From: Gerald Levy (glevy@LAGCC.CUNY.EDU)
Date: Tue Feb 05 2008 - 09:29:05 EST
> Perhaps not a consistent champion, but was not the Bush II > administration attempting to ease the legal status for immigrants from > South of the border? I.e. contrary to the most reactionary talk heard > from the Republican candidates. Hi Dave: No, the Bush administration favors "putting border security and enforcement first". Indeed, they even wanted to militarize the US-Mexico border with over 6,000 National Guard troops. In addition to border and worksite enforcement, they also favored a "temporary worker program" and a "path to citizenship" for those who are currently undocumented workers in the US in which these workers would have to come forward, satisfy a number of conditions, and demonstrate "merit" under a proposed "merit-based system". At no time did the Bush administration champion the "free movement of labor". Indeed, they _emphasized_ the border and worksite enforcement aspects of their proposed changes in policy. Nevertheless, this proposed change was denounced by the far Right as favoring "amnesty" (even though the Bush administration didn't in fact propose amnesty). Those in Congress allegedly to "the Left" opposed it for other reasons. No one - with the exception of some left groups, including anarchists, and the Libertarian Party (which favors laissez-faire policy) advocated open borders and the free mobility of labor. > I wouldn't be surprised if right-wing politicians will be all over the > spectrum on this issue: Neoliberal reaction will express a pure > capitalist ideology (free mobility of labour and competition on the > labour market etc.), The Neo-liberals here have advocated the free mobility of capital, not the free mobility of labor. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 29 2008 - 00:00:03 EST