Brianna Rennix’s “The Case for Opening Our Borders” is
generally excellent, but it’s mostly about sensible immigration reform
proposals the Democrats might be persuaded to adopt. Actually opening borders
requires more: looking at migration’s root causes and their relation to US
policies affecting neighboring countries. Suzy Lee’s piece makes the important
point that support for immigrant rights is crucial
for all working-class organizing, contrary to the restrictionist
ideas of labor bureaucrats in the Gompers
model. But she seems to miss the fact that a major source of downward
pressure on the wages of native-born workers is anti-immigrant measures like
raids and employer sanctions—measures that, ironically, are sold to workers as a way to
reduce immigration.
Photo: No More Deaths |
Democrats cannot have it both ways. If you oppose jailing
and exiling people for crossing an invisible line, you must be in favor of significantly
opening our borders. Fortunately, that’s fine.
By Brianna Rennix, In These Times
March 21, 2019
Democrats and Republicans have long forged a de facto policy
consensus on immigration. Yes, Democrats condemn Trump’s wall and his family
separation policy, but they pivot to talk about security and control in ways
indistinguishable from GOP talking points.
On January 3, their first day in power, House Democrats
passed a spending bill that included$1.3 billion in new border fencing, which
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
(D-N.Y.) touted as “smart, effective border security.” […]
Read the full article:
The Case for Open Borders
…[A] call for open borders based on appeals to morality
and liberal values will not attract workers motivated by economic concerns.
This essay shows the possibility of a strategy calling for open borders and
immigrant rights based on workers’ material interests, not just moral pleas.
By Suzy Lee, Catalyst
Winter 2019
The politics of immigration poses one of the most important
challenges to the US left today. While the public discourse, with demands for a
wall or the panic over a migrant caravan, may be hyperbolic, it only sharpens
venerable themes that have structured the debate for a half-century: a nativist
movement that sees immigration as a cultural and economic threat, set against
an immigrants’ rights movement that argues for a more inclusive and liberal
orientation.[...]
Read the full article:
No comments:
Post a Comment