. People want to be in exclusive clubs. It gives them some mental satisfaction, even if the club winds up being a nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread