No Sca peg oa ts!: Why I mmigra nts Are Not to Bla meby La nce Selfa and Helen Scot t

ISBN 0-9358 67-13 -9

P ubli shed by Bookma rks, U. S.P. O. Box 16085, Chicag o, Il linois 60616

Pr inted by Ca r rol l ton Gra p hics, Ca r rol l ton, OhioDesign and Ty pography by Alan Maas s

The Interna t ional Soc ia list Org a ni za t ion is linked to an interna t ional group ing of soc ia list org a ni za t ions:

Aust ralia: Interna t ional Soc ia list Org a ni sa t ion, GPO Box 1473 N,M elbourne 3001

Be lgium: Soc ia li sme Interna t iona l, Rue Lov infos se 60, 4030 Grev ign é eBritain: Soc ia list Workers Party, P. O. Box 82, London E3 3LHCan ada: Interna t ional Soc ia li s ts, P. O. Box 339, Sta t ion E,

Toronto, Onta r io M6H 4E3Cyp rus: Workers Democracy, P. O. Box 7280, Nicosia, C y p rusD e nm ark: Interna t iona le Soc ia li s ter, Pos tboks 642, 22 00 Køben havn, NFrance: Soc ia li sme Interna t iona l, B P 18 9, 75926 Paris, Cedex 19Ger m any: Soz ia li s t i sche Arbe i tersgruppe, Wolfsg a ng s t ras se 81,

W-6000, Fra nkfurt 1Gr eece: Org a nosi Sosia li s t i ki Epa nas tasi, P. O. Box 8161,

10010, Omonia, AthensHollan d: Groep Interna t iona le Soc ia li s ten, P. O. Box 972 0, 3506 GR Ut rech tIr e lan d: Soc ia list Workers Movement, P. O. Box 1648, Dublin 8N ew Ze alan d: Interna t ional Soc ia list Org a ni sa t ion, P. O. Box 6157, DunedinN orw ay: Internasjona le Sosia li s ter, Pos tboks 9226, Gr ø n la nd 0134, OsloPolan d: Solida rnosc Socja li s tycz na, P. O. Box 12, 01-900 Wa rs zawa 118So uth Afri c a: Interna t ional Soc ia li s ts of South Afr ica, P. O. Box 18530,

Hil lbrow 2038Unit ed Sta t es: Interna t ional Soc ia list Org a ni za t ion, P. O. Box 16085,

Chicag o, IL 60616

1

Wh yimmi grants

a re not t obl ame

L a nce Selfa andHelen Scott

2The At tack on Immigra nts

4Why Sca peg oat Immigra nts?

8Ca p i ta li sm and Immigra t ion

12I mmigra t ion Today: My th and Rea li ty

17The Poli t ics of U. S.I mmigra t ion Policy

20U. S. Labor and Immigra t ion

26Why You Should Oppose

I mmigra nt -Bashing

29How Can We Fight Back?

32F or Further Reading

The authors wo uld like to th ank Joe Alle n,An thony Ar n ove, Je nnif er Salazar an dAshley Smith for their he lp in res e ar ch an dBridg et Br o deri c k, Da vid High smith, an dRi c ardo Rey es for their work in producing the Sp anish transla tion of this pamphlet.

NO SCAPEGOATS!

¡CERO CHIVOS EXPIATORIOS!

CONTENTS

“We’ve got ten ca l ls from peo p le who’ve been asked for the ir docu-menta t ion in pha rmac ies, in ba nks and then refused serv ice. One gentle-man said he went to open a ba nk account and had a fake Soc ial Secur i tyca rd, and the tel ler ins tead of j ust saying no. . . had him arres ted,” saidDav id Paz Soldan of the Los Ang eles - based Coa li t ion for Huma ne Immi-gra t ion and Refug ee Righ ts.

Wi thin days of 187 ’s pas sag e, similar efforts to bar “il leg a l” immi-gra nts from rece iv ing sta te- p rov ided hea l th, welfa re and educa t ion bene-fits were launched in several sta tes.

“We’ve been contacted by peo p le in nine other sta tes who wa ntco p ies of the meas ure and informa t ion about how we can get it on the ba l-lot,” Robert Kiley, a spokesman for the pro-187 ca m paign told U S A To d a y.

And at the na t ional level, the new Republican congres sional major i tya n nounced pla ns to focus on immigra t ion. Support for grea ter surve il la ncea nd polic ing of the border, reduc ing or cut t ing off benefits to immigra nts,set t ing up a na t ional regi s t ry to ver ify work eligibili ty, are polic ies Con-gress might consider.

Wha t’s more, the Republica n “welfa re reform” p lan int roduced inJa nua ry1995 denies govern ment serv ices and benefits not only to il leg a limmigra nts, but also to legal immigra nts as wel l. “There’s a gro wing recog-ni t ion that the federal welfa re sys tem ca n not serve as a deluxe ret irements ys tem for elderly peo p le from the Third Wor ld,” said Robert Rector of ther igh t -wing Her i tage Founda t ion in backing the GOP pla n.

While Republica ns readied pla ns to attack immigra nts, Democra tstouted the ir “accom p li sh ments” in reduc ing il legal immigra t ion. In an-nounc ing a 25 percent increase in the INS’s budg et in 1995, Clinton’s At-torney General Ja net Reno said: “We are commi t ted to im p rov ing the se-cur i ty of this na t ion’s borders. And we are ser ious about enforc ing immi-gra t ion laws and prov iding the neces sa ry tools for the INS to do its job.”

Poli t ic ia ns of both pa rt ies have made immigra nts—a long wi th “wel-fa re mothers” a nd in ner city youth—sca peg oa ts for real problems fac ingthe major i ty of Amer ica ns today.

A major i ty of U. S.workers knows that liv ing sta nda rds are declining,ne ighborhoods are deter iora t ing and hea l th ca re is less acces sible. Thesecondi t ions have underp in ned the ant i - immigra nt back lash we see today.

Why have the poli t ic ia ns ta rg eted immigra nts for bla me? Will law sli ke Pro posi t ion 187 sweep the count ry? This pa m p hlet will answer theseques t ions and, more im porta ntl y, will di scuss how can we fight backag ainst the ant i - immigra nt hys ter ia.

3

“YOU ARE the pos se and [Pro posi t ion 187] is the ro pe.”Wi th these chil ling words, reca l ling imag es of l ynch mobs, Ron

Pr ince urg ed Ca lifornia voters to app rove Pro posi t ion 187. Pr ince, an Or-a ng e County, Ca lif. accounta nt, directed the ca m paign to app rove thea nt i - immigra nt Pro posi t ion 187.

By a ma rgin of 59 percent to 41 percent, Ca lifornia voters app rovedPro posi t ion 187 in Novem ber 1994.

Pro posi t ion 187 is a vile piece of legi sla t ion. It makes il legal aliens in-eligible to rece ive public soc ial serv ices, public hea l th serv ices and publiceduca t ion at the elementa ry, seconda ry and pos t -seconda ry levels.

It requires schools immedia tely to expel students who ca n not provethat they are citizens or legal immigra nts to the U. S. It requires sta te andlocal ag enc ies to report persons who are “s us pected” of be ing il legal aliensto the Ca lifornia At torney General and to the federal Immigra t ion andNa tura li za t ion Serv ice (I N S).

In addi t ion to making cr imina ls of as many as 1.6 mil lion peo p le liv-ing in Ca lifornia, Pro posi t ion 187 would force teachers and soc ial workersto act as immigra t ion police.

The day after Pro posi t ion 187 pas sed, Ca lifornia Gov. Pete Wilson,w ho won reelect ion after making support for Pro posi t ion 187 one of hi skey ca m paign issues, ordered all pre- na tal clinics in the sta te to cease trea t-ment for il legal aliens.

A federal judge in San Fra nc i sco days la ter held up im p lementa t ionof the pro posi t ion. But the effect of Pro posi t ion 187 has already been fel tin Ca lifornia and around the count ry. Clinics serv ing la rg ely immigra ntcomm uni t ies in Los Ang eles, San Diego and San Jose reported a la rg ed ro poff in pa t ient visi ts. In the first month after Pro posi t ion 187 pas sed,at least two peo p le — a 12 -yea r-old La t ino boy and an elderly Chinesewoma n—died because they defer red medical trea tment for fear of be ingfing ered as “il leg a ls.”

Pro posi t ion 187 ’s pas sage has em boldened every racist in Ca liforniaa nd around the count ry. The Coa li t ion for Immigra nt and Refug ee Righ tsa nd Serv ices in the San Fra nc i sco Bay Area reported dozens of inc idents ofha ras sment of La t inos and Asia ns by police, ba nks and retail stores.

2

INTR ODUCTI O N

The Attack on Immi grants

Amer ic an Immigra t ion Ref orm(FA IR), who said: “Waves of des pera temigra nts seeking relief from hung er,poverty or tribal wa rfa re may prove tobe a more formidable cha l lenge to theWest than Sov iet mi s siles or ta nks.”

Democra t ic poli t ic ia ns, includingliberal Sens. Ba rba ra Boxer (D-Ca lif.)a nd Dia n ne Fe ins te in (D-Ca lif.) beg a nca l ling for tougher border cont rols.

Dur ing her 1994 ca m paign for re-elect ion to the U. S. Sena te, Fe ins te inran telev i sion commerc ia ls sho wingshado w y “il legal immigra nts” run ningth rough a border fence. The commer-c ia ls’ vo iceover im p lied that she sup-ported more Border Patrol ag entsw hil e he r Republi can opponentMichael Huffington did not.

The attack was not confined to therealm of words and speeches.

In 1993, the Clinton admini s t ra t ionca l led for an ext ra $172.5 mil lion forincreased and bet ter-equipped la ndborder pa t rol gua rds and im p rovedtech nology for the enforcement of im-migra t ion law s.

At torney General Ja net Reno an-nounced “Opera t ion Hold -the-Line,” ap lan for stepped - up pa t rols along theTexas -M exico border. In 1994, Renofol lo wed up wi th Opera t ion Ga te-keeper in San Diego and Opera t ionSafegua rd in Ar i zona.

The admini s t ra t ion also pro posednew admini s t ra t ive procedures forimmigra nts at ports of arriva l. Underhis pro posa l, as ylum-seekers wouldhave summa ry hea r ings and if the irclaims were deemed in va lid, theywould face ins ta nt deporta t ion.

The Wall Street Journal noted tha t :“Whi te House adv i sers figure that bydefining the deba te in the ir own term s,they have a cha nce to deny Republi-ca ns the opportuni ty to se i ze the issue[of immigra t ion] a nd use it ag ainst thep resident at a la ter da te.”

Ins tead, Clinton and the Democra tssimply ha nded the GOP issues wi thw hich to bea t “libera ls” a nd the Demo-cra ts in 1994. This was most sta rkly il-lus t ra ted in Ca lifornia, where Wilsonrode Pro posi t ion 187 to reelect ion andna t ional prominence.

Only a year before, opinion pol lssho wed Wilson as the most un po pula rg overnor in Ca lifornia hi s tory. He re-ce ived a boost from his Democra t ico pponent, Kathleen Bro w n.

Al though Brown opposed Pro posi-t ion 187, she agreed wi th Wilson tha til legal immigra t ion was a problem. Shesimply contended that Pro posi t ion187 wouldn’t be effect ive in sto pp ingil legal immigra t ion.

Only a few weeks before the vote,President Clinton ca me out ag ains tPro posi t ion 187. But at the sa me time,he said: “It is not wrong for you [Ca li-fornia ns] to wa nt to reduce il legal im-migra t ion. And it is not wrong for youto say it is a na t ional res ponsibili ty.”

Wi th poli t ic ia ns from both majorpa rt ies defining “il legal immigra t ion”as a problem, it isn’t surp r i sing tha tPro posi t ion 187 pas sed by an over-w hel ming ma rgin.

Los Angeles Ti m e s exit pol ls indica tedthat 63 percent of whi tes, 47 percentof B lacks, 47 percent of Asia ns and al-most one-qua rter of La t inos voted forPro posi t ion 187.

The poli t ic ia ns succeeded in pittingminor i t ies, citizens and “leg a l” immi-gra nts, ag ains t “il leg a l” immigra nts.

Only the thousa nds who ma rched,wa lked out o f schools, or signedp ledg es ag ainst enforc ing Pro posi t ion187 put up a consi s tent and princ ip ledfight ag ainst the ini t ia t ive. Unions li kethe Interna t ional Brotherhood ofTea m s ters, the Ca lifornia TeachersAs soc ia t ion and the Serv ice EmployeesInterna t ional Union also conductedca m paigns ag ains t 187.

5

B ETWEEN 1984 and 1993, about 9.3mil lion immigra nts were gra ntedperma nent residence in the U. S.,according to the INS. The averag ea n nual num ber of immigra nts ad-mi t ted to the U. S. dur ing that per-iod was 3.8 per 1,000 U. S. c i t i zens.

In cont ras t, the 10.1 mil lion immi-gra nts who ca me to the U. S. in thedecade of 1905 to 1914 was almos tth ree times as grea t : 11.1 per 1,000 U. S.c i t i zens, according to the INS.

Today, about 7.3 percent of the U. S.po pula t ion was born outside the coun-t ry. In 192 0, 13.2 percent of the U. S.po pula t ion was “fore ign born,” accord-ing to the Cens us Bureau.

I mmigra t ion is not at record highlevels. The immigra nt po pula t ion isnot skyrocket ing. If the govern ment’sown sta t i s t ics don’t support the claimthat the U. S. is be ing flooded wi thimmigra nts, why is the attack on im-migra nts so hea ted today?

There is one main reason why ant i -immigra t ion poli t ics has taken centers tage today: poli t ic ia ns are trying toexp loit the insecur i t ies and fea rs mos tAmer ica ns feel about the ir decliningliv ing sta nda rds by deflect ing ang er atthe sys tem onto sca peg oa ts.

Clinton opens the door. . .Ant i - immigra nt sca peg oa t ing

moved from the fr inge to the centerof U. S. poli t ics qui te ra p id l y.

In 1992, righ t -wing Republica n

p resident ial ca ndida te Patrick Bu-cha nan was widely condemned for ad-voca t ing a “Bucha nan trench” a longthe U. S. -M exico border. Even main-s t ream commenta tors li kened Bu-cha na n’s speech at that yea r’s Republi-can con vent ion—in which he ca l ledfor a “cul ture wa r” to defend the U. S.’s“Judeo-Ch r i s t ian her i tag e”—to Hi tler’srhetor ic.

Two yea rs before app rov ing Pro po-si t ion 187, Ca lifornia voters turnedback Gov. Wilson’s attem pt to sca pe-g oat welfa re rec ip ients for the sta te’sreces sion. Ca lifornia voters defea ted bya ma rgin of 53 to 47 percent Pro posi-t ion 165, which would have cut welfa rebenefits by 25 percent.

Bill Clinton was elected because hep romi sed quick act ion on issues tha tthe major i ty of Amer ica ns ca red about—unem p loyment, a lack of good - pay-ing jobs and unaffordable hea l th ca re.

Yet Clinton’s stra tegy of appea lingto the “center”—midd le-class peo p lew ho voted for reneg ade bil lionaireRoss Perot in 1992—led him ins teadto poli t ic i ze such issues as cr ime, wel-fa re, and immigra t ion.

F ol lo wing several high - p rofile ne w ss tor ies in ea r l y 1993—Clinton’s rever-sal of his promi se to gra nt Hai t ian boa tpeo p le as ylum in the U. S.; the bom b-ing of the Wor ld Trade Center, bla medon immigra nts from the Midd le Eas t ;a nd the Coast Gua rd ca pture of a ves-sel sm uggling Chinese immigra nts toNew York—Clinton made immigra-t ion a major issue in U. S. poli t ics.

Clinton decla red that U. S. borderswere “leaking li ke sieves.” The bigg es tcha l lenge the count ry faced in the1990s was “how to stem the increasingflow of il legal immigra nts,” Clintonsaid.

This kind of rhetor ic echoed that ofr igh t -wing ers li ke Dan Ste in, spokes-person for the racist Federa t ion for

4

CHAPTER ONE

Why Sca pegoat Immi g rants?

class . . .The clothing indus t ry wouldlong ago have died in Amer ica wi thoutimmigra nt labour—most of it il leg a l—to prop it up.”

I mmigra nt - bashing is act ivel yw hipped up when the poli t ic ia ns and

bos ses wa nt to shift bla me away fromthe ir own polic ies.

7

This is one of the les sons of themovement ag ainst Pro posi t ion 187.We ca n’t depend on two- faced poli t i-c ia ns to fight our ba t tles for us.

The only way to build effect ive op-posi t ion to laws li ke Pro posi t ion 187 isto sta rt in our unions, our workp laces,our schools, and our comm uni t ies tobuild a movement that cha l leng es rac-ist sca peg oa t ing and uni tes all whowa nt to oppose it.

Why sca peg oat immigra nts?“We were out rag ed when our Sta te

Legi sla ture voted on July 5th [1994] toremove dental ca re as a medical opt iona nd force the increase of the cost ofp rescr ipt ion drugs for Senior Ci t i zens.Then as a final slap in the face, theyvoted to cont inue free pre- na tal ca refor ILLEGAL ALIENS!”

This sta tement, authored by th reep rominent Pro posi t ion 187 supporters,a ppea red in the sta te- p rov ided votereduca t ion book let that accom pa niedthe offic ial Ca lifornia ba l lot for theNovem ber 1994 elect ion.

What hypocr i s y! One author, Ca li-fornia Sta te As sem bly mem ber DickMount joy, didn’t even show up for thevote to cut seniors’ benefits. Gov. Wil-son signed the bil l.

Perha ps Mount joy was too bus ywi th other ma t ters, li ke trying to gutCa lifornia’s workers’ com pensa t ionlaw s. Mount joy is the Ca lifornia legi-sla ture’s frontman for the IndependentBusiness Coa li t ion Ag ains t Workers’Com pensa t ion Fraud, a group dedi-ca ted to res t r ict ing inj ured workers’r igh ts to col lect workers’ com pensa t ion.

Another of the sta tement’s authors,U. S.Rep. Jay Kim (R-Ca lif.) is a righ t -wing pro- business poli t ic ia n. In fact, heis so concerned about the elderly tha the supported on l y 10 percent of legi-sla t ion backed by the Na t ional Coun-c il of Senior Ci t i zens.

Yet the sta tement was a perfect ex-a m p le of the real uses of the poli t icsof immigra nt - bashing. Ins tead of di-rect ing ang er to wa rds the poli t ic ia nsw ho cut benefi ts for the elder l y, itsought to cast il legal immigra nts in thev il lains’ role.

At a time in which poli t ic ia ns li keWilson, Mount joy and Kim are tryingto jus t ify the ir attacks on ordina ry peo-p le, who bet ter to bla me for high un-em p loyment ra tes, declining wag es,inadequa te housing and closed schoolsthan immigra nts?

Poli t ic ia ns as signed to ma nage thecutbacks in Los Ang eles conj ure up “asingle demonic vision of whi te, mid-d le-class breadwin ners and ent rep re-neurs under siege by armies of welfa releeches and il legal immigra nts, aideda nd abet ted by public sector unions,”wrote Mi ke Davis in a recent art icle onCa lifornia poli t ics.

Yet it’s govern ment and busines spolic ies that are res ponsible for themi sery most peo p le face.

The minim um wage and the me-dian Ca lifornia sta te welfa re benefitlost 40 percent of the ir real va lue since1970. The median welfa re benefit for afa mily of th ree now ba rely equa ls one-third of the poverty th reshold.

But spokes peo p le for the rulingclass such as Wilson find a far morecon venient ta rg et in immigra nts. Andw hen libera ls li ke Sen. Boxer (D-Ca lif.)call for immigra t ion cont rols, it pro-v ides the huma ni ta r ian cover neces-sa ry for keep ing workers div ided, weaka nd exp lo i ted.

The fact is that it is not the immi-gra nts who profit, but those who em-p loy them.

The Br i t i sh business mag az ine, T h eE c o n o m i s t , wor r ies that the attack onimmigra nts might go too far and back-fire because: “Amer ica has always beens us tained by an immigra nt labour ing

6

P ro p 187 Kills: T h e Rea l Impact o f I m m i g rant BashingIN TH E first month after the pas-sage of Pro posi t ion 187, the meas ureclaimed at least two lives.

Julio Ca no, a 12 -yea r-old boyliv ing in Sa nta Ana, Ca lif., diedNovem ber 19, 1994 of leukemia.His pa rents had delayed taking himto the doctor because, as undocu-mented workers, they fea red be ingdeported.

Julio first felt ill on Novem ber 15.He visi ted the hea l th clerk at Syca-more Junior High.

“He would not tell anybodyw hat was wrong because he kne wthat his pa rents didn’t have themoney to take him to the doctor,”Pat Savag e, the school princ ipa l,told the Los Angeles Ti m e s .

Julio’s condi t ion worsened.A fa mily fr iend said Julio’s fa therbla med him self: “He sha red wi thme that his son had got ten sick onTuesday and [the fa mily] did notwa nt to take him to the clinic forfear of 187. . .He wai ted unt il Fr idayto take him to the doctor.”

The next day, Julio died.Ron Pr ince, who headed the

ca m paign for Pro p 187, spe wedfil th in react ion to Julio’s dea th:

“The pa rents are enda ng er ingthe child ren by br inging them hereil leg a l l y. Tha t’s the prima ry res pon-sibili ty of the pa rent—they are notabsol ved of the ir pa rental res pon-sibili ty simply because of the iril legal sta tus.”

In another case, a 59-yea r-oldChinese woman delayed seekingt rea tment for a brain hemor rhag ecaused by leukemia. She died whilep h ysic ia ns at San Fra nc i sco’s UCM edical Center were trying to ar-ra nge emerg ency trea tment for her.

“Everyone was very di s t res sed,”said resident physic ian MichaelRabo w. “We felt there was a trea t-ment that would pos sibly cure herthat wasn’t available for purel ybureaucra t ic reasons. I felt this wasthe vision of the future under 187.”

I mmigra nts’ righ ts groups re-ported more cases of ha ras smentfol lo wing 187 ’s pas sag e:

m In Manteca, Ca lif., polices to pped two young women, whoa re legal residents, for jay-wa lking.

Police then drove the women14 miles to Stockton and reportedthem to the INS.

m A Sa nta Cla ra grocery store clerkrefused to sell food to a woman w howas wr i t ing a check, even thoughthe woman had a va lid Ca liforniad r iver’s license.

The clerk insi s ted that sheneeded to see the woma n’s Soc ia lSecur i ty ca rd as wel l.

m In Sta ni slaus County, the ownerof a hotel ca l led police when a U. S.c i t i zen of M exican descent refusedto show a green ca rd when reg-i s ter ing.

5 mil lion b r a c e r o s to gro wers and ra nch-ers over the next 22 yea rs. The offic ia lp rogram las ted unt il 19 64, but theg eneral sys tem stayed in place.

This sys tem ens ured a steady labors upply that benefited gro wers in theSouthwest and allo wed them to keepoverall wag es do w n, as one expert ob-served: “F or the gro wers the progra mwas a drea m: a seemingly end less armyof chea p, unorg a ni zed workers brough tto the ir doors teps by the govern ment.”

Yet the govern ment maintainedcont rol over the movements of theseworkers, and at any time could (a nddid) res t r ict the num bers of M exica nscros sing the border and clamp down onM exica ns in the Uni ted Sta tes. Thepas sage of workers from Mexico wascruc ial to the economy, but the work-ers at any given moment could bet rea ted li ke unwa nted cr imina ls, re-fused ent ry or deported.

The onset of the 1970s reces sion ledto a pa rt icularly vic ious attack on Mex-ican workers.

“Poli t ic ia ns launched appea ls tosave U. S. jobs for ‘Amer ica ns’. The INSobligingly ini t ia ted mas sive raids onimmigra nt comm uni t ies, deport inghund reds of thousa nds of undocu-mented Mexica ns,” according to oneimmigra nt righ ts act iv i s t.

Al though immigra t ion cla m pdo w nsoften take place in times of economicdo w nturn, na t ions still need immi-gra nt labor dur ing reces sions.

A cont rol led immigra nt labor forcep lays an im porta nt role dur ing a reces-sion. Immigra nt workers offer spec ia lbenefits to ca p i ta li s ts eag er to cut pro-duct ion cos ts at times of he igh tenedcom pet i t ion.

Reduc ing labor cos ts, a key aim ofca p i ta li s ts at all times, can be achievedby paying lo wer wag es. To this end,com pa nies can either move product ionto si tes wi th chea per labor supp lies, or

they can br ing cheap labor supp lies top roduct ion si tes.

Recentl y, Amer ican com pa nies haveloca ted factor ies on the isla nd of Sai-pa n, im ported workers from China, theP hilipp ines and else w here in Asia, andpaid them surv ival wag es—all in thea t tem pt to gain a com pet i t ive edge inthe ma rket, according to a 1993 N e wYork Ti m e s a rt icle.

What are the spec ific condi t ionsthat make immigra nt labor es pec ia l l ya t t ract ive to busines s?

I mmigra nt workers are less li kely tobe unioni zed, and an immigra nt work-force is often more cont rol lable. Em-p loyers use the th reat of deporta t iona nd cr imina li za t ion to exp loit immi-gra nts ruthles sly and to quell immi-gra nts’ efforts to fight for the ir righ ts.

Legal immigra nts wai t ing for con-firma t ion of citizenship are subject tothis pres s ure, as well as undocumentedworkers. The presence of a cr imina l-i zed sect ion of the workforce is cruc ia lfor the em p loyers to maintain the ircont rol.

New immigra nts often don’t speakE ngli sh and are des pera te for work.E m p loyers exp loit this vul nerabili tyto the ful les t—paying below averag ewag es, viola t ing safety sta nda rds andworkers’ righ ts.

M ea tpacking com pa nies in theMidwes t, for exa m p le, send person nelma nag ers on tours of the U. S. to recrui tAsian and La t ino immigra nts fromCa lifornia and New York, accordingto soc iologi s ts Loui se La m p here, AlexStep ick, and Guil lermo Grenier.

One com pany rep resenta t ive forDupaco, a mea tpacking firm in Ne-braska, was ty p ically up front aboutthe aims of recrui tment: “We need tog et us a minor i ty group in here.”

The Dupaco execut ive’s sta tementil lus t ra tes another im porta nt benefitem p loyers gain from hir ing immi-

9

IN HISTO RY books, we’re remindedthat the Uni ted Sta tes is a “na t ion ofimmigra nts” a nd that immigra ntsp layed a key role in building theU. S. Yet today, poli t ic ia ns tell usthat immigra nts are res ponsible forcr ime, economic decline and otherp roblems in the U. S.

This love- ha te view of immigra t iona nd immigra nts stems from the rolethat immigra t ion plays in the ca p i ta li s teconomic sys tem under which we live.

The ca p i ta list sys tem is interna-t iona l, wi th products ma nufactureda nd sold wor ldwide. Ca p i ta li s ts—thet iny minor i ty that owns and cont rolsthe interna t ional ba nks and mul t ina-t ional corpora t ions—rely on a globa lpool of labor. To enable the ca p i ta li s tsto fill the ir dema nds for labor, this la-bor pool has to be some w hat mobile.

The cent ral mecha ni sm of cont rolover the movement of labor is the na-t ion-s ta te. Na t ional border cont rolsens ure that ca p i ta li sm, th rough itss ta te, maintains cont rol of labor, ra therthan allo wing peo p le to move at wil l.

The North Amer ican Free TradeAgreement (N A F TA) between theU. S., Ca nada and Mexico, aims to pro-mote easy tra ns port of goods and ser-v ices across the th ree count r ies’ bor-ders. But NAFTA exp lic i tly ba rs freeimmigra t ion.

When economic gro w th producesa dema nd for workers that ca n’t be sa t-i sfied by the exi s t ing workforce, a “la-

bor shortag e” is produced. Dur ing theSecond Wor ld Wa r, women fil led thelabor shortage in mili ta ry indus t r iescrea ted because mil lions of men en-tered the armed forces.

It is li ke wi se wi th immigra t ion.When the domes t ic workforce ca n’t fil ldema nds for labor that ca p i ta li s tsneed, govern ments have often pro-moted immigra t ion. I mmigra t ion isnot an acc ident.

Nor do rich count r ies accept thewor ld’s poor out of generosi ty. Labormigra t ion is es sent ial to the ca p i ta li s ts ys tem.

The purpose of immigra t ion policy,then, is to regula te the flow of labor—to cont rol the borders to cont rol theworkers them sel ves.

I mmigra t ion laws serve ca p i ta li smin two ways. Firs t, they ens ure chea pfore ign labor when the domes t ic eco-nomy needs it. Second, they allow forgrea ter cont rol of the whole workforce.

Most of the adva nced economies ofthe ca p i ta list wor ld were built on mi-gra nt labor. They have act ively sough tfore ign- born workers in some hi s tor i-cal per iods. The sa me count r ies havea lso cla m ped down on immigra t ion atother times.

The U. S. b r a c e r o p rogram sho w sclearly the way immigra t ion policy issha ped to the needs of ca p i ta l. Theword b r a c e r o comes from the Spa ni shword for arm, b r a z o , a nd can be li ter-ally tra nsla ted as “a rm ma n.”

The b r a c e r o p rogram was ini t ia l l yim p lemented as a wa rt ime emerg encyp rogram in 1942 to fill a decla red laborshortage in agr icul ture by im port ingfa rm workers from Mexico. It wasjo intly run by the Sta te Depa rtment,the Depa rtment of Labor and the Im-migra t ion and Na tura li za t ion Serv ice.

The program beca me the la rg es tfore ign worker program in the hi s toryof the Uni ted Sta tes, cont ract ing over

8

CHAPTER TW O

Capitalism and Immi g rati o n

immigra t ion because “it cont r ibutesmigh t ily to our economy” a nd wha t’smore, “immigra nts pay far more intaxes than they absorb in public ser-v ices.”

11

gra nts: keep ing the workforce div ided. E m p loyers use every pos sible dif-

ference between workers —sex, race,sexual or ienta t ion, skill and citizenships ta tus—to sow div i sion in the work-force. Employers know that a div idedworkforce is less li kely to uni te to de-ma nd union rep resenta t ion and higherwag es and benefits.

F urthermore, an immigra nt work-force is chea per for both ca p i ta li s ts and

the sta te. The soc ial cos ts of childbenefits and educa t ion have been pro-v ided by another sta te (i. e., the immi-gra nt’s “home” count ry).

Therefore, the U. S.economy gainsimmigra nt workers’ skil ls wi thout hav-ing to pay to develop them.

The ruling class recogni zes the spe-c ial adva ntag es of immigra nt workers.In a recent edi tor ia l, the business mag-az ine F o r b e s ca l led for an increase in

10

The New Iron Curtain: Be hind the Myths Ab out R efu g e e sm The Uni ted Na t ions es t ima testhat 49 mil lion peo p le—1 in 114 peo-p le in the wor ld—have been forcedby wa r, poverty or fa mine to fleethe ir homes. The num ber of refu-g ees in the wor ld has increasedfrom 2.4 mil lion in 1974 to 23 mil liontoday.

An addi t ional 26 mil lion peo p lea re “internally di s p laced,” hav ing leftthe ir home area wi thout cros singa n interna t ional border.

The Uni ted Na t ions High Com-mi s sion on Refug ees budg et for 1993was $1.3 bil lion, less than two days’s pending on the U. S. mili ta ry budg et.

m Wes tern po wers delibera tel yforced mil lions to flee the ir homeslong before “eth nic clea nsing” turnedmil lions into refug ees in Bosnia orR wa nda.

At the 1945 Potsdam Conference,Br i tain, the U. S. and its wa rt ime ally,the USSR, agreed to “po pula t iont ra nsfers” of eth nic Germa ns fromEas tern Euro pe to Germany after theSecond Wor ld Wa r. Fourteen mil lionGerman civ ilia ns were forced to flee,wi th 2 mil lion dying along the way.

Br i t i sh Pr ime Mini s ter Wins tonChurchill said of the policy : “E xpul-sion is the method which, so far as

we have been able to see, will be themost sa t i sfactory and las t ing. Therewill be no mi xture of po pula t ionsto cause end less trouble. . .A clea nsweep will be made.”

In Pales t ine, U. S. and Sov iet -backed Zionist mili t ias used ter rora nd murder to force 750,000 Pales-t inia ns to flee from the ir homesin 1947-48.

This delibera te policy of “t ra ns-fer” a l lo wed the Zioni s ts to foundthe sta te of Israel on ter r i tory se i zedfrom Pales t inia ns. Today, 2.6 mil lionP a les t inia ns remain refug ees, liv ingin ca m ps or funct ioning as “gues tworkers” a round the Midd le Eas t.

m From the U. S. ent ra nce into theSecond Wor ld War in Decem ber1941 to the wa r’s end, 21,000 refug ees—most of them Je wi sh—werea l lo wed into the U. S. In cont ras t,28,927 refug ees were allo wed intothe U. S. in 1941 before U. S.ent ryinto the wa r.

The wa rt ime refug ees admi t tedto the U. S.added up to on l y 10 per-cent of the U. S. govern ment quotafor refug ees dur ing those yea rs.Ninety percent—190,000 places—went unfil led while the Nazis mur-dered 6 mil lion Je w s.

m In Euro pe, about 70 percent ofa pp lica t ions for as ylum are rejected.E uro pean count r ies spend col lec-t ively $6 bil lion annually on the iras ylum sys tem.

In es sence, Euro pe spends fourt imes more trying to keep “unde-serv ing” as ylum seekers out of E ur-o pe than the Uni ted Na t ions HighCommi s sion on Refug ees spends onall refug ee aid programs each yea r.

m U. S. poli t ics and fore ign policy,not huma ni ta r ian concern, driverefug ee policy.

In 19 87, 97 percent of app lica t ionsfor poli t ical as ylum by Sa l vadora na nd Gua tema lan refug ees—flee ingrep res sion by U. S. - backed govern-ments—were denied as ylum. At thesa me time, 84 percent of a pp lica t ionsfrom ant i -Sa ndini s ta Nica ragua nswere gra nted poli t ical as ylum.

A 1984 INS study of as ylum re-ques ts from 13 count r ies—all ofthem U. S. a l lies—found that the INSdenied 91 percent of a pp lica t ionsfor as ylum. The count r ies includedChile, Egy pt, Gua tema la, El Sa l vador,Leba non, Haiti and China.

m In 1993, the U. S. allot ted 132,000p laces for refug ees seeking as ylum

in the U. S. —fe wer in absolute num-bers than did Germa n y, a count rywi th one-qua rter of the U. S.po p-ula t ion.

Of these, only 7,000 places werereserved for Afr ica ns; 52,500 forrefug ees from East Asia; 53,500 forrefug ees from Eas tern Euro pe andRus sia; 3,500 for refug ees fromLa t in Amer ica and the Ca r ibbea n;a nd 7,000 for refug ees from theMidd le Eas t.

The ce iling on refug ees from Eas tAsia includes Vietna mese Amer-asia ns—child ren of U. S. soldiersw ho served in Vietna m.

In 1993, only 5,115 refug ees weregra nted as ylum, according to theNa t ional Network for Immigra nta nd Refug ee Righ ts. This was on l y14 percent of the app lica t ionsconsidered.

Gua tema lan and Sa l vadora nsaccount for nearly one- ha lf (48 per-cent) of all app lica t ions for as ylum.Yet the U. S. gra nts as ylum to fe werthan 0.001 percent of each group.

More than 6, 2 00 Mexica ns andnearly 2,000 Nig er ia ns app lied foras ylum in 1993. The U. S. gra ntedas ylum to only o n e refug ee fromeach count ry.

as si s ta nce progra m s. Legal immigra ntsa re prohibi ted from rece iv ing publicas si s ta nce for th ree to five yea rs aftera r r iv ing in the U. S.

Even if every undocumented personrece ived the average federal welfa rebenefit from the Aid to Families wi thDependent Child ren, it would cost ap-p roxima tely $20 bil lion, or about wha tthe Pentag on spends in th ree weeks.

The one federal program which ta r-g ets aid for immigra nt school child rens pends about $30 mil lion—or $42 perchild per yea r.

“This whole ant i - immigra nt hys-ter ia is not borne out by the sta t i s t ics,”said Patrick Young, director of theCent ral Amer ican Refug ee Center inH em ps tead, N.Y. “Only about 1. 25percent of the U. S. po pula t ion is un-documented, and if all the problems ofyour count ry are attributable to thi sminuscule po pula t ion, then your sys-tem’s really in trouble.”

Mos t “il leg a l” immigra nts enter the count ry leg a l l y

In cont rast to the media imag e,most undocumented immigra nts donot cross the U. S. border il leg a l l y. Mos tof them — 52 percent — enter thecount ry legally on student, busines s,or tourist visas and overs tay the ir vis-i ts, according to the INS.

In New York sta te, the th ree la rg es til legal immigra nt po pula t ions comefrom Ita l y, Pola nd and Ecuador. InNew Jersey, the th ree la rg est groupsa re from Portug a l, Pola nd and Ita l y.

Many of these immigra nts are ab-sorbed into U. S. soc iety and becomelegal residents th rough ma r r iag e,work or the annual INS lot tery whichgra nts perma nent residency docu-ments (“green ca rds”) th rough a ra n-dom drawing.

Yet, when most peo p le think of “il-leg a ls,” they think of those who cros s

the U. S. border il leg a l l y — us ua l l ya long the U. S. -M exico border.

This is because poli t ic ia ns demon-i ze these immigra nts, who, un li ke Eur-o pea ns or Ca nadia ns who overs taythe ir visas, are poor and non-w hi te.

The INS focuses most of i ts ant i -

13

THE CAMPAIGN ag ainst immigra ntshas been jus t ified by ha lf-t ruthsa nd out r ight lies.

If you li s tened to the stream of ant i -immigra nt rhetor ic that spews frompoli t ic ia ns and the media, you wouldthink that the U. S. is be ing over runwi th immigra nts who come to the U. S.to exp loit its “g enerous” welfa re prov i-sions. You would think that immi-gra nts are leeches who don’t cont r ibutea n y thing to the U. S. economy. Youwould think that immigra nts take jobsaway from Amer ican citizens.

But all of these “common-sense”not ions are lies.

The U. S.is not be ing “over run”by immigra nts

Over this century, the U. S. has hadper iods of high and low levels of leg a limmigra t ion. Since the la te 19 60 s,num bers of legal ent r ies have beenm uch higher than the preceding de-cades, and are increasing.

The firs t, and by far the bigg es t,immigra t ion took place in the first twodecades of the 1900 s. Between 1901a nd 1910, more than 8.5 mil lion immi-gra nts offic ially entered the U. S. Thenum bers for 19 81 to 1990 are closer tothat figure than they were in interven-ing decades, at less than 7.5 mil lion.

But in terms of the ra te of immi-gra t ion rela t ive to today’s much la rg erpo pula t ion, the num bers don’t evencome close to the ea r lier per iod—tota l

immigra t ion now is less than a third ofw hat it was in 1910.

E uro pe was the key supp lier of im-migra nts at the begin ning of the cen-tury. Now La t in Amer ica and Asia arethe main sources.

The pa nic around immigra t ion us u-ally contains the racist sugg es t ion tha tLa t inos and Asia ns are well on the wayto making up a higher percentage ofAmer ica’s po pula t ion than Euro pea ns,a nd that this is undesirable.

The rac i sm of this claim is obv ious,a nd sta t i s t ica l l y, it is unt rue. In theU. S. dur ing the 19 80 s, the Asian po pu-la t ion doubled and the La t ino po pula-t ion increased by 50 percent. Never-theles s, the two groups are a mere 2.9a nd 9.4 percent of the total po pula t ionres pect ivel y—ha rdly the “takeover”th rea tened by the big ots.

It is also im porta nt to po int outthat there is zero po pula t ion gro w th inthe U. S.today. Ca l ls for reduced immi-gra t ion that cite increased num bers area lways rac i s t. Total num bers are notgro wing, so the only issue is the make-up of the po pula t ion.

“Il leg a l” immigra nts are not the problem

No one knows for certain how ma n ypeo p le are in the U. S. wi thout offic ia ldocuments. Thus, es t ima tes of thenum ber of il legal immigra nts in theU. S. a re li t tle more than exerc i ses ingues swork.

Therefore, the num bers are subjectto poli t ical ma nipula t ion, wi th sup-porters of ant i - immigra nt polic ieswa rning that there are as many as 15mil lion il leg a ls liv ing in the U. S.

The Immigra t ion and Na tura li za-t ion Serv ice es t ima tes that there are 4mil lion undocumented persons liv ingin the U. S.

Cur rent U. S. law ba rs undocu-mented immigra nts from most public

12

CHAPTER THREE

Immigrati o n Tod a y :Myth and Re a lity Nothing Fair About FA I R

THE MAIN lobby pushing fora nt i - immigra nt laws is a Wash-ington- based org a ni za t ion ca l ledthe Federa t ion for Amer ica nI mmigra t ion Reform (FA IR).

F ounded in 1979, it claims tobe a non- pa rt i san advoca te ofmodera te immigra t ion reform.In rea li ty, it is a vic iously righ t -wing org a ni za t ion whose rhetor icsounds li ke Nazi Dav id Duke’s.

FAIR spokesman Dan Ste insaid: “By the midd le of the nextcentury, the Uni ted Sta tes wil lhave become a ver i table Braz ilof North Amer ica. . .In the LAr iots, not only were whi tes thev ict ims of intended lynching s.Korea town was pil lag ed byB lacks and Hi s pa nics. M a n yof the la t ter were il leg al. . .ma n yThird Wor ld immigra nts are liv-ing off public serv ices, and ma n ya re going into cr ime.”

One of FA I R’s chief fina nc ia lbackers is the Pioneer Fund.The Pioneer Fund is a fa r-r igh tfounda t ion which has supportedthe work of rac i s ts li ke Wil lia mShock ley, who claims Blacks arebiologically infer ior to whi tes.

Other Pioneer Fund favor i tesa re Richa rd Her rns te in andCha r les Mur ray, whose 1994 bookThe Bell Curve, claimed to provethat Blacks and La t inos wereintel lectually infer ior to whi tes.

residency th rough the INS lot tery, toldthe New York Ti m e s .“We only ca me towork and give our child ren a bet terfuture.”

I mmigra nts pay more taxes tha nthey rece ive in benefits

Dr iv ing support for meas ures li kePro posi t ion 187 is the lie that immi-gra nts simply come to the U. S. tos ponge off the welfa re and educa t ions ys tem s.

On its face, this argument doesn’tmake sense. Many immigra nts, fea rfulof be ing di scovered and deported,minimi ze the ir contact wi th govern-ment ag enc ies.

Therefore, they don’t take adva n-tage of many govern ment serv ices tha ta re available to citizens at similar in-come levels.

N umerous studies show that immi-gra nts cont r ibute more in tax dol la rsthan they rece ive in govern ment ser-v ices.

A 1992 B u s i n e s s We e k cover story re-ported that annually immigra nts pay$ 90 bil lion in taxes and col lect $5 bil-lion in welfa re.

A 1991 Los Ang eles County reportnoted that undocumented workers inthe county cont r ibuted $4.3 bil lion intaxes to all levels of govern ment, butused only $2.5 bil lion in serv ices.Therefore, “il leg a l” immigra nts in LosAng eles County—w here Pro posi t ion187 pas sed by a ma rgin of 54 to 46percent —cont r ibuted $1.8 bil lionmore to the govern ment than they re-ce ived.

In the ir first th ree decades in theU. S., immigra nt fa milies ty p ically paymore in taxes than the ir na t ive coun-terpa rts, according to economist Julia nSimon, author of The Economic Conse -quences of I m m i g r a t i o n .

On averag e, Simon contends, im-migra nt fa milies pay $2,500 more in

taxes per year than they rece ive inpublic serv ices.

I mmigra nts don’t steal jobs from U. S. c i t i zens

In 19 82, when the na t ional unem-p loyment ra te hovered nea r 12 percent,the INS launched “Project Jobs” raidson busines ses em p loying undocu-mented workers. The INS roundedup more than 5,400 undocumentedworkers and pers uaded 4,100 of themto leave the count ry.

“We are very sa t i sfied wi th the re-s ul ts [of the raids],” said a New Yorkoffice INS offic ia l. “We have crea ted500 jobs for unem p loyed Amer ica ns,some of them paying $5 an hour orbet ter.”

A Wall Street Journal in ves t ig a t ionconducted six months after the raidsfound that few U. S. c i t i zens had takenthe “vaca ted” jobs, which paid an aver-age of $4.81 per hour for unskil ledwork.

The reason why the jobs went un-fil led is sim p le—they paid too li t tle.

Because of some adva ntag es—p re-domina ntly the ir grea ter comma nd ofE ngli sh —na t ive- born workers areg enerally found in higher-wage occu-pa t ions than are recent immigra nts.

Recent immigra nts, those who ar-r ived between 19 82 and 19 8 9, are con-cent ra ted in fa rm labor, lo w-wage ser-v ice jobs, swea tshop ma nufactur ingor in cons t ruct ion work, according toa study publi shed in the U. S.Depa rt-ment of Labor’s Monthly Labor Reviewin Decem ber 1992.

Nine percent of na t ive- born men—as com pa red to 19 percent of menw ho immigra ted between 19 82 and19 8 9 —worked in lo w-wage serv iceoccupa t ions li ke food prepa ra t ion,child ca re and ja ni tor ial serv ices, ac-cording to the study.

In cont ras t, na t ive- born men are

15

immigra nt crackdo w ns on Mexica nsa nd Cent ral Amer ica ns. The INS ap-p rehended more tha n 1.3 mil lion un-documented immigra nts in 1993, 95.6of them from Mexico.

There are no elect r ified fences, highwa l ls nor mas sive Border Patrol pres-ence along the U. S. -Ca nada border.

“Ninety- nine percent of enforce-ment efforts are directed at La t inosw hen, in fact, il legal immigra t ion is fa rmore diverse,” said Cec ilia Munoz,deputy vice president of the Na t iona lCounc il of La Raza.

U. S.immigra t ion law is racist to thecore.

I f you are an Afr ica n, Asian or La t inAmer ican immigra nt, you need a visato enter the U. S. If you live in one of22 “v i sa waiver” count r ies—mos tly lo-ca ted in Wes tern Euro pe — all youneed is a round -t r ip air line ticket tos tay in the U. S. for up to 90 days.

Yet the il legal immigra nts whocome to the U. S. from Wes tern Eur-o pe, Pola nd or Rus sia emigra te for thesa me reasons that immigra nts fromM exico or Gua tema la do.

“I f [my hus ba nd and I] g ot greenca rds, we’d be paying our taxes,” Ther-esa, an undocumented worker fromNorthern Irela nd seeking perma nent

14

P e t e W i l s o n : Defending Immigra n t s f ro m“C r u e l E x p l o i t a t i on”?CALIFORNIA GOV. Pete Wilsonmade immigra nt - bashing the cen-t ral focus of his ca m paign for re-elect ion in 1994. A vocal supporterof Pro posi t ion 187, Wilson wonmore than 55 percent of the vote.

But in 19 8 6, Wilson, then a sen-a tor for Ca lifornia, th rea tened tohold up pas sage of the Immigra t ionReform and Cont rol Act (I R CA)un less it allo wed agr ibusiness touse immigra nt labor dur ing ha rves tseasons. Wilson said he wa nted to“p rotect laborers from the pos si-bili ty. . .of cruel exp lo i ta t ion.”

Wilson, backed by Ca liforniaagr ibusines s, supported the cre-a t ion of the Seasonal Agr icul tureWorker (SAW) p rogra m. Under thep rogra m, immigra nt fa rmworkerswere placed on a fast track to U. S.c i t i zenship if they could producea let ter sho wing that they workedfor a Ca lifornia gro wer.

Wilson didn’t support gra nt ingc i t i zenship or other benefits toimmigra nts, but he agreed to thesemeas ures to get the SAW progra m

inserted into IRCA.Seven yea rs la ter, wi th Ca lifornia

s t ill mired in reces sion, no w-Gov.Wilson la tched onto a potent issue:il legal immigra t ion.

In 1994, Wilson filed suit ag ains tthe federal govern ment, dema ndingit re im burse Ca lifornia for the cos tof serv ices to il legal immigra nts.

Wilson backed Pro posi t ion 187poli t ically and fina nc ia l l y. Morethan 60 percent of the funding forthe ca m paign for Pro posi t ion 187ca me from the Ca lifornia Repub-lican Party.

Yet after Wilson won reelect ion,he ca l led for a new b r a c e r o p rogra mwi th Mexico to ins ure Ca liforniaagr ibusiness of a steady stream ofimmigra nt labor.

In 19 82, Wilson said: “There’sj ust no ques t ion our economydepends very heav ily on Mexica nna t iona ls.”

F or once, Pete Wilson, now con-sidered a leading ca ndida te for the1996 Republican president ial nomi-na t ion, was tel ling the truth.

B ETWEEN 1820 and 1930, more tha n32 mil lion Euro pea ns migra ted tothe U. S. Because gro wing indus t rycrea ted vast labor shortag es, immi-gra nt labor was es sent ial to thebuildup of U. S. indus t ry. The U. S.would never have attained the ra nkof wor ld indus t r ial po wer wi thoutimmigra nt labor.

The flow of immigra t ion to the U. S.closely fol lo wed the gro w th of the U. S.economy. When the U. S. economyboomed, more immigra nts ca me to theU. S. When the U. S. economy slum ped,fe wer immigra nts ca me.

Yet, whenever the U. S. economy fel linto reces sion and em p loyers cut wag esa nd laid off workers, they and ant i - im-migra nt poli t ic ia ns found a readysca peg oat in immigra nts. Succes sivewaves of immigra nts faced brutal rac-i sm and di scr imina t ion.

Today, almost no one considers peo-p le of German and Ir i sh descent any-thing other than “Amer ica n.” But inthe 18 40s and 1850 s, the “K no w-Noth-ing” movement worked to res t r ict im-migra t ion of German and Ir i sh immi-gra nts.

In the afterma th of the 1877 indus-t r ial mass strikes across the U. S., em-p loyers tried to shift the bla me for theun rest onto immigra nts. Ant i -Chinesesent iment ran high as com pa niesbla med unem p loyment on immigra ntworkers. In 18 82, the Chinese Exclu-sion Act prohibi ted immigra t ion of

Chinese laborers, and denied na tura li-za t ion for those already here.

“The Chinese Exclusion Act was inactua li ty sym ptoma t ic of a la rg er con-flict between whi te labor and whi teca p i ta l: exclusion of the Chinese wasdesigned not only to defuse an issueagi ta t ing whi te workers but also to al-lev ia te class tensions wi thin whi te so-c iety,” wr i tes hi s tor ian Rona ld Takaki.

The U. S. did not repeal the ant i -Chinese ban unt il 1943—as a ges tureto wa rt ime ally China in the ir ba t tleag ainst the Ja pa nese Empire dur ing theSecond Wor ld Wa r.

Other laws regula t ing immigra t ionto the U. S. were exp lic i tly racist anddi scr imina tory. The Immigra t ion Actof 1917 es tabli shed li teracy require-ments for those desir ing to immigra teto the U. S. — a prov i sion aimed atcurbing the influx of Eas tern Euro pea nJews and Ita lian Ca tholics.

At this time, immigra t ion author i-t ies admini s tered IQ tes ts in English tomili ta ry-ag ed men. Those scor ing thelo wes t—not surp r i singl y, immigra ntsw hose first la nguage was not Engli sh—were the first to be shipped off tothe trenches in the Firs t Wor ldWa r.

From 1924 to 19 65, the annua lnum ber of places for legal immigra ntswas alloca ted among different coun-t r ies th rough a sys tem of “na t iona lor igins quotas.” The quotas for immi-gra nts were based on a com p lica tedform ula heav ily we igh ted to favorw hi te immigra nts from Euro pe over allothers.

In 1952, McCa r ra n-Wa l ter Act—pas sed at the he ight of the ant i -com-m unist McCa rthy era—int roducedboth class and poli t ical di scr imina t ioninto offic ial immigra t ion law. The Actba r red comm uni s ts and soc ia li s ts fromimmigra t ing to the U. S. And it es tab-li shed a sys tem that gave “p reference”to midd le-class and wea l thy immi-

17

1.6 times more li kely to work in ma n-ag er ial and profes sional occupa t ionsthan are immigra nt men who arrivedbetween 19 82 and 19 8 9.

A Pr inceton Universi ty economi s tw ho studied the im pact of the moretha n 125,000 Cuba ns who emigra tedto the Mia mi area in the 19 80 Marielboa tlift concluded the influx “had vir-tually no effect on the wag es and un-em p loyment ra tes of les s -skil led work-ers,” w hether whi te or Black.

What isn’t often ackno wledg ed isthat many more jobs in the U. S. de-pend on immigra t ion than prev iousl y.An Urban Ins t i tute study concludedthat immigra nts help to crea te morejobs in urban areas than the na t ivepo pula t ion.

“I mmigra nt res taura nts and busi-nes ses pay taxes, and the ir workers bu yclothes and food and homes in ne igh-borhoods that were formerly dead.There’s a mul t ip lier effect, that doesn’ta lways get ca ptured,” said Greg oryDe Fre i tas, a Hofs t ra Universi ty immi-gra t ion expert.

Another ra rel y-di scus sed cont r ibu-t ion of immigra nts to the U. S. is thefact that immigra t ion increases thenum ber of peo p le of working age inthe po pula t ion and workforce.

Act ive workers support the ret iredpo pula t ion drawing Soc ial Secur i tychecks. One study sho wed that by2 025, there will be more workers perret iree in the U. S. than in either Ja pa nor Germa n y.

I mmigra nts don’t come to the U. S.for its welfa re benefits

The Reagan and Bush admini s t ra-t ions pushed th rough savage cuts onp rograms aimed at hel p ing the poor.The Clinton admini s t ra t ion’s plan to“end welfa re as we know it” cont inuedthe cuts.

Between 19 81 a nd 1993, federa l

s pending on programs ta rg eted to lo w-income peo p le dro pped by 45 percent—from an average of $3,107 spent perperson to an average of $1,697.

The ant i - immigra t ion lobby wouldhave us believe that these ever-dwind-ling benefits are a “magnet” that at-t racts the Third Wor ld’s poor to theU. S.

Yet, a com pa r i son of Ca lifornia im-migra nt and na t ive households, basedon 1990 Cens us figures, sho wed tha timmigra nt households—w hile poorerthan na t ive- born households—usefe wer welfa re benefits.

The 1994 study, conducted by theTomas Rivera Center in Cla remont,Ca lif., sho wed that 20.2 percent of im-migra nt households lived below thepoverty line, com pa red to 11.2 percentof na t ive- born households. Neverthe-les s, 20.4 percent of Ca lifornia immi-gra nt households liv ing under thepoverty line rece ived welfa re benefits,com pa red to 26.2 percent of na t ivehouseholds.

The Center’s resea rch also sho wedthat while poverty ra tes for Cent ra lAmer ica ns liv ing in Ca lifornia in-creased by 3 percent between 1979a nd 19 8 9, the percent of householdsrece iv ing public as si s ta nce dro ppedby 50 percent—from 20.4 percent in19 80 to 10.9 percent in 1990.

I mmigra nts are certainly not tobla me for the fact that federa l, sta tea nd local govern ments are increasingl yshirking any res ponsibili ty to allev ia tepoverty in the U. S.

16

CHAPTER FO U R

Th e Po litics of U.S.Immigrati o n Po l icy

19

gra nts over working-class immigra nts.The govern ment used the 1952

M c Ca r ran Act to “smash labor unions,break strikes, further int imida te im-migra nt workers and ha rass the Mexi-can minor i ty in the Uni ted Sta tes,”wrote Ja mes D. Cockcroft in O u t l a w sin the Promised Land. A num ber of for-e ign- born ra nk-a nd - file leaders in theCongress of Indus t r ial Org a ni za t ions(C IO) unions—accused of comm uni s ts ym pa thies—were deported.

Only in 19 65 — w hen the civ ilr igh ts movement pres sed the govern-ment to outlaw apa rthe id in the U. S.South—did an overhaul of U. S.immi-gra t ion law scrap the “na t ional or iginsquota” s ys tem.

St il l, the 19 65 reforms left intactregional ca ps on immigra t ion, the“p reference” s ys tem and the ant i -com-m unist ba n. The ant i -comm unist ba nwasn’t lifted unt il 1990, after the col-la pse of Sta lini sm in Eas tern Euro pe.

Recent legi sla t ion on immigra t ionThe 1986 Immigra t ion and Refug ee

Cont rol Act (I R CA), often cited as a“p rogres sive” meas ure, was a major set-back for immigra nt righ ts. While giv-ing amnes ty for selected long-termresidents, the act also increased fundsfor border enforcement and immigra ntdetain ment centers.

In addi t ion, the ne w “em p loyersa nct ions,” hera lded as shift ing the re-s ponsibili ty for il legal em p loyment onto the bos ses, actually weakened work-ers’ righ ts. Working wi thout pro perdocumenta t ion was made a cr ime forthe first time.

The shift in policy sa nct ioned arbi-t ra ry workp lace raids by the INS anda l lo wed for the detent ion of workerss us pected of be ing il leg a l—i. e., look-ing fore ign, or speaking wi th a Spa ni shaccent.

The IRCA sta tes that occasiona l

labor does not require the us ual docu-ments. So immigra nts prev iously inoffic ial em p loyment were pushed intothe “underground economy,” wherethere are fe wer regula t ions and en-forcement is more lax.

In 19 8 9, border pa t rol gua rds werei s s ued M-15 rifles, and new counter-ins urg ency uni ts were develo ped topolice the borders. At the sa me time,the govern ment sa nct ioned the use oft roo ps to com bat the flow of undocu-mented workers.

The 1990 Immigra t ion Act author-i zed the INS to make arres ts for anyv iola t ion of federal law, and increasedthe presence of police and mili ta ryforces on and around the la nd borders.

This led to a ma rked increase ofrout ine surve il la nce, arres ts and deten-t ion of La t inos in Southern Ca lifornia.Dur ing the Los Ang eles rebel lion, asmany as 600 La t inos were arres ted anddeported wi thout any legal recourse.

The level of ha ras sment is so hightha t, for mil lions of Spa ni sh speakersin the border area, verbal and physica labuse from the police and INS offic ia lsa re an ordina ry as pect of daily life.

These acts did not cut num bers oflegal immigra nts. On the cont ra ry, the1990 law increased the limit for leg a limmigra nts by 40 percent.

The im porta nt po int is that al-though cla m pdo w ns are presented asa t tem pts to stop il legal aliens, theynever actually stop il legal ent r ies—a nd are not really intended to.

They simply he igh ten the di s t inc-t ion between legal and il leg a l, extendthe cr imina li za t ion of sect ions of theworkforce, and allow for higher levelsof exp lo i ta t ion.

18

Some Immigrants Are More Eq u a l Than Ot hersWHILE TO DAY’S immigra t ion lawdoesn’t exp lic i tly bar immigra nts onthe grounds of race, it cont inues toup hold double sta nda rds that favorsome immigra nts over others.

The most bla ta nt exa m p le ofthis in recent yea rs has been thedi s t inct ion immigra t ion law madebetween immigra nts to the U. S.from Cuba and from Hai t i.

In 19 66, the U. S.Congress pas sedthe Cuba Adj us tment Act. Under it,any Cuban emigra t ing to the U. S.was automa t ically clas sified as a re-fug ee, gra nted perma nent residencys ta tus, and prov ided as si s ta nce toset tle in the U. S.

Ra ther than signa ling a huma n-i ta r ian im pulse in U. S. immigra t ionlaw, the Cuba Adj us tment Act waspa rt of the Cold War ag ainst theU S S R’s ally, Cuba. Immigra nts fromCuba were automa t ically consid-ered to be poli t ica l “refug ees fromcomm uni sm” a nd used to scorep ro pag a nda po ints for the Wes t.

The 40,000 Hai t ia ns who fledthe ir homela nd fol lo wing the 1991mili ta ry coup w hich overth re wPresident Jea n-Bert ra nd Ar i s t idewere trea ted li ke cr imina ls.

Ra ther than be ing vie wed as re-fug ees flee ing poli t ical persecut ion,U. S.immigra t ion author i t ies con-sidered the Hai t ia ns “economic”refug ees —t rying to emigra te tothe U. S. for jobs.

The U. S.policy of forced repa-t r ia t ion of H ai t ian refug ees inter-cepted on the high seas began in19 81 wi th an agreement betweenPresident Rona ld Reagan and Hai-t ian dicta tor Jea n-Claude Du va lier.

U. S. Coast Gua rd and Navy ships

intercepted Hai t ian boat peo p lea t sea and im p r i soned them in con-cent ra t ion ca m ps li ke that at theU. S. naval base at Gua nt á na mo Bay,Cuba, or forc ibly repa t r ia ted themto Hai t i. Many met the ir dea ths atthe ha nds of the Hai t ian mili ta ry.

The reason for the bla ta nt dou-ble sta nda rd was sim p le: poli t ics.

F or most of this century, Hai t ihas been run by a ser ies of righ t -wing mili ta ry dicta torships pro ppedup by the U. S. Thus, the U. S. hasa lways tried to do w n p lay huma nr igh ts atroc i t ies in Hai t i.

In fact, more Hai t ia ns were ad-mi t ted to the U. S. as poli t ical refu-g ees in the nine-month term ofPresident Ar i s t ide in 1990-91—w hose elect ion the U. S. o pposed—than were admi t ted in the prev iousdecade under the dicta tors.

In cont rast to Haiti under theg enera ls, the Cuban govern mentca me to po wer at the head of a na-t ional libera t ion movement whichtos sed out a U. S. - backed dicta tor in1959. Therefore, the U. S.has con-si s tently supported polic ies in-tended to undermine Cas t ro’s Cuba.

More than 500,000 Cuba ns emi-gra ted to the U. S. under the CubaAdj us tment Act before PresidentClinton ended spec ial protect ionfor Cuba ns in 1994.

Clinton acted when more tha n30,000 Cuban b a l s e r o s ( rafters) leftthe isla nd for Flor ida, flee ing deter-iora t ing economic condi t ionsbrought on by the 30-yea r- longU. S.em ba rgo ag ainst Cuba.

Wi th the Cold War over, thepoli t ical reasons for encouragingemigra t ion from Cuba were gone.

di t ion in the U. S. labor movement ofi n t e r n a t i o n a l i s m .

As far back as 18 49, a leading laborpa per publi shed this appea l: “. . .Thefeeling of animosi ty which exi s tsag ainst fore ign mecha nics was or igi-nally sta rted by em p loyers to di s t ractyour attent ion from meas ures of im-porta nce and which would ul t ima tel yp rove of real pract ical benefit to you.”

Union act iv i s ts who took the inter-na t iona list posi t ion rejected the Amer-ican Federa t ion of Labor’s elitist craft -union or ienta t ion.

The Indus t r ia l Workers of theWor ld, formed in 1905, sought to or-g a ni ze all workers into “one big union”to fight the bos ses. It opposed res t r ic-t ions on immigra t ion and act ively triedto org a ni ze fore ign- born workers.

“All workers can be org a ni zed re-g a rd less of race or color, as soon as the irminds are clea red of the pa t r iot ic no-t ion that there is any reason of be ingp roud of hav ing been born of a certainshade of skin or in an arbi t ra r ily fencedoff port ion of the ea rth,” said an edi tor-ial in Industrial Wo r k e r, the IWW pa per.

When no union would org a ni zeJa pa nese, Filip ino, Chinese and Mexi-can fa rmworkers in Ca lifornia, theIWW did.

The IWW achieved its grea test vic-tory in 1912, when it led a strike of30,000 Lawrence, Mas s. text ile mil lworkers, most of w hom were fore ign-born. The mili ta nt strike uni ted work-ers of 45 different na t iona li t ies.

This is the tradi t ion in which thebest figh ters in the U. S. labor and thesoc ia list movement sta nd. Soc ia li s tsli ke Eug ene Debs cas t ig a ted those inthe labor movement who supportedres t r ict ions on Asian immigra t ion.

In fact, Congress of Indus t r ial Or-g a ni za t ions (C I O) leader John L.Le wis en li s ted the help of soc ia li s ts andcomm uni s ts to break the open-sho p

s teel indus t ry, where the workforcewas la rg ely com posed of Eas tern Euro-pean immigra nts. Le wis knew that thesoc ia li s ts had long s ta nding ties to theimmigra nt comm uni t ies which wouldbe es sent ial to promot ing the CIOcause among steelworkers.

It is clear which tradi t ion has thebet ter record of figh t ing and win ningincreased wag es and benefits for all,immigra nt and citizen ali ke—the in-terna t iona list tradi t ion.

Dur ing the 192 0 s, when the AFLwon its “v ictory” in closing off mos timmigra t ion to the U. S., the tradeunion movement suffered defeat afterdefeat at the ha nds of the em p loyers’“o pen sho p” d r ive. AFL mem bershipp lummeted from more than 4 mil lionto just a li t tle over 2 mil lion dur ing thedecade.

In cont ras t, the victory at Lawrencein 1912 was a victory for all text ileworkers—both na t ive- born and im-migra nt. Fea r ing that the exa m p le ofLawrence would spread to other text ilemil ls, the em p loyers increased wag esfor more than 400,000 text ile workersna t ionwide.

Indus t r ial unions li ke the Uni tedAuto Workers (UAW) a nd the Uni tedSteelworkers of Amer ica (U SWA)would never have been built had theunions’ org a ni zers not en li s ted the sup-port o f immigra nts in the 1930 ss t ruggle.

Today, as then, immigra nt workersa re an integral pa rt of the U. S. workingclas s. The deba te between those whos upport immigra t ion res t r ict ion andthose who support org a ni z ing immi-gra nt workers cont inues.

In 19 8 6, the AFL-CIO Execut iveCounc il endorsed the Immigra t ion Re-form and Cont rol Act (I R CA). Never-theles s, mem ber unions li ke the UAW,the Serv ice Employees Interna t iona lUnion (S E I U) a nd the Uni ted Elect r i-

2 1

“Gran d mo ther Maj auski e ne had cometo America with her son at a time whe nso far as she knew, there was only oneo ther Lithuanian family in the dist ri ct.The work ers had all been Ger m ans the n—skilled cattle but chers the employ er sh ad br o ught fr om abr oad to start thebusiness. Af t erw ard, as che a p er laborh ad come, the Ger m ans had moved aw ay.

“The next were the Irish— there hadbeen six or eight years when Pac king-town had been a regular Irish city. . . .

“The Bohemians had come the n, an daf t er them, the Poles. Peo ple said th a told man Du rh am hims e lf [the employ er]was resp onsible for these im migra tions;he had sworn that he wo uld fix the peo-ple of pac kingtown so that they wo uldnever again call a st rike on him, an dso he sent his ag e n ts in to every city an dvillage in Europe to sp r e ad the tale ofthe ch ances of work and high wag esa t the stoc kyard s.

“The peo ple had come in hordes, an dold Du rh am had squee z ed them tigh t erand tigh t er, sp eeding them up an dgrin ding them to pi eces and sendingf or new ones. The Poles, who had comeby the tens of tho usan d s, had been drive nto the wall by the Lithuanians, an dnow the Lithuanians were giving wayto the Slov aks.

“Who there was poor er and more mis-erable th an the Slov aks, Gran d mo therMaj auski e ne had no ide a, but the pac k-ers wo uld find them, never fear.”m Upton Sinclair, The Jungle,1906

THE PA S SAGE from Upton Sin-clair’s clas sic exposé of the Chicag omea tpacking indus t ry il lus t ra teshow em p loyers used immigra t ionto lo wer the wag es of all workers.

It wasn’t simply workers’ blind pre-j udice that underp in ned ant i - immi-gra nt feeling s. Ra ther, the com pet i t ionbetween workers for jobs and housingoften set na t ive- born workers ag ains timmigra nts.

The bos ses also tried consc iousl yto stoke na t ivist sent iment amongworkers.

“All too frequently ne wl y-a r r ivedimmigra nts of every na t iona li ty madethe ir first ent ra nce into Amer ican in-dus t ry as strikebreakers,” wrote laborhi s tor ian Philip Foner.

F or these reasons, many in the labormovement supported res t r ict ions onimmigra t ion. In the 1870s and 18 80 s,an ant i -Chinese third - pa rty movementin Ca lifornia gained support amongt rade unions to press the sta te and fed-eral govern ments to bar Chinese im-migra t ion.

The Amer ican Federa t ion of Labor,the chief na t ional org a ni za t ion of U. S.workers between 1886 and 1935, main-tained clauses in its mem ber unions’cha rters ba r r ing the unskil led, immi-gra nts and Afr ica n-Amer ica ns.

These exclusiona ry polic ies did notkeep immigra nt workers from wa nt-ing to jo in unions.

In 1903, federa t ion president Sa m-uel Gom pers personally intervened top revent the Los Ang eles Cent ral LaborCounc il from admi t t ing Mexican andJa pa nese fa rmworkers who had recent-ly won a solid strike. In 1924, the AFLcounted as one of i ts main legi sla t iveachievements the pas sage of the rac i s tna t ional immigra t ion act.

This rot ten record of ant i - immi-gra nt exclusion did not go uncha l-leng ed. There is a long and hero ic tra-

20

CHAPTER FIVE

U.S. Labor andImm igrati o n

The AFL-CIO still ca l ls for streng-thened border enforcement and for a“fraud - p roof, non-di scr imina tory, non-ca rd sys tem. . . to enable em p loyers tover ify very quickly every new hire’seligibili ty.”

But the federa t ion’s opposi t ion toPro posi t ion 187 and its condemna t ionof ant i - immigra nt sca peg oa t ing is as tep in the right direct ion.

23

cal Workers (U E)—a mong others—cr i t ic i zed IRCA and org a ni zed “il leg a l”workers along side “leg a l” workers.

New ca m paigns to org a ni ze la rg el yimmigra nt workforces, li ke the SEIU’sJus t ice for Ja ni tors or the Jus t ice forDry wa l lers ca m paign, have won.

These ca m paigns have affected theA F L -C I O’s posi t ion on immigra t ion.The federa t ion opposed Pro posi t ion

187 a nd condemned IRCA’s “em p loyersa nct ions” p rov i sions for causing di s-cr imina t ion ag ainst workers.

The labor federa t ion, in a sta tementreleased in Augus t, 1994, said il leg a limmigra t ion is “gros sly exagg era ted”a nd that immigra nts were be ing usedas a sca peg oat for “the general deter i-ora t ion of em p loyment opportuni t iesa nd wag es.”

22

U.S.and Mexican Workers : Unite To Figh t the Common EnemyIN 18 48, in the set tlement of theM exica n- U. S. war provoked byAmer ican pro-slavery forces, Mexicoceded to the U. S. one- ha lf of i ts ter-r i tory. The U. S. gained the area tha tincludes present -day Ar i zona, Ca li-fornia, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah,ha lf of Colorado, and the pa rt ofTexas not annexed a decade ea r lier.

In the 150 yea rs since, a porousborder has exi s ted between the twocount r ies. It has always been openenough to allow Mexican workers tocross the border to work when theem p loyers needed them to fill laborshortag es in the U. S.

But the presence of the borderhas also been used to the em p loyers’a nd the sta te’s adva ntag e. In the1930s and 1950 s, thousa nds of M ex-ica ns in vol ved in labor org a ni z ingin the Southwes tern agr icul tura lindus t ry were deported.

M exican fa rmworkers did not wina perma nent org a ni za t ional footholdunt il the 19 60 s, wi th the es tabli sh-ment of the Uni ted Farm Workers(U F W), led by Cesar Chavez.

Today, Mexican immigra nts arean increasingly im porta nt pa rt of thenon-agr icul tural economy as wel l.The ir struggles, li ke the 1992 -93Jus t ice for Dry wa l lers ca m paignin Southern Ca lifornia, are cr i t ica l

to the U. S. labor movement.The ca m paign—ins p ired by the

s ucces sful Jus t ice for Ja ni tors org a n-i z ing drive at Los Ang eles’ CenturyCi ty—began when a group of mos tl yM exican cons t ruct ion workers inOra nge County org a ni zed a strikefor bet ter working condi t ions, wag esa nd benefits and the right to a union.

Wi thin a few weeks, hund redsof workers were in vol ved.

The cons t ruct ion indus t ry hadsmashed the Ca rpenters union,w hich had rep resented dry wa l lworkers, in 19 82. Over the next 10yea rs, the indus t ry lo wered wag es,lengthened hours, and increasingl yrelied on subcont ract labor.

The indus t ry shifted from amainly Anglo to a predomina ntl yM exican workforce.

E m p loyers as s umed that legal andil legal immigra nts would be easierto ma nipula te and exp lo i t. But theJus t ice for Dry wa l lers ca m paignp roved them wrong.

The course of the strike laid ba rethe way that ant i - immigra nt rac i smhurts all workers. Whi te rac i s ts werebrought in as scabs.

The Border Patrol intervened toha rass the strikers, some of w homwere undocumented.

At the he ight of the strike, one

s t r i ker said, “As long as we werequiet and worked for nothing, theBorder Patrol did nothing. Now tha twe are on strike they show up atp icket lines and th rea ten us, but wea re not sca red of them anymore.”

Des p i te the full we ight of thes ta te and the bos ses ag ainst them,the ca m paign won solida r i ty fromother workers locally and na t iona l l y.

Wi th whole sect ions of the indus-t ry shut do w n, and an increasingl ywel l -org a ni zed mass of workerss ta nding up ag ainst them, em p loyersof the major com pa nies were forcedto neg ot ia te wi th the strikers.

I f U. S. com pa nies play immigra ntsa nd citizens ag ainst each other inthe U. S., they also play workers inM exico ag ainst workers in the U. S.

Today, more than 2,000 factor ies,em p loying 500,000 workers, opera tein the m a q u i l a zone near the U. S.border, where com pa nies can takeadva ntage of spec ial trade rules.Most of them are owned by gia nts ofU. S. indus t ry li ke Honey wel l, Gen-eral Motors and General Elect r ic.

The int roduct ion of m ul t ina t iona lt rade agreements li ke NAFTA makeseven more cruc ial the need to linkworkers’ struggles in the U. S. wi thworkers struggles in Mexico, Ca nadaa nd beyond.

U. S. - based com pa nies have triedto wr ing conces sions from U. S.workers by th rea tening to moveto M exico. But if there is no wag eadva ntage to be gained from mov ing,the bos ses ca n’t blackmail workersin the U. S.

There are two ways to boos tM exican wag es. Firs t, allow free im-migra t ion so that Mexican workerscan ea rn as much as they ca n. Sec-ond, U. S. unions must aid in org a n-i z ing the ir Mexican brothers andsi s ters and insist that they be paida t the sa me ra tes as U. S.workers.

There is plenty of opportuni tyto put this into pract ice, as unionsli ke the Uni ted Elect r ical Workers,w hich have tried to org a ni ze in them a q u i l a d o r a p la nts along the U. S. -M exico border, have found.

General Motors is the la rg es tp r iva te em p loyer in Mexico. UAWact iv i s ts in the New Direct ionsmovement have ma nag ed to buildthe first cr i t ical links between U. S.a nd Mexican auto workers.

We need more of these cros s -border efforts, not fe wer.

M exican workers who cross theborder seeking work in the U. S. a rea l lies, not enemies, of North Amer-ican workers. U. S. trade unionsshould cha m p ion the ir righ ts.

2 4 25

Immigra nt-Bas h ing and the Rise of the Fa r Ri g h t in Euro p e“THREE MILLION immigra nts, th reemil lion jobs.”

Using that sim p le slog a n, Frenchneo-Nazi Jean Marie Le Pen ma n-ag ed, in the space of one decade,to build his Na t ional Front froma fr inge of kooks into a leading forcein na t ional poli t ics.

Le Pen has had a lot of help frompeo p le that are supposed to be hi ssworn enemies.

In 1991, Soc ia list Party Pr imeMini s ter Edi th Cres son said shewould cha rter pla nes to ship NorthAfr ican immigra nts back wherethey ca me from. Ins tead of under-mining support for Le Pen, Cres sonmerely lent credibili ty to the Na-t ional Front’s crusade.

Le Pen ca p i ta li zed on di scontentwi th the “ Soc ia li s t” g overn ment ofFrançois Mi t ter ra nd, which, in the19 80 s, presided over an aus ter i typ rogram of cutbacks that conser-va t ives in the U. S. would en vy.

In the wake of the cr i sis in Euro pefol lo wing the col la pse of Sta lini smin Eas tern Euro pe and a reces sionin the first ha lf of the 1990 s, far righ ta nd neo- fascist pa rt ies have gaineds upport by attacking immigra nts.

The ups urge in support for theneo-Nazis has come at prec i sely thet ime poli t ic ia ns and the media saidthat Wes tern princ ip les of “free-dom” and “liberty” t r i um p hed over“comm uni sm” fol lo wing the 19 8 9revolut ions in Eas tern Euro pe.

Yet ins tead of finding open arm s,immigra nts and refug ees from theEast have found a ne w “iron curtain”of immigra t ion cont rols erected tokeep them out of Wes tern Euro pe.

H a rsh Euro pean Comm uni ty (EC)

laws res t r ict ent ry from wi thin andoutside the EC. The EC’s tigh terchecks on immigra t ion have forcedan es t ima ted 2.5 mil lion immigra ntsinto il legal sta tus.

The bruta li ty of these new poli-c ies is clear from the trea tment ofrefug ees flee ing wa r-torn areas ofEas tern Euro pe.

In res ponse, the EC int roducedin 1992 the “first safe count ry prin-c ip le.” This decla res that anyoneseeking refuge must go to the firs t“safe place” nea rest to the ir sta rt ingpo int. Refug ees found beyond tha tpo int are “bum ped back” to the las tsafe count ry cros sed.

So, for exa m p le, Bosnia ns enter-ing Germany to flee the ir count ry arebum ped back to Aus t r ia and thento Slovenia and then to Croa t ia.

In addi t ion to the EC res t r ict ions,Aus t r ia, Fra nce, Germa n y, Br i tain,Spain, Portug a l, and Italy have allint roduced draconian immigra t iona nd as ylum law s.

Al though the refug ees from Eas t-ern Euro pe are the focal po int of the“cr i si s,” many of the new meas ureshave a racist bent that attacks non-E uro pea ns. In addi t ion to ba r r ingnew arriva ls, the German laws wi th-hold citizenship from Turks bornin Germa n y.

The rhetor ic about new floodsof immigra nts swel ling the na t ionsof E uro pe is far from the truth.

Of the wor ld’s refug ees a mere 5percent go to Euro pe, and, of those,the major i ty are from wi thin Euro pe.Taken as a percentage of E uro pe’spo pula t ion of nearly 500 mil lion, thehund reds of thousa nds of refug eesa re a tiny pro port ion of the whole.

This undermines the main jus t i-fica t ion for the cla m pdo w n: tha tE uro pe is unable to co pe wi th un-p recedented po pula t ion increases.

In cont rast to the es t ima ted700,000 refug ees seeking as ylum inE uro pe today, about 10 mil lion weredi s pos ses sed by the Second Wor ldWar and absorbed into the indus-t r ia li zed na t ions of Wes tern Euro pe.

Pos t -Second Wor ld War migra ntlabor actually rebuilt the economiessha t tered by wa r. Between 1955 and19 66, for exa m p le, German em p loy-ers made agreements wi th Turkey,Tuni sia, Yug oslav ia and other SouthE uro pean count r ies to secure chea plabor.

The subsequent 4 mil lion “gues tworkers” in Germany were exp lo i tedw hile liv ing as second -class citizens:no righ ts, no benefits, and alwayss ubject to ha ras sment. The sonsa nd daugh ters of those laborers arenow be ing excluded from the citi-zenship righ ts that were supposedto come wi th German birth.

When Germany fell into a sha rpreces sion fol lo wing the unifica t ionof i ts Eas tern and Wes tern pa rts in1990, German Cha ncel lor Kohl triedto shift the bla me for the economiccr i sis onto immigra nts and as ylumseekers.

A German business pa per ex-p lained: “It couldn’t go on li ke thi sany more: the whole wor ld was ta lk-ing about nothing else but infla t ion,reces sion and higher taxes. . .Votersturned to wa rds the opposi t ion inmas ses. Something had to ha ppen.And it ha ppened. Inter ior Mini s terSch ä uble pushed a new theme ontothe public stag e: the ques t ion of

as ylum seekers.”Wi thin weeks of the sta rt of the

g overn ment ca m paign, Nazi gang slaunched hor r ifying attacks ag ains thos tels of Turki sh and Vietna meseimmigra nt workers.

Germa n y’s Cha ncel lor Kohl thenpushed for a cons t i tut ional amend-ment limi t ing Germa n y’s rela t ivel yliberal as ylum law. He claimed it wasan attem pt to com bat rising rac i sm!

The sa me argument is hea rd inthe U. S. : residents will not tolera tethe admi s sion of fore igners at at ime when there aren’t enough jobs,schools or benefits to go round. Theway to prevent a back lash, it’s said,is to get rid of immigra nts.

This claim needs to be tack ledhead on for the lie that it is.

As the exper ience in Euro pesho w s, na t ional leaders give cre-dence to the idea that fore ignersa re to bla me for unem p loymenta ndfa l ling sta nda rds of liv ing whenthey clamp down on immigra t ion.

In this way, poli t ic ia ns li ke Kohl—a nd Clinton—give the go-aheadto the neo- fasc i s ts and the ir rac i s ta t tacks.

It is no co inc idence that fiveTurki sh women and child ren werem urdered in a racist firebom bingin Soling en, Germany in May 1993—th ree days after the Germa npa r lia ment voted for tougheras ylum law s.

“Get t ing tough” wi th immigra-t ion does not stop ant i - immigra nta t tacks.

On the cont ra ry, it lays the bla mefor soc ial il ls on immigra nts, and inbla ming the vict im encourag esfurther direct attacks.

That is why we ca n not allow themto attack the most po wer less and vul-nerable groups in Amer ican soc iety.The attack on immigra nts doesn’t sim-ply affect immigra nts. It affects everyworker in the Uni ted Sta tes.

F or exa m p le, den ying medical trea t-ment to immigra nts is not only in hu-ma ne—it is da ng erous. Wi th holdingvacc ina t ions for child ren or medica lt rea tment for peo p le wi th comm uni-cable di seases can cause ep idemicsw hich will affect everyone—immi-gra nt and na t ive- born ali ke.

As one Ca lifornia doctor put it ins peaking out ag ainst Pro posi t ion 187,“Viruses don’t ca r ry green ca rds.”

Another consequence of the cur rent

a nt i - immigra t ion mood is the increas-ing di scus sion of some sort of na t iona lident ifica t ion sys tem to ver ify eligi-bili ty to work. This would increasecont rol of the govern ment and em-p loyers over workers.

A Clinton-a ppo inted commi s sions tudying immigra t ion policy, headedby former U. S. Rep. Ba rba ra Jorda n,recommended in 1994 that the U. S.g overn ment consider ins t i tut ing a“fraud - p roof” s ys tem wi th a “na t iona lident ifica t ion ca rd.”

A na t ional ident ifica t ion ca rd coulda l low the govern ment and big busines sto link com puter da tabases, includingmedica l, fina nc ia l, em p loyment andother records. This would be a major

27

FOR MOST peo p le who have beenworking long er hours at lo wer pay—a nd who cont inue to find it dif-ficult to make ends meet for them-sel ves and the ir fa milies—a nt i - im-migra t ion meas ures li ke Pro posi-t ion 187 can seem to offer a solut ion.

“If only we didn’t have to spend som uch on il legal immigra nts,” ant i - im-migra t ion poli t ic ia ns say, “we couldtake ca re of our ‘o w n’ peo p le.”

As this pa m p hlet has made clea r,these kinds of a ppea ls are sna res.

Not only is immigra nts’ use of re-sources wildly exagg era ted, but alsothese appea ls us ually come from poli-t ic ia ns who are cut t ing back on educa-t ion, housing and welfa re for all work-ers—c i t i zen and immigra nt.

This is one reason you shouldn’tfall for ant i - immigra t ion poli t ics. It di-verts attent ion from the real cause ofpeo p les’ problem s—bos ses who wa ntto pay workers as li t tle as pos sible,poli t ic ia ns who wa nt to cut spendingfor the poor and cut taxes for the rich,a sys tem which puts profit before hu-man need.

The U. S.g overn ment spends moreon its mili ta ry machine than the next10 la rg est mili ta r ies com bined. U. S.taxpayers are cur rently foot ing the bil l—at a cost that could run as high as$500 bil lion—for the col la pse of thesav ings and loan indus t ry in the 19 80 s.

These ha ndouts to the corpora t ionsa re ha rdly even di scus sed today. Yeta nt i - immigra t ion poli t ic ia ns wa nt youto believe that immigra nts are ba nk-rupt ing the govern ment.

The Republican congres sional lead-ership claims that ba r r ing legal immi-gra nts from rece iv ing govern ment as-si s ta nce would save $21 bil lion overfive yea rs. Even if this figure isn’tgros sly infla ted, it would amount to asav ings of .0003 percent of federa ls pending.

And one thing is sure: even tha tsma l l “sav ing s” won’t find its way backto workers’ pockets.

F or exa m p le, the Republica ns arep la n ning tens of bil lions in tax cuts—most of the benefits will go to ther ichest Amer ica ns. Al most th ree-qua r-ters of the gains from the ir pla n ned taxcut on “ca p i tal gains” will go to 1 per-cent of taxpayers who make more tha n$100,000.

In addi t ion to hel p ing the bos sesdivert attent ion away from the ir ownrot ten polic ies, ant i - immigra nt mea-s ures div ide our side and strengthenthe irs.

The attack on il legal immigra nts ispa rt of a broader attack on “ent i tle-ments,” the idea that every Amer ica n—w hether citizen or not—is gua ra n-teed an educa t ion, govern ment as si s-ta nce if they are poor or unem p loyed,a nd an old -age pension.

The Republica ns who took overCongress in Ja nua ry 1995 don’t wa ntto cut off food sta m ps, school lunchesa nd welfa re from immigra nts (legal oril leg al) so that they can help na t ive-born citizens.

On the cont ra ry, they wa nt to cuts pending on these programs and endthe ir sta tus as ent i tlements. If they getthe ir way, poor peo p le of all races andna t iona li t ies will no long er be automa-t ically eligible to rece ive as si s ta nce.

26

CHAPTER S I X

Wh y You S houl d Oppose Immi g rant-B a s hing

Why B lack Workers Have No Interest in Immigrant Bas h ingONE OF most sickening ploys ofthe ant i - immigra nt rac i s ts is the ira t tem pt to win support amongAfr ica n-Amer ica ns.

Unfortuna tel y, the rac i s ts havemade some headway.

A Los Ang eles Times exit pol les t ima ted that 47 percent of B lackvoters voted for Pro posi t ion 187.

B lack U. S.Reps. Maxine Wa ters(D-Ca lif.) a nd Wa l ter R. Tucker(D-Ca lif.), who rep resent di s t r ictsin Los Ang eles increasingly div idedbetween Blacks and La t inos, didn’ts peak out strongly ag ainst Pro p-osi t ion 187.

In areas li ke Mia mi and LosAng eles, the na t iv i s ts claim tha tLa t ino and Asian immigra nts aredi s p lac ing Blacks from jobs tha tB lacks had held prev iousl y.

Resea rch sugg es ts otherwi se.A 1984 study by immigra t ion expertDr. Thomas Mul ler found “no sta-t i s t ical rela t ionship between thesi ze of the Hi s pa nic po pula t ion and

black unem p loyment.”B lacks have nothing to gain by

s upport ing the immigra nt - bashers.Firs t, Black support for the ant i -

immigra nt ag enda lets the rac i s tsbehind meas ures li ke Pro posi t ion187 claim that they are not rac i s ts.

Second, Black Amer ica ns sha rewi th La t ino and Asian immigra ntsmany common issues—in defend-ing affirma t ive act ion law s, in figh t-ing police bruta li ty, in figh t ing forhea l th ca re and im p roved housing.

The Los Ang eles rebel lionuni ted Blacks and La t inos—a longwi th whi tes and Asia ns—in as t ruggle ag ainst the police and theg overn ment.

Greg, an unem p loyed residentof Los Ang eles’ Crenshaw di s t r icttold the Pac ific News Serv ice whyhe voted ag ainst Pro posi t ion 187:“It’s just more sca peg oa t ing, morerac i sm. They’re building morep r i sons for us and they wa nt tosend them out of the count ry.”

A NTI-I M M I G R ATION meas ures li kePro posi t ion 187 and its clones inother sta tes are a clear and presentda ng er to all of us. The im porta ntques t ion today is: How do we builda movement to fight back?

A ba t tle to defend immigra nts hasto be fought both in the realm of ideasa nd on the ground, in comm uni t iesa nd workp laces.

As this pa m p hlet has sho w n, thea nt i - immigra nt ca m paign is based onlies. These lies need to be met head on.

But an effect ive opposi t ion to ant i -immigra nt poli t ics ca n not begin, asmany Democra t ic poli t ic ia ns do, byconceding the major po ints: tha t “il le-g a l” immigra t ion is a problem, or tha ta strong er Border Patrol is needed.These conces sions simply cede thepoli t ical ground to the right and theimmigra nt - bashers.

Many Ca lifornia ns voted for Pro po-si t ion 187 not because they are rac i s ts,but because they hea rd no alterna t iveto the “common sense” not ion that il le-gal immigra nts are res ponsible forCa lifornia’s cr i si s.

Ne i ther can we accept the terms ofdeba te set by the immigra nt - bashers.F or exa m p le, we must cha l lenge thedi s t inct ion made between “leg a l” a nd“il leg a l” immigra nts or between “eco-nomic” a nd “poli t ica l” refug ees.

The govern ment conducts the ca m-paign ag ainst il legal aliens wi th a grea tdeal of hot air about protect ing “leg a l”

immigra nts. But this logic is wrong forth ree main reasons.

Firs t, an ant i - immigra nt clima te,p rovoked by an attack on “il leg a ls,” isbad for all immigra nts (a nd for rac ia lminor i t ies in genera l) because it cre-a tes a racist atmos p here by bla mingfore igners for soc ial il ls.

Second, increased vigila nce andpolic ing of the borders does not sto pil legal immigra t ion. It simply makesthings tougher for aliens and non-c i t i-zens—not to ment ion citizens who“look” li ke aliens—a l ready liv ing inthe count ry.

Third, INS offic ia ls and Border Pa-t rol gua rds do not di s t ingui sh between“g ood” a nd “bad” immigra nts. Theycont inue to ha rass and abuse “s us pects”wi th less accountabili ty than ever.

It is li ke wi se wi th the di s t inct ionbetween “economic” a nd “poli t ica l” re-fug ees. The govern ment often usesthis rhetor ical sle igh t -of- ha nd to di s-t ingui sh between refug ees from U. S.-a l lied dicta torships li ke Du va lier’sH aiti (“economic”) a nd refug ees fromU. S. adversa r ies li ke Cas t ro’s Cuba(“poli t ica l”).

When the Clinton admini s t ra t ionin Septem ber1994 ended the former l ys pec ial trea tment of Cuba ns, it was nov ictory for human righ ts. That Hai-t ia ns and Cuba ns now have an equa lcha nce of be ing herded into U. S. -runrefug ee ca m ps is no great step forwa rd.

Bra nding some refug ees as “econo-mic,” di squa lified from claiming refug ein the U. S., is simply another way ofkeep ing out poor refug ees. All peo p lew ho seek refuge in the U. S. should begra nted it.

What kind of movement is neededto defend immigra nt righ ts?

A movement to defeat the li kes ofPro posi t ion187 must reach into everyworkp lace and comm uni ty to buildo pposi t ion to ant i - immigra t ion poli-

29

infr ing ement on all workers’ righ ts top r ivacy.

The AFL-C I O’s support for a “non-rac i s t” s ys tem of immigra t ion cont rolsis mi sguided. As the ent ire hi s tory ofU. S. immigra t ion cont rol and enforce-ment sho w s, immigra t ion policy hasa lways been rac i s t.

I mmigra t ion cont rols encourage thepersecut ion of anyone who looks “for-e ign” or who speaks a la nguage otherthan Engli sh—w hether they are un-documented, documented or citizensborn in the U. S.

Wha t’s more, the clima te of rac i smeng endered by ant i - immigra nt poli t icsfuels the gro w th of fa r-r ight groupsli ke the Ku Klux Klan and the Naz i s.An y thing which encourag es thegro w th of the far right is a th reat formany groups besides immigra nts—B lacks, Je w s, gays, trade unioni s ts.

Moreover, ant i - immigra nt polic iesweaken workers’ abili ty to fight backa nd to defend trade union righ ts.

When a sect ion of the workforce isdeemed “il leg a l,” bos ses can th rea ten tocall in INS ag ents to arrest and deportimmigra nts as a way of defusing uniond r ives or strikes.

The fight ag ainst immigra t ion con-t rols is thus cruc ial to building work-ers’ solida r i ty, as the succes sful strikeat several frozen food pla nts in Wa t-son v il le, Ca lif. in19 85-87 sho wed.

Tha nks to a decade- long ca m paignag ainst INS ha ras sment of M exica nworkers in the Wa tson v il le area, “forthe first time in anyone’s memory, them i g r a s tayed out of a strike of p r ima r-ily Mexican workers,” according to oneclose observer.

Not a single striker cros sed thep icket line in 18 months. This was thekey reason for the strike’s succes s. In adecade in which many workers gave upconces sions to the em p loyers, the Wa t-son v il le strikers stood firm and won.

I f the bos ses succeed in taking awaywag es and benefits from one sect ion ofthe working clas s, it strengthens the irabili ty to take away from other sec-t ions of the workers.

But the opposi te is also the case. Ifworkers in one indus t ry or sect ion ofthe workforce are able to squeeze morefrom the bos ses, it gives other workersthe confidence to dema nd more.

The Interna t ional As soc ia t ion ofM achini s ts (I A M), working wi th theA F L -C I O’s Ca lifornia Immigra ntWorkers As soc ia t ion, recently won thebigg est union elect ion in ma nufactur-ing since 19 64. Workers at an auto-rac ing equip ment factory in Los An-g eles voted to jo in the IAM in 1992.A major i ty of the workforce was Mexi-can and Sa l vadoran immigra nts —many of them undocumented.

Org a ni z ing the unorg a ni zed bene-fits all workers—union and non- union.

Wi th immigra nts becoming a moresignifica nt and perma nent pa rt of theU. S. labor force, org a ni z ing among im-migra nts will be cruc ial to the futureof the labor movement.

Sho wing solida r i ty wi th workersfrom Mexico, Cent ral Amer ica and theCa r ibbean is cruc ial for another rea-son—be ing able to build the neces sa rylinks wi th workers who live outsideU. S. borders. Immigra nt - bashing un-dermines these links.

2 8

CHAPTER SEVEN

How Can We Fight Back?

be buil t—both to give confidence toindiv idua ls who defy the law and towin enough support to render Pro posi-t ion 187 unenforceable.

The labor movement’s in vol vementis cr i t ica l. Trade unions, pa rt icula r l ythose which org a ni ze la rge immigra ntworkforces, prov ide the base to linkimmigra nt- and na t ive- born workersin a common struggle for higher wag esa nd bet ter condi t ions.

These kinds of s t ruggles undercutthe appeal of those who wa nt to sca pe-g oat one sect ion of workers. Whenworkers of different races or na t iona lor igins are figh t ing tog ether, they lea rn,in the best tradi t ions of the U. S. labormovement, tha t “an inj ury to one is aninj ury to all.”

A fight ag ainst the immigra nt - bash-ers must uni te all who wa nt to figh tthem—w ha tever the ir na t iona li ty andw ha tever the ir citizenship sta tus.

But we shouldn’t be content wi thsimply turning back attacks on immi-gra nts. We need to build a movementw hich will force the govern ment togua ra ntee full civ il righ ts to all immi-gra nts who wi sh to come to the U. S. —a nd to end the cr imina li za t ion of mil-lions of workers.

The fight for immigra nt righ ts mus tconfront the real enemy—the bos sesa nd the ir poli t ic ia ns — a nd buildworkers’ uni ty in place of div i sion.

We need to fight for a wor ld inw hich workers—no ma t ter where theya re born —a re free to move whereverthey wa nt. We must fight for a wor ldwi thout immigra t ion cont rols, a wor ldwi thout borders.

The struggle for soc ia li smThere is a sea of bi t terness in the

U. S. today. Most peo p le have li t tlet rust in the govern ment. Pol ls sho wthat la rge major i t ies think that govern-ment works for the rich and po werful

ra ther than for ordina ry peo p le.More tha n 15 percent of the U. S.

po pula t ion lives below the offic ia lpoverty line—the highest in 30 yea rs.Even dur ing the recovery from the re-ces sion of 1990-91, the median fa mil yincome dro pped by $2, 34 4, accordingto the U. S. Cens us Bureau.

At the sa me time, the peo p le whorule this soc iety have never been rich-er. The average corpora te presidentea rns 150 times what the average pro-duct ion worker makes.

When vie wed this way, it’s clea rthat U. S. workers have more in com-mon wi th Chinese, Poli sh or Mexica nworkers than they do wi th the ir Amer-ican bos ses.

Ca p i ta li s ts do every thing in the irpo wer to drive down wag es—a nd tog et workers to bla me them sel ves orfel low workers—for the ir increasingl ymi serable condi t ions. They pit theSouthwest ag ainst the Northeas t, un-skil led ag ainst skil led, Black ag ains tw hi te, Puerto Rica ns ag ainst Mexica ns,immigra nt ag ainst na t ive- born—even“leg a l” immigra nt ag ainst “il leg a l” im-migra nt.

They say there are not enough jobs,soc ial welfa re or educa t ion “slots” to goa round. It is as though there is one sumof money available for jobs, pay, hea l thca re and welfa re, and if Chinese refu-g ees or Mexican workers gain some,there is less for every body else.

Of course, they don’t say the sa meabout the bil lions given to mili ta rycont ractors or to the sav ings and loa ncrooks.

They don’t wa nt working peo p le toask the obv ious ques t ion: w h y? Wh y,in the richest count ry in the wor ld,a ren’t there enough wel l - paying jobs top rov ide everyone—immigra nt or na-t ive- born—wi th a decent liveli hood?Why ca n’t everyone be as s ured goodhealth care, an education, good hous-

31

c ies and poli t ic ia ns—w herever theyrai se the ir heads.

Pickets and demons t ra t ions shouldbe org a ni zed ag ainst poli t ic ia ns whot ry to sca peg oat immigra nts for the irown cynical aim s. Comm uni ty groups,unions, school boa rds, and other ins t i-tut ions and org a ni za t ions should becon v inced to go on record in opposi-t ion to ant i - immigra t ion polic ies.

The movement ag ainst Pro posi t ion187 g ot off to an excel lent sta rt. In ad-di t ion to the students who demon-s t ra ted ag ainst Pro posi t ion 187, Los

Ang eles garment workers wa lked offthe ir jobs to protest the meas ure.Truck drivers shut down the Port ofLos Ang eles for a day in protest of 187.

Al ready, thousa nds of Ca liforniateachers, soc ial workers and otherpublic serv ice prov iders have pledg edto defy Pro posi t ion 187.

But if the courts up hold Pro posi-t ion 187, the pres s ure will be on thesepeo p le to enforce the law. Sta tes wil ls ue, fine or im p r i son peo p le or groupsw hich refuse to comply wi th the law.

That is why a la rge movement mus t

30

Defy Pro p 187!: Stat e m ent fro m B a y Area UnionsIs s ued on Decem ber 13,1994 by BayArea loca ls of the Serv ice Employ-ees Interna t ional Union and theUni ted Educa tors of San Fra nc i sco.

P R O P O S ITION 187 is a racist law.It is uncons t i tut iona l, it is a th rea tto public hea l th, and it flies in theface of common human decency.

The unions rep resented heretoday—Uni ted Public WorkersLocal 790, SEIU; Uni ted Educa torsof San Fra nc i sco, AFT; Hea l thca reWorkers Union, Local 250, SEIU;Uni ted Soc ial Serv ices Union, Loca l535, SEIU; and San Fra nc i sco In-terns and Residents, Local 8000,S E I U—will resist im p lementa t ionof Pro posi t ion 187 wi th everymea ns at our di s posa l.

To pa rt ic ipa te in its enforcement—by den ying basic hea l th serv ices,by expel ling child ren from school,a nd by report ing “s us pects” in ourclas sroom s, clinics and office—v iola tes our profes sional ethics,our union tradi t ions, and the righ tto privacy.

Every day we hear of child renafraid to go to school, clinic pa t ients

afraid to keep the ir appo intments,a nd of the abuse and ha ras smentof those sus pected of be ing un-documented. There have been atleast two dea ths reported in recentweeks, as “undocumented” personshave fea red to seek medical hel p.

We therefore decla re, as a ma t terof policy, that we wil l:

m E ncourage our mem bers to re-fuse to coo pera te in the im p lemen-ta t ion of Pro posi t ion 187. Spec ifi-ca l l y, we will urge them to refuse,as a ma t ter of consc ience, to in ves-t ig a te the immigra t ion sta tus ofpa t ients, students, or clients, den yserv ices to “s us pects,” or turn themin to sta te and federal author i t ies;

m Circula te among our mem bersthe pledge of resi s ta nce develo pedby the Immigra nt Righ ts Act ionP ledg e;

m Prov ide the neces sa ry leg a las si s ta nce and other support forany mem ber who faces di sc ip lina ryact ion, termina t ion or civ il pena l t iesbecause of such refusal to enforcePro posi t ion 187.

ing and le i s ure time?The answer to these ques t ions is

sim p le—because there is no profit ini t. The profit sys tem, whose benefitsgo to a tiny minor i ty of the po pula t ion,gr inds down the vast major i ty whom ust work in order to obtain the ne-ces si t ies of life.

So ang er and frus t ra t ion builds. Thea ng er we saw exp lode in Los Ang eles in1992—in the bigg est riot in U. S.hi s-tory—can go in two direct ions.

I f soc ia li s ts give a lead, we can turnthat ang er ag ainst the govern ment,ag ainst the em p loyers and this rot tens ys tem. We can show that workingpeo p le—B lack, whi te, La t ino, Asia n,immigra nt and na t ive- born—a re inthe sa me boa t.

But if the immigra nt - bashers andrac i s ts are allo wed a free ha nd, they wil ldivert that ang er ag ainst sca peg oa ts.

Soc ia list org a ni za t ion is vital to en-s ur ing that this does not ha ppen. Tha tis one task that the Interna t ional So-c ia list Org a ni za t ion has set for itself.

As Eug ene Debs, the grea test mas sleader in the U. S. soc ia list movement,put it in 1910: “I f soc ia li sm, interna-t ional revolut iona ry soc ia li sm, does nots ta nd staunchl y, unflinchingl y, and un-com p romi singly for the working clas s,for the exp lo i ted and opp res sed mas sesof all la nds, then it sta nds for none andi ts claim is a fa lse pretense and its pro-fes sion a delusion and a sna re.”

We know that the attack on immi-gra nts flows from the logic of this rot-ten sys tem.

We can turn back the sca peg oa terstoday. But if we wa nt to get rid of rac-i sm altog ether, we need to get rid ofthe ca p i ta list sys tem that breeds it.

We need to fight for a soc ia list so-c iety that prov ides for the needs of thema n y, ra ther than for the profi ts ofthe fe w.

32

A d diti o nal Reading and Res ourcesFra nk Ba rdacke,“Wa tson v il le: A Mexica nComm uni ty on St r i ke,” in Mi ke Dav i sa nd Fred Sp r inker ( eds.), Reshaping theU.S. Left. London: Verso,19 8 8.

Ki t ty Ca lav i ta, Inside the State: The Bra -cero Program, Immigration and the INS.Ne w York: Routledg e, 1992.

Ja mes D. Cockcroft, Outlaws in the Prom -ised Land. Ne w York: Grove Pres s, 19 8 6.

“Coming North.” A spec ial issue onimmigra t ion of NACLA Report on t h eAmericas 26 (1) (Jul y,1992).

Mi ke Dav i s,“Who Kil led Los Ang eles?A Poli t ical Auto ps y” a nd “Who Kil ledLos Ang eles? The Verdict is Given.”N e w Left Review 198 and 199 (1993).

P hilip Foner, A Hi s tory of the LaborMovement in the Uni ted Sta tes. 11 vol-

umes. New York: Interna t ional Publi sh-ers,1947-1991.

Loui se La m p here, Alex Step ick, andGuil lermo Grenier, eds., Newcomers in theWorkplace: Immigrants and the Restruc -turing of the U.S. Economy. P hiladel p hia:Tem p le Universi ty Pres s,1994.

“Migra t ion Ne w s.” Produced by theUniversi ty of Ca lifornia-Berkeley Centerfor German and Euro pean Studies. Di s-t r ibuted by e-mail. Send your e-mailadd ress to migra nt @ p r ima l. ucdav i s. edu.

Step hen Ste inberg, The Ethnic Myth.Bos ton: Beacon Press Books,19 8 9.

Rona ld Takaki, A Different Mirror:A History of Multicultural America.Bos ton: Li t tle, Brown and Co.,1993.

JOIN US!For the International Socialist Organization, socialismis the emancipation of the working class by the actof workers themselves. That is why the ISO is a groupof activists, trying to connect socialist politics withtoday’s political activity. We have branches andmembers in 40 cities across the U.S. and are affili-ated with revolutionary groups in a dozen countries.If you’d like to work with us, complete this form.

Name

Address

City State Zip

Telephone ( )Mail this form to: ISO, P.O. Box 16085, Chicago, IL 60616

“Philoso p h ershave mere l yi nte rprete dt h e world. T h e p o i n t is to c h a n g e it.”m Karl Marx

M I want to join the ISO.

M I want to work withthe nearest branch.

M I want to receivemore informationabout the ISO.

Subscribe to SocialistWorkerNewspaper of theInternational SocialistOrganizationIn each bi-weekly issue of S o c i a l i s tWo r k e r, you get:. eyewitness re p o rts andi n t e rviews covering stru g g l e sa round the world . . .f rom EasternE u rope to Latin America, f ro mG e rmany to China. full coverage of labors t ruggles a c ross the U.S.. political analysis that points a way forw a rd for socialists to-d a y. a rticles explaining the ideas