Want OPEN BORDERS? So Does President Bush and Vicente Fox -->

[Dr. Jones]

Some here on DU have taken the position that our borders should be completely open. But maybe it would surprise them to know that they are basically citing Bush FTAA policy. You see, Bush and Fox are very busy at work implementing the Free Trade Area of the Americas, a new borderless trading bloc in the same vein as the Eurpoean Union. Indeed, the Free Trade Area of the Americas would abolish all borders, create a new beaurocracy, and would uproot our Constutituion and Bill of Rights.

Once you read this, it will become clear to you what is going on. Immigration, the declining standard of living in the U.S., declining salaries, the attack on our Constitution - all part of the FTAA plan.

Borderless Americas advocates - be careful what you wish for.

Open and expanded trade will benefit all 34 nations of the FTAA. It will lead to better jobs, with bigger paychecks, in more competitive businesses, as well as to more choices of goods and inputs, with lower prices, for hard-working families and hard-driving entrepreneurs. The Bush Administration recognizes this.

His (Bush's) reelection provides a framework for continued successful negotiations. Trade and investment are the engines driving inter-American relations today and free trade agreements, both bi-lateral and multi-lateral, voluntarily initiated and ratified by President Bush and the heads of state of the western hemisphere, provide the much needed fuel. The rallying cry for this integration must be the reality of the competition our hemisphere faces daily from Europe and the Asian continent.

Globalization is not a possibility of the future but rather a reality of the present. It is a necessity, not a luxury, in order for the Americas to gain a competitive advantage over larger economies. As part of this historic process that began in Miami nearly a decade ago, we reaffirm our commitment to secure Miami as the Permanent Secretariat of the FTAA. We must continue to work this process understanding and accepting that it is a politically complex undertaking but not an impossible one.

Today more than ever we are well-positioned to turn this vision into a reality and with four more years under President Bush's administration and the unwavering leadership of Governor Jeb Bush, we remain at the forefront of this new economy. Now more than ever, it is no longer a question of if the FTAA will be signed and the Secretariat will be placed in Miami, but rather a question of when it will take place.

Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S...

Mexico’s Vicente Fox, in a 2002 address to European elites, was unexpectedly candid about these aims:

"Eventually our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes the future prosperity of North America, and the movement of capital, goods, services, and persons."

This same vision has been endorsed by powerful people in our nation -- including some regarded to be conservative. Among those who applauded Fox's vision was Robert L. Bartley, editor of the influential Wall Street Journal:

"Reformist Mexican President Vicente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two Nafta should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper."

"Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies — a constitutional amendment: "There shall be -- open borders."

—July 2, 2002 editorial entitled "Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?"

Source: http://www.stoptheftaa.org/ftaa /

Under the planned FTAA, Americans will gradually lose control over their destiny, their property, their taxes, and they will lose the protection of their rights by the Bill of Rights. The FTAA, like the European Union, will eliminate the enforcement of national borders to foster the free flow of peoples, not just products. National borders will become like our state borders. The immigration problem will be solved, since there will be no more immigration, only migration of populations at will.

Source: http://www.stoptheftaa.org/faq/faq1.html#answer

[Finder]

1. But Republicans do not. n/t

[Dr. Jones]

5. That's the strange thing...

but ultimately, Bush is "the decider," and unless Congress opposes the FTAA, nothing will change. I have a feeling that, because the tone of the country is increasingly anti-illegal-immigrant, the Repubs are claiming to be tough on immigration but in reality are working on the FTAA open border policy (behind closed doors).

The FTAA is too hard to sell to the American people, so they basically have to appear strict on immigration while actually moving forward with abolishing our borders. Once Americans realize this it will be too late to do anything about it. Typical Bush tactic. But that is why I am posting this, to sound the alarm bells and inform others regarding this FTAA open border plan.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Not strange at all. It's a head fake. Pander to racists AND fundies

They're quietly promoting their corporatist utopia while telling the rabble that the Democrats are to blame for what they're doing. The head fake is something they've become quite adept in.

Excellent post Dr.

[ooglymoogly]

44. the * booolcheeet is getting so thick pugs are going to need their

jackboots and we are going to need rubber ones. if the pugs lips are moving they are lying.

[ComerPerro]

24. Real Republicans do. Its the sheep that do not

Until the Republicans come and and convince them that they do

[AndyA]

2. If Bush is for it, I'm pretty much against it. Don't need to know details,

don't care what the reasoning is. I've been subjected to Bush's bullshit for 6 years, and very little of it has benefited me in any way. It's a fairly easy decision for me to make these days: If Bush is an aye, I'm a nay. What's good for Bush is bad for the world, and bad for humanity.

That makes it easy to decide.

[LoZoccolo]

3. Thank you for opposing the national do-not-call registry. n/t

[AndyA]

13. I would rather be harassed by phone calls than put up with some of

the other things he's forced upon me. Like loss of civil liberties.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Does not follow

Logic helps.

[AndyA]

17. Logic isn't part of the scenario.

In a logical world, the things we've seen Bush do over the past 6 years would have never been permitted.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. What's clear enough

Is that logic isn't part of your world. You seem to have an aversion for it.

[AndyA]

21. OK, buddy. Don't know the reason for the attack, but you're going on my

blocked list. Grow up.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Grow up?

Let's review: Anything Bush says, you're against, regardless.

Now you go Lalalalalalalala not to hear why that's a problem.

And I'm the one with adulthood problems?

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. That's just stupid

n/t

[AndyA]

19. You must be a Republican.

They often resort to insults.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Well, it is stupid

To say that if Bush is for it, you're against it - regardless of content - is plain stupid. It's willfully unthinking - and worse, it gives Bush all the power to decide your position for you. That is a stupid way to live, sir.

[951-Riverside]

101. Most of Bush policies are bad, self serving, not though out, etc

So by default I never side with him and I'm definitely not going to side with him on his illegal exploitation immigration "reforms".

[951-Riverside]

100. I oppose the do-not-call-registry

First I don't trust putting myself on a list that telemarketers will see anyway on the other hand such a list really cuts into the profit margin of telemarketing businesses that play by the rules and as a result more people are going to be jobless.

[Spinoza]

102. With your system

Bush, not you, determines your political beliefs. He's for it--your against it. He's against it--your for it. Personally, I wouldn[t want to give Bushie that much power. But each to their own.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[man4allcats]

9. Your post is in violation of DU Rules.

To wit:

"Do not say that you are hitting the alert link (emphasis added) to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so." See Discussion Forum Rules.

[kenny blankenship]

6. To be fair, I think Bush wants indentured servants, aka "coolie" labor,

"guest workers" without rights and wholly tied to their legal owners--oops, I mean employers. Fox is the one who wants open borders.

[Dr. Jones]

32. Hmmmmm....

but Bush is still pushing for the FTAA, which calls for the abolishment of our borders...

[earth mom]

7. I've heard this before too. Thanks for posting. nt.

[El Fuego]

8. Even the Mexican press acknowledges that the SW is being re-taken

"The Great Invasion: Mexico Recovers Its Own"

Excelsior (Mexico City) Columnist Carlos Loret de Mola (Mexico's national newspaper)

July 20, 1982

(snip)

In 1950 they were called "Pachucos" (half-breeds); today they are called "Chicanos." They have marked social and family characteristics, agility for adapting to the environment and for conquering a great region, once primitive and virgin, that belonged to our fatherland, and we lost it. But it seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without the firing of a single shot, nor requiring the least diplomatic action, by means of a steady, spontaneous, and uninterrupted occupation.

(snip)

http://www.americanpatrol.com/RECONQUISTA/GreatMexInvas...

[Dr. Jones]

10. I am reticent to agree to the word "invasion," BUT

another quote from your source is very alarming to me:

Land, under any concept of possession, ends up in the hands of those who deserve it. All of us Mexicans should prove ourselves worthy of what we have and what we want. The problem is one or organization.

And those humble Mexicans - the braceros, the "wetbacks," the undocumented, teach us with their example of tough, iron-like character and their spirit of great adventure how to overcome a hostile environment. Let us imitate them from within the Mexico that belongs to us.

So this guy is proclaiming that Mexicans DESERVE to own entire U.S. territories? That they simply need to ORGANIZE to TAKE those territories from the U.S.? And that illegals are somehow the "heros" of Mexico?

Lastly, the most alarming of all: "Let us imitate them from within the Mexico that belongs to us." The Mexico that belongs to us? Meaning U.S. territories such as Los Angeles??

I just hope this philosophy isn't widespread, because if it is, Houston - we've got a problem.

[El Fuego]

16. No actually that's THEIR word! It is the title of the article!

And there is a Zogby poll from 2002 that shows that a majority of Mexicans think the U.S. southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico:

http://www.immigrationcontrol.com/AIC_Zogby_Mexican_Pol...

[Dr. Jones]

22. This is hard to swallow.

And yet, the evidence you presented is hard to ignore. Given what you've presented here, we most certainly have a major problem on our hands. I sincerely hope this doesn't break out into an all-out war to claim land that is not theirs.

It does explain, at least in part, the attitudes of the protesters. "We're the backbone of the U.S. economy," "We do jobs Americans won't do," "We pick your lettuce, clean your hotel rooms, so you owe us something," "Tomorrow we vote," and the most bold of them all: "WE'RE HERE TO STAY." They're here illegally - as if THEY make the decision on who stays and who goes!!

[El Fuego]

27. They lost the land in the Mexican American War 1846-48

Apparently they hold a grudge, can't say I blame them! Our memories in the U.S. tend to be very short.

Mexico in 1847

[man4allcats]

33. I wonder how many of that majority also think

that it's okay to break U.S. law by illegally entering this country.

[Dr. Jones]

37. Which is also why illegals' rhetoric is so divisive...

because yes, the majority DO seem to say it's okay to break U.S. law by illegally entering the United States. Come to think of it, yes...that's essentially the core of the problem! That they are so bold as to not apologize, not say they're sorry, not admit any wrongdoing on their part - but to openly admit they're illegal and then on top of that make these ridiculous demands on the American people and our Government! As if they have the God-given RIGHT to be here illegally because they're "the backbone of the American economy" and such.

I will grant at the same time that American companies and the Mexican government have done their part to invite illegals into this country, telling them all sorts of lies such as, "You guys are doing something noble, you will be going to America to do the jobs Americans are just too damn lazy to do."

But their confrontational attitude MUST be replaced with a more humble request that the American government simply grant them the same worker protections that are available to American citizens.

[Bridget Burke]

26. Perhaps "the Mexico that belongs to us" means that the Mexicans....

Need to take control of their own country. From Houston, this does NOT appear to be a problem.

This essay is NOT using the language of "invasion." For the meaning of invasion--look to Iraq. There is NO mention of supplanting the current inhabitants of what is now the USA. Are we the decadent upper classes? Some of us feel we have more in common with the newcomers.

These are not assault troops. Nor are they potentates who take over a territory through economic power and purchase of properties. they are a mass of workers, artisans, women, and students who arrive to reinforce the base of the common people and the human virtues of this society in California. Much like them, despised and persecuted, were the humble Christians in the sovereign empire of Rome; but the meek brought down the Caesars and established -- for some 2,000 years now -- their own style of life over those all-powerful enslavers of the ancient world.....

The U.S. upper classes in the western states live in increasing splendor. Their apogee of luxury and comfort doubtlessly marks the inevitable beginning of their decadence. The Mexican invasion continues.

The essay was reprinted on the American Patrol website. Go there often? www.americanpatrol.com/index.html

Opinion posted at Wikipedia: The American Patrol Report is an American website operated by Glenn Spencer that is opposed to illegal immigration, calls for the deportation of all illegal immigrants, supports a radical English only policy, is against American politicians of Hispanic descent no matter their political stance, and has made reference to race wars....

Although Spencer denies being racist, he has close ties with the White Nationalist group American Renaissance, which is generally considered to be a racist group. American Patrol is listed as a hate group website by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League. In a letter to a major news paper Spencer was quoted as saying "The Mexican culture is based on deceit. Chicanos and Mexicanos lie as a means of survival." Spencer has also attacked civil rights activists on American Patrol's website, calling them "invaders" and terrorists on the site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Patrol

[El Fuego]

38. Yes that is what it means.

He is speaking of the “Mexico that belongs to us,” as opposed to the other Mexico that doesn’t, Los Angeles (his words). I think it’s interesting to see the point of view of the Mexican intelligentsia on the subject. The author, Carlos Loret de Mola, is the most popular news anchor in Mexico according to Wikipedia. Being an open-minded person, I don’t find the article a threat to my narrow world view, and I know it’s just an editorial opinion piece, just one man’s thoughts, and not Mexican government policy.

The web site? No, I’d never heard of the site before I googled the article. The original article is in SPANISH, because it’s from a MEXICAN newspaper. I’m not good at googling en español , comprende? And posting it in Spanish would be pointless. That article is all over the Internets, and unfortunately that’s the kind of web site that would post an English translation of the article.

“Go there often?” What exactly are you implying?

[Dr. Jones]

57. First you say "Even the Mexican press acknowledges that the SW...

is being taken" (post #8), and now you're saying No, that's not true and that this author only speaks for himself and NOT the Mexican Government?

So what is your opinion on the matter then, and why the contradictory statements?

[Bridget Burke]

64. So--you have changed your mind about the article.

That's good of you.

Posting a link to a questionable website without a warning does cast doubt on the poster. The idiots at American Patrol DO see this article as a warning of a real invasion.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. So what?

At the beginning of industrial capitalism, the capitalists wanted to - gasp - pay workers for the time of their labor. Many in the new working classes considered this arrangement wage slavery, and refused. Others grasped the new system and sought to turn it against the capitalist class. Guess which of these groups ended up serving their interests more?

The fact that the global capitalists want open borders should not prevent us from wanting them as well, no more than the fact that the wage system was installed would prevent workers from gaining power with the wage system. In fact, it may be tht open borders are the most productive thing for the global capitalist class and the weapon with which they can be confronted most effectively, just as the time-pay system was the weapon with which the industrial capitalists could be confronted most effectively. Open borders cut both ways, in other words, so the fact that Bush and Fox support them does not entail that we should oppose them. It may be the case that the global capitalists rely precisely on residual nationalism in order to get open borders their way. Rather than locate the fight around the KIND OF open borders that would be best, reactionary nationalists argue for closed borders - ahem, that is, closed borders for concrete labor, while abstract capital zooms around the world at the speed of light. Needless to say, these reactionary nationalists - many of whom feel the need to post thread after reactionary thread here on DU, relying on the fact that the old system of closed borders once worked against a less sophisticated form of oppression, however defunct it is now - yes, these reactionary nationalists barely perceive that the joke will eventually be on them, for global capitalism will liquidate the borders in the same way it liquidated the old forms of resistance. Unfortunately, we'll all be the object of the joke, since we haven't learned to fight them on their own turf yet. We haven't learned that we indeed need open borders to fight them, and that we should abandon nationalism in the same way the capitalists have. Instead, we persist in fighting ghosts, the oppressive capitalism of 50 years ago, and in doing so actually forwarding the process of the new oppression.

So the question is, are we going to be the irrelevant refuseniks who protested against the wage system - a group barely remembered and long since grown irrelevant, or are we going to be the progressive thinkers who understood that the wage system was a fait accompliu, and developed weapons to fight it from within its own logics? Are we going to be reactionary, or progressive. This isn't really a matter of taste. Reactionism on this question is doomed to failure, and its proponents on this board destined for the laughingstock.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Beautifully said. But, it's so much easier to blame the immigrants.

The capitalists adore "globalization" but are terrified of "internationalization".

[Dr. Jones]

28. Many Americans do blame the illegals right now

for their rhetoric that does nothing for their cause but divide. By constantly hammering away at their "jobs Americans won't do," their demands that us lazy Americans should be oh-so-grateful for taking our jobs away from us, and their insistence that they are indispensible and therefore demand a set of rights including citizenship and the right to vote - they are being confrontational and divisive.

I'm telling you, not being rude or anything - but if this keeps up - if they keep protesting and being confrontational and walking off their jobs, more and more Americans will get fed up and say, "You don't like it here in America, FINE. Don't forget to close the door behind you when you leave."

Newsflash: AMERICANS are the backbone of the American economy. Always have been, always will be.

[Bobbie47]

29. I know I'm getting old if

this is the direction the progressive thinkers/ and or the Democratic Party is going it's time for me to go away.

I personally will not give my money or time to anyone who wants to do away with our Constitution let alone the country.

Bush has done enough for my life time.

[Dr. Jones]

31. Well said - very well said.

And I have a distinct feeling you're not the only one feeling this way. I would like to think that a Democratic President would not allow our Constitution and our freedoms and rights to be trampled upon by this new FTAA push. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. All I know is that the FTAA, with its goal of being a borderless, moderately poor amalgamation of Noth/Central/South American nations, appears to be very bad for America and her sovereignty. And for that, we ought to fight the FTAA in any way we can.

It should be obvious to all now that one goal of the FTAA is to "level the playing field" in terms of wealth. This is why America will have to cede its wealth and well-being as more of our country is populated by illegals, and then they declare an end to the immigration problem when finally our borders are declared to be open.

[Bobbie47]

34. I think it is probably

in both parties, but unless your in the top 1% of the world wealth we will all be in the same boat.
I like walking to the beat of my own drum and would not fit in very well, and I doubt if any kind of re-education would do much good.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Cue sentimental mood music

Thanks for the fantasy.

Now I'll try to attend to what's actually going on. Cheers.

[Dr. Jones]

55. Do you care? Do you even have a clue?

Bobbie47 simply said that Bush has "done enough for his/her lifetime." In other words, Bush has done enough to trash our Constitution, remove our rights and freedoms, and destroy the middle class!

Do you disagree with that?

Bobbie47 simply said that he/she is disappointed in some Dems who seem be complacent when it comes to matters of our Constitution and defending our freedoms.

Can you come up with a cogent defense of your position, or are you just here to offend others?

[alcibiades_mystery]

95. My position has been defended throughout these posts

That noone chooses to address the real issues is not really my problem here.

[slaveplanet]

30. you do know

They plan on eliminating the FRN and introducing a common currency for Mexico, Canada the US...The "Namero". What would precipitate the fall of the FRN...could it be a crash and default like 1929? What else do they have plans on doing away with? https://www.nutrimedical.com/news_file.jhtml?id=478&fil...

Everybody knows its so much better to give up anything that gives you control and influence in your local neighborhoods and hand it over to unseen players who will make decisions from some centralized place afar. Right?
It's not like there were ever revolutions over that sort of thing? so it must be good.

What if they said; gee we've got all these shanty towns and we think they're just swell, but a couple of them are just too successful for they're own good, so much so that we think we should export off some of the excess so you could have them too, thus providing balance. Never mind mind the fact they don't meet your civic requirements... nationalism , civic pride, that's all crap and so damn passe'. culture...What culture? Don't you know this IS
the new world.

[Bobbie47]

35. Yes

Don't you know this IS
the new world.



Yes, this is the goal. Group up countries then 1% of the rich will be happy the rest of us...........oh well, they won't need us.

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. Who said anything about giving up local control?

Hell, we need more local control, but local control is not disconsonant with globalization of social justice. Nationalism has very little to do with local control. If you think the people on the lower east side of Manhattan have anything particularly in common with rural farmers in Colorado, then your definition of local control is as nostalgic as it is laughable. The nation state is an imagined community, as Benedict Anderson argued. Why we can't imagine larger communities (we must) is a mystery that such nbostalgia cannot solve.

[Dr. Jones]

36. This attitude is very troubling to me.

We have a Bush policy in place whereby he, along with Fox, is trying to completely obliterate our borders and set up a trading bloc in which Americans will lose their long-held freedoms under the Constitution. And you simply don't care? Maybe the implications of Bush's borderless FTAA plan haven't hit you hard enough. Have you spent any time researching the link I provided in my OP, www.stoptheftaa.org ? If not, I would urge you to do so.

This really is an even bigger issue than illegal immigration. Ultimately it boils down to the handing over of the United States to an overreaching foreign body. Remember when Bush said he'd never allow foreign countries to dictate foreign policy? Another Bush LIE. An impeachable LIE for that matter! The man really is selling America down the river, and believe me, his FTAA borderless Americas policy is probably the most troubling aspect of this whole debate.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. The borders are gone, period

It is not Bush or Fox, it is the movement of global capital which is bigger than anyone of them. Your position is something like blaming the rise of industrial capitalism on Disraeli. It is limited, shortsighted, and ultimately failed. The question is simple: do we move forward or do we move backward. Do we correctly diagnose our material conditions or do we lapse into nostalgia. Be troubled all you want. The world has moved on without you. You can cry, or you can play. These are our options. Our challange, if we're smart enough to choose to play, is to develop new weapons.

[Disturbed]

43. RW has two factions.

One is Open Borders, the other is Closed Borders with a Wall or if not a Wall then heavy Border Security and Deportation of Illegal Immigrants. Corps and private citizens that hire Illegal Immigrants aka Undocumented Workers are the crux of the situation. As long as there are jobs in the US for Illegal Immigrants aka Undocumented Workers these workers will arrive in droves to fill them.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. The left has two factions as well

Nostalgic fools who believe in closed borders, and those of us trying to develop new strategies to face the post-border world of the global capitalists. Open borders cut both ways, as I've said.

[Dr. Jones]

56. Gee you really do sound EXACTLY like Bush.

You sure you aren't typing this up from the White House? Fact is, it IS Bush! It's HIS policies! FTAA is HIS baby, and that should have been clear to you from the OP if nothing more.

Bush adamantly decries protectionism and calls for free trade. All well and good until you realize the ramifications: Abolishment of our Constitution, open borders, decline in wealth of the U.S., abolishment of the U.S. middle class, loss of U.S. sovereignty, loss of freedoms and rights...

Is THIS what you are so strongly advocating? Is THIS what you really want? Because in my book, it's VERY anti-American!

Maybe you've had one to many trade policy brown-bag meetings in the Oval Office.

[alcibiades_mystery]

94. Bush is a symptom of a larger movement

I've already stated my position on this, and see nothing new in your argument that requires further clarification, your ridiculous insults notwithstanding. It's not about me, and - despite your infantile attempt to articulate the movement of global capital to conservatism alone - it's not solely about Bush either. Clinton green-lit NAFTA. The conservatives in the EU were against consolidation. The FTAA is supported across the board, as anyone with any sense knows. You want to link it to a popular bogeyman on these boards, that's your prerogative, but it's shortsighted, silly, and will ultimately fail, since it is merely a rhetorical move, and has no link to the material developments that we must face when not being petulant nationalists.

[Leopolds Ghost]

51. One "radical" to another, maybe it would help if you demonstrated

...exactly where and when the workers successfully turned the wage system against the capitalist class.

You must be a mite comfortable if you didn't notice that's what the fuss is all about -- wage differences.

Open borders is a nice theoretical goal but in practice it only works if you abolish the state that differentiates one business cimate (in the US) from another to begin with. Will aboloshing the state solve
the problem of wage slavery? Search me. Will abolishing the state solve the problem of South Africa-style mass labor migration leading to conditions becoming much worse before populations become unionizable (if ever, due to cultural reasons similar to the many socially conservative Eastern orthodox and Catholics in the midwest who abandoned unions after community leaders told them unions were Communist? Many more, of course, non-churchgoing types stayed in the labor movement, helping set up the artificial distinction between lefty unionists and the religious.)

What I do know is that destroying everything good the US ever did in the name of fighting globalization with globalization (or "it has to get worse before it gets better") is unwise.

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. The entire strategy of the labor movement

For the past 160 years has been organized around acceptance of the wage system. Strikes are an example. The struggle around the length of the working day, overtime, wage increases, etc., all confront the capitalist class within the very system that it organized.

Globalization dissolves and transforms the function of the nation-state. Free trade zone, NAFTA, the FTAA, the EU, international bodies adjudicating trade conflicts all indicate and exemplify, materially, this tendency. It is not theoretical. It is quite real. And it will intensify. Nostalgia for the nation-state will be as ineffective as nostalgia for organic communities was for the workers of the 19th and 20th centuries. We have to find new weapons.

This has nothing to do with the stupid argument that says it has to get worse before it gets better. This has nothing to do with the silliness of "heightening the contradictions." As Deleuze and Guattari so accurately noted, nothing ever died of contradiction. Globalization of social justice is the only viable strategy against the new globalized capitalism. That means confronting it on its own terms, as our great-grandparents, and grandparents, and parents did.

[Dr. Jones]

58. Are you an activist anthropologist?

Sounds like it to me. Not that that's bad or anything, just curious.

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. Best-written non-sequitur award

You're trying to draw a parallel that does not exist.

The simple reality is that in this country, in the real world quasi-open borders have cost low income working americans 12% of their earning power. This is not an academic exercise. Those that advocate continuing our open border policy are willing to trade the earnings and job prospects of millions of working americans to improve the earning prospects of working not-americans.

The primary fallacy here among the more enlightened is the idea that the best way to empower workers is to recruit more of them. The (il)logical extension of this argument is that if 400 million immigrants were come here to link arms with their 100 million US bretheren, the resulting mob would be better able to obtain fair wages in the 90 million jobs available.

This indicates that enlightenment school does not have a good math program.

[Turn CO Blue]

42. I've always joked that the US should just arbitrarily admit

the states of Mexico in as US states, and Cuba as a state as well. More empire-building, woo hoo! Then we wouldn't have this border thing, and all the lovely resorts would be an added bonus. But seriously, most of the west used to be Mexico anyway and Polk FU@KING STOLE IT from Mexico in another needless, greedy, trumped up war.

I've been to Europe several times. There's no need for extensive borders there - everyone goes place to place without 700 mile walls. When the hell is North America going to mature into what it could be?

[Dr. Jones]

59. If Bush has his way, you will thank him for it.

If Bush has his way of implementing FTAA that is.

I am personally so surprised at how many here on DU are siding with Bush Anti-American policy. To me, it's sad.

[Turn CO Blue]

99. Well,

actually I bet I am more surprised than you by the number of people on DU who espouse the "throw the brown people out" philosophy.

I am a practical, process-oriented person. I realize that logistically, it would be impossible to deport 12million people (IMPOSSIBLE). Hell, the full force of our military can't even find one 6'3" Saudi, remember? If it were to cost $500 per person (a shockingly low estimate for travel expenses and food with today's fuel prices) and we had to hire 25,000 new immigration officers for ten years(which would give them one hell of a case load for years) we would spend more for this operation than for that godforsaken soon-to-be $820 BILLION Iraq war. What a stupid idea. We don't have the resources to even deport the people who overstay their Visas, much less to track down the ones that didn't register in the first place. Shall the immigration officers go around just looking for brown people? That's racial profiling -- something I am definitely against as a progressive.

I also realize that illegals pay a LOT of taxes and spend their entire incomes on consumer items. They easily contribute more than they get back in the oft-quoted Medicaid or "emergency services" dole. That is revenue that no city/state/fed is going to give up. They also spend everything they make in consumerism, just like the rest of us do. Who wants to give up that percentage of the GDP?

I also realize that the plan to make illegals into "felons" is beyond inconsistent and cruel. I could go into how many offenses are just considered misdemeanors (attempted rape, attempted molestation, etc.) yet we want to make crossing over the border and holding a job into a felony? That's just asinine. Let's punish VIOLENT criminals with our stretched resources, thank you.

I also realize that many employers have made it nearly impossible (since last year) to hire illegals, and that this problem will sort itself out with a plan like that. At my company and at my husband's company, we contact the social security department DIRECTLY to find out if a person is a citizen or has a work Visa and if he/she has a social security number issued. If it doesn't pan out, then no job. This process will, as I said, sort it all out in awhile. With no possibility of jobs as this spreads to more and more companies, the citizens from other countries will take themselves home.

I also realize that nearly all the illegals work in the food harvesting industry (especially for ConAgra) and that it is only a matter of time before their practices change. Nearly all harvesting of foodstuffs will eventually be handled by machines. Why? Because "they" said for 200 years that no one would ever be able to build a machine that picks cotton (that's why we needed African slaves, remember? /sarcasm) and then lo and behold, they did build a cotton-picker. And it picks far more cotton than any group of slaves, illegals or low-income persons ever could. That means that eventually someone will create a machine that can even handle delicate items like tomatoes and grapes and you-name-it.

I also realize that for many posters (perhaps not you, but some others) this is covert racism -- because nobody is out there screaming for the European nationals who have long overstayed their VISAs to be deported. Yet, overstaying a Visa ALSO makes a person an "illegal" resident -- but nobody seems to care when they're WHITE!

The other thing I don't understand from the Republican talking-points is this: in the one breath they will talk about how unemployment is SO LOW, indeed lower than ever and that "everyone who wants a job, has a job"...and then in the next breath, they will say how the illegals are taking jobs away from US citizens. It's all a pile of crap.

I have also long believed, and will not give up believing in the screed "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free..."
We are not out of room or resources here. We could place the entire population of the planet (6 BILLION people) within the borders of the state of Kansas, and give everyone 500 square feet (that is a 20' x 25' foot space) and STILL HAVE THE REST OF THE 49 STATES, PLUS THE REST OF THE PLANET to grow food on and mine for natural resources.

[nicknameless]

45. Fox wants to raise the standard of living in Mexico.

* wants to lower it here.

A perfect match.

[SammyWinstonJack]

47. Fox encourages his citizens to break the border laws of the US, how

does that raise the standard of living in Mexico? Oh wait, illegals come here, earn money and send it back to their families in Mexico, hence raising the standard of living in Mexico. Why doesn't Fox fix his Country's standard of living by creating jobs? Duh!

[nicknameless]

48. Fox's current method doesn't require that he do anything.

AND it doesn't take $$ from his sacred upper-class of Mexico. It takes it from the US.

[NNN0LHI]

49. Want CLOSED BORDERS? So do the Skinheads, neo-Nazis, and the KKK

Choose your friends carefully.

Don

[El Fuego]

69. No just controlled legal immigration. No one here wants closed borders.

Truly open borders would just be an invitation to other nations to colonize us.

[Virginian]

50. Annex Mexico and there won't be borders. n/t

[mmonk]

53. Seems to me the Bill of Rights and destiny are already gone

whether or not there is any FTAA plan.

[Dr. Jones]

61. That's a pretty defeatest attitude IMO

"Ah, our rights are already trashed, so what the hell, why not submit."

In the words of Commander Peter Quincy Taggart (Tim Allen) in Galaxy Quest: "Never give up! Never surrender!"

[mmonk]

98. A realist attitude and no, I'm not surrendering.

I'm just not jumping in on the immigration wedge issue though I'm up for low wage corporate design and rule bashing.

[Hubert Flottz]

54. That's the way dictators work...

they wipe out one border at a time...

[Dr. Jones]

60. Well then Bush should get an A+ as our new Dictator...

n/t

[Little Star]

73. Thank you Hubert Flottz

That is the way dictators work! People need to look at the big picture and all that it implies. Thanks for your post.

http://www.stoptheftaa.org/default.html

[Solon]

62. Look, there are two ways to go about it...

We can either accept the oligarchs' terms, or do it on OUR terms. The thing that concerns me is lack of respect for human rights, worker's rights, and democratic accountability. Those are key, to be honest I don't CARE if the borders are "protected" or closed off, what the hell is that supposed to mean anyways? Our country, with the borders closed already, is practically fascist all by itself. Besides which, on a practical level, setting up a supra-national regional economic bloc makes sense, or we may not be able to compete in the new global world. The U.S. is, oddly enough, too small to compete on an equal level with China, as an example, however, a North American Union, with democratic accountability and respect for human and worker's rights(to organize), would be in a much better position to compete on a global market. Supplement, and then tear down the economic incentives for outsourcing and other worker damaging practices by making it more lucrative for companies to RESPECT all our unions, all our workers, regardless of the nations those workers come from. No more sweatshops, no more outsourcing, and no more insourcing either.

This is the world we are coming into, and we can either set up a new system based on an expanded NAFTA model(extremely bad), or roughly based on the EU model(little better, needs transparency reform). The point being that the world is soon going to be drawn up through regional blocs, whether its a South American Bloc, or the African Union, whatever, that is turning into the future, the least we can do is make sure our rights are not violated in the process.

[Ms. Clio]

63. That sounds very rational to me

But how do you get all the workers to recognize this? What mechanisms do we use to accomplish those goals?

[Solon]

65. Networking, how else?

Look, right now workers from Nome, Alaska to the southernmost tip of Chile have been protesting and sucessfully blocking FTAA ratification. This is good, for it proved two things, the first is that the people of Latin America are sick of US domination, and the second is that people from disparate cultures and languages can organize in a cohesive fashion. Right now we are acting as the obstructionists, but that is changing, albeit slowly depending on nation, South America seems to be taking the lead, with Morales, Chavez, and Castro, oddly enough, trying to form an alternative to the FTAA that will unite South America into a cohesive economic force.

The people of North America need to do the same, we share a long border with both Canada and Mexico, so people from both nations and the United States need to work together to do these two things. The first, that I can think of, is form an organization to help form the basis for an alternative to NAFTA, rather than an all encompassing FTAA that includes both Americas, we should instead concentrate on our own continent and let South America do the same. If, as seems the case, our governments are too beholden to corporate interests to even think about reform, as all of them are right now, then we should contact our Unions and other labor and worker friendly organizations and start agitating for labor reform in all three nations simultaniously, this includes strikes, strike guards, especially in Mexico and the United States, and boycotts.

The key is to provide a UNITED labor front, one where we speak with one voice, 3 languages, same message, and that message would be "The People, United, Will Never be Defeated!"

The second action that we can take is for each of us to elect leaders in our nations that are closely aligned to this cause, whether its democratic reform of NAFTA or a total replacement of it(I favor this, personally), either will do.

The best way to spread this type of movement is to use word of mouth, the internet, independent radio and TV, flyers and other means of communication. To be honest, I haven't thought it all through, but then again, grassroots movements have traditionally started in haphazard ways like this. Any suggestions are welcome.

[Dr. Jones]

67. Then illegals in our country need to be educated on this:

The key is to provide a UNITED labor front, one where we speak with one voice, 3 languages, same message, and that message would be "The People, United, Will Never be Defeated!"

Right now the message of the illegals is one of confrontation and pitting themselves against Americans. Now if they lost the "jobs Americans won't do" and the "We are the backbone of the U.S. economy" and the "we pick your lettuce and clean your hotel rooms so bow down to us" and the "we work harder than you lazy Americans" rhetoric - and replaced that with a humble attitude where the issue is framed as a humanitarian crisis/workers rights issue that Americans could get behind - maybe they'd get somewhere.

As I've said before, if the illegals keep up their rhetoric and confrontational attitudes, Americans will get fed up and say, "You don't like it here, then GET OUT. Either STOP insulting us or go back to Mexico!" Furthermore, more Americans will support deportation if they get out of hand, walk off their jobs, continue to protest, and especially if they get violent.

[Ms. Clio]

71. you continue to deliberately mischaracterize this movement

And I am growing sick and tired of it.

I have told you time and again that it's not just "illegals" confronting and pitting themselves against Americans. The protests were about the Sensenbrenner law, not "insulting Americans," and those crowds were filled with men, women and children who were also legal residents and citizens who were above all concerned about the impact of that draconian law on their FAMILIES.

You are the divisive force, with your "us" and "them" rhetoric.

[Dr. Jones]

77. And I keep imploring the illegals who are protesting

that there's a better way to get their point across and to get the backing of the American people. Namely, cut the divisive, insulting rhetoric and frame the issue as a humanitarian crisis whereby they are simply asking for better working conditions, fair pay, and for the benefits that American citizens enjoy.

Is that so much to ask? To lose the divisive rhetoric such as "jobs Americans won't do" and "we're the backbone of the American economy?" To STOP saying the things they KNOW incites Americans? This ALIENATES them from Americans and most Americans won't take it for much longer before they show the illegals the door and tell 'em to go back to Mexico.

That's just the way it is.

[Ms. Clio]

78. That's not what they are saying at all

That's your framing, not theirs.

[Solon]

80. Correction, that's the framing of our Corporate Media...

THEY are the ones that want us divided, we working slops, regardless of our status in this or any other country would benefit from being united, but our bosses can't have that.

[Ms. Clio]

84. yes, that's clearly where he's getting it from

I see his talking points elsewhere.

[Dr. Jones]

85. What blindness! What a crock of you know what!

That's EXACTLY what they're saying, and you know it. I didn't take these sayings out of thin air, it's what they're saying on a daily basis. And it's inciting the American people.

Why are you being so stubborn? Why can't you at least TRY to understand what I'm trying to do in HELPING these people advance their cause?

Or maybe you enjoy "see no evil hear no evil, la la la I can't hear what you're saying, la la la?"

[Ms. Clio]

89. I'm sorry, do you have any links to back up what you are saying?

Facts. Evidence. Something to support your argument. Please see Solon's post for examples.

Because I live in Dallas, and what I hear are high school students saying, "Don't send my dad or mi abuelita back to Mexico."

But I want you to put up some links (outside the RW blogosphere) to support your ugly rhetoric that what they want to do is incite and provoke the American people.

[Dr. Jones]

96. You make it too easy, Ms. Clio...

All sources from the Immigrant Solidarity Network.

On the role of ILLEGALS in this debate:

Los Angeles, U.S., March 30, 2006 (Notimex) - The March 25 Coalition, who called for Saturday's march in Los Angeles, announced an "American national strike." This is part of its mobilizations to support the legalization of 12 million undocumented people in the US.

"The march that achieved to bring some one million people together in Los Angeles is just the top of the iceberg, and we won't give up or back up until the Congress and president George W. Bush have approved the legalization of the 12 million undocumented people," he (Raul Murillo) warned.

Source: http://www.immigrantsolidarity.org/cgi-bin/datacgi/data...

On their demands for citizenship:

We will settle for nothing less than full amnesty and dignity for the millions of undocumented workers presently in the U.S.

Source: http://www.immigrantsolidarity.org /

So as you can see, this entire debate IS about illegals and what to do with them. You ain't the only one living in Dallas, Ms. Clio. So am I.

Sorry Ms. Clio, your entire argument has just gone up in

[Ms. Clio]

97. nowhere do I see anything about provoking and inciting

yes, they want amnesty, now why would that be?

Because they want to insult and provoke Americans?

Or to better their own lives and those of their families?

Sorry, but that comes nowhere near supporting all your nasty rhetoric.

[Solon]

90. I think both of you have perception problems...

Not meant as an insult, I'm trying to play peacemaker here, just want to see if I can hatch out something here, because if we can't even agree as to what they were saying, then how can we agree on anything else?

OK, first things first, the trigger for these protests was a draconian law introduced by Sennsebrenner or however else you spell his damned name, I don't care. OK, this law is, to put it mildly, extreme, so what else did we expect the reaction to be? Besides which, this law is ALL that they were protesting against, that and basically the message "We're here, deal with us." which seems pretty simple if you think about it. The problem isn't so much the protests, but the spin of the corporate media AGAINST the protests, hell, those people on the streets could have been protesting for "Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards Men." and the media would spin it into something negative. This shouldn't surprise us, and the interviews were atrocious, while the protest what organized in record time, that also brought about negative side effects, the most obvious of which was the lack of a cohesive message. The first two messages I already posted in this paragraph, but other than that, you got 1.5 million people on the streets spewing 1.5 million opinions on the subject. Is it any surprise that the media would focus on the most reactionary of these opinions to paint the entire movement with a negative broad brush?

I say we start at square one, its easier that way, because too much emotion gets involved, and then nothing but a status quo is accomplished, and in that case, all of us lose.

[Ms. Clio]

91. but I didn't hear 1.5 million opinions, really

I heard just a few, and most were connected to the things that a person cares about most of all in his or her life -- his or her family. That's why this touched such a deep nerve, because it was so personal for so many people.

It's not just the corporate media framing this, you know. So are the Minutemen.

But points well taken.

[Solon]

74. I think the problem is on two fronts...

One is partially on the language barrier, but the other is framing, to be honest, most Americans got, at most, a skewed view of what was happening on May first. But what else is the corporate media for but to be the voiceboxes for the elites, the corporations own them, so they speak from that point of view, the last thing the media wants is to present an honest accounting of what happened, who knows, Americans may have been sympathetic then, can't have that. But that isn't to say the protests were constructive, they weren't, but not so much from the action of the protestors themselves rather than their focus, they should have focused on worker's rights in general, rather than on immigration rights.

However, and this should be made clear, this isn't consistent with ALL illegal immigrant actions, to give an example, illegal immigrants marched on the FTAA meeting in Miami, side by side with Unions, Enviromentalists, etc. This is the type of action we need, but instead of scheduling these protests around the schedules of the fat cats, why not do it on our own schedules? In fact, International Worker's day would be perfect, as a starting point, but maybe revolve it around, in major US, Mexican, and Canadian cities every 4 or 5 months or so, include boycotts, etc. A consistant message, a clear voice, and a united front is necessary to achieve the end goal, the replacement of NAFTA. Its devastating all three nations, not necessarily equally, but its effects are widespread nonetheless, so let those effects be known. Its not even that popular among the working class crowd in any of these nations, a little democratic pressure is just what we need.

[Ms. Clio]

70. surely there must be organizations out there working along these lines

I need to research this. Thanks so much for your thoughtful response. I think it's key that all these issue come together as something concrete that we really need to push our Dems to consider. I'm sure Kucinich is already on top of it, but it needs to become a much more high-profile topic for the party as a whole.

But building a mass movement that encompasses three countries -- how do you do it? Ironically, we have seen how the grassroots truly can work -- we have seen masses of people turning out in the largest, most peaceful demonstrations in the history of the United States, and nobody can see how that power can be channeled to achieve our goals? The civil rights movement of the 50s started with African Americans who were most directly impacted by segregation, and then sparked other social movements, particularly the antiwar movement.

Much to think about here -- thanks again.

[Solon]

79. There are...

Hope you have broadband, but here goes, this is an anti-WTO site, gives a good overview of the WTO, video link at bottom of page is really informative:

http://www.focusweb.org /

Here's an interesting video, about the Bolivarian movement of Venezuela, its in Spanish with English Subtitles:

http://www.archive.org/details/Venezuela_Bolivariana_VE...

Here's a video of the FTAA protests in Miami in 2003:

http://www.archive.org/details/miamimodel

And here is the FTAA protests in Quebec City in 2001

http://www.archive.org/details/quebeccityprotest2001

This is just to get you started, look up Anti-FTAA and Anti-Globalization websites through Google, etc.

One last link, Public Citizen, informative, to say the least, especially about NAFTA and other Free Trade agreements:

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/

[Ms. Clio]

82. thanks so much

I really do appreciate your time and trouble. I haven't seen The Corporation, yet, either, and I really need to.

[Solon]

86. The only thing bad I can say about it is this...

It has a tendancy to repeat a little bit, and is about 3 hours long, to properly absorb it you should probably take breaks in between viewings. I saw it, the first time, sitting down in a movie theatre and not moving, I really wish they had intermission, like in Schindler's List!

[Dr. Jones]

88. Not a "feel-good" movie for sure...but a must-see...

you'll be shocked at the increasing power and control the multinational corporations have over our lives. I checked out the DVD from the library - you might be able to do the same.

[Dr. Jones]

66. Agreed:

the least we can do is make sure our rights are not violated in the process.

The problem is, the very nature of this new globalization and borderless policy sets forth a REMOVAL of our current rights, replaced with a narrower and more dictatorial set of "rights" that doesn't look much like what we consider to be our rights under our U.S. Constitution.

Ever see "The Corporation?" THAT is what FTAA is all about! Expanding corporate powers over the lives of every human being. You see, power is increasingly run not by governments, but by the multinational corporations. That is what the FTAA does, hands the power over to the corporations.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Solon]

68. Seen "The Corporation" like 3 times...

Considering how long it is, that's an accomplishment in itself!

Also, I didn't say I was for the FTAA, I'm not, and I hate NAFTA just as strongly, at best, its a hypocritical document, at worst, its a carte blanche for corporations to pillage 3 nations at once instead of going through the trouble of going through them one by one. I think the biggest issue is this, we should never again accept these secret meetings of chambers of commerce that write our treaties, they need to be TRANSPARENT and democratically accountable. The thing is this, the biggest with either the FTAA or NAFTA isn't FORIEGN control, but rather CORPORATE control. Most of those corporations are US or Canadian based, so it makes a perverse amount of sense that they dominate these trade talks.

As I said, accountability and human rights NEED to be respected, IN WRITING AND PRACTICE in these trade agreements, but they aren't at the moment, that is why people from both continents protest against any new agreements that don't include these provisions. All I'm suggesting is that we the working stiffs take an ACTIVE role on this. Like I said, WE THE PEOPLE have a choice, and that choice whether or not we should let someone else make up the terms, or that we write them ourselves.

This is Neo-Colonialism, and unlike what Britian and all other previous empires did, this time ALL the people that aren't the elite are being pillaged. Another important sticking point is this, who is the real enemy, and who can be our real allies in this struggle? Are those undocumented workers that are taken advantage of because of their status our enemy? Or is it the guys in the boardroom that decided those undocumented workers are more pliable and cheaper than legal workers? If the opportunity arose to organize those undocumented workers into Union so that they have the rights of WORKERS not necessarily citizens, would we citizens help or hinder? Come to think of it, if the UAW had the opportunity to organize a Ford or GM plant in Mexico, would they do it? Those are questions that need answering. Who are our allies in this struggle, who do we side with, are we to play into the oligarchs hands and divide ourselves, or do we unite and scare the shit out of them instead?

[Dr. Jones]

75. Well I agree with what you are saying...

But for the people to unite against this beast we all have to be on the same page. And right now, as I've said, the illegals unfortunately are busy at work inciting Americans and discrediting themselves. If they would only change their stance and humbly ask the American people to get behind their humanitarian cause of better working conditions, maybe they'd get the American people behind them.

[Ms. Clio]

76. You don't stop

So I won't either.

Many of "them" are the American people. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

[Dr. Jones]

81. Yawn. Typical example of unwillingness to understand or even consider

any advice that may HELP these people advance their cause and get the American people behind them.

[Ms. Clio]

83. with "friends" like you

who needs enemies.

[porphyrian]

72. People who drink water are acting just like serial killers.

EVERY SINGLE SERIAL KILLER DRINKS WATER! Most do so daily. Anyone who does the same is supporting serial killers.

Cut the bullshit. Open borders is what the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave is about. Just because the traitors who've managed to insinuate themselves into the White House support open borders doesn't mean open borders are bad or that we should all be against open borders. Grow some 'nads and stop fearing this faceless external enemy - the enemy is INTERNAL. You are the one being distracted.

Edit: plurality

[hogwyld]

87. Hope we do get open borders

That is what this country is founded on. People are free to come and go as they please, and won't feel like they're trapped here. Let them ALL vote in our elections. That is a guarantee for Democratic hegemony in the Congress and White house. If they all will vote, we need to never fear a puke elected official ever again. Let them all vote, and the pug party will go the way of the whigs.

[patriothackd]

92. Yeah, I figured it had the blessing of the regime

The press doesn't give that kind of coverage to causes that aren't on the menu. It was obvious this was enhanced blessed and crafted to hit an agenda.

[genieroze]

93. Bush is at odds with his own party on this , so is Fox in regards to

legalizing small amounts of drugs for personal consumption.