Paul Krugman is a Racist

[Quequeg]

(Warning! This post is satirical. Do NOT take seriously.)

Paul Krugman is a racist.

The proof is provided by Krugman in his article "North of the Border" (3/27/06, New York Times)

Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.

Case closed. He is clearly xenophobic. If you're not convinced that he is a white supremacist, then find the flaw in this logic:
1) Obviously, anyone who wants any limits on immigration must not like the sort of people who are coming here.
2) The majority of people who have been coming here in recent years have darker skin.
3) Thus, anyone who wants limits on immigration must not like dark-skinned people, and thus must be a racist.

Krugman advised that we reduce immigration, when clearly the only humane solution is comprehensive immigration reform which includes amnesty while simultaneously doubling legal immigration. And if we still have illegal immigration, then we should do another amnesty and triple legal immigration. And if that doesn't fix it, then maybe we should just give everyone in the whole world a green card. Basically, we must make it easy for an unlimited number of people to come to the United States to work.

Of course, like most people who are anti-immigrant, he masks his insane prejudice with liberal-sounding justifications for targeting the "furrenners":

Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration -- especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.

That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do ''jobs that Americans will not do.'' The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays -- and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.

Yes, a favorite tactic of the nativists is to scapegoat the "furrenners" by blaming them for low wages. In reality, Krugman just wants to keep as many of the undesirable brown people out of the country as possible.

And if you agree with Krugman, then you too are racist. Or maybe you're just a dumb redneck, whose simple mind has been easily manipulated by right-wingers (organizations, columnists, talk show hosts) or the Republican party who's using this as a wedge issue.

Thus, anyone who wants any limits on immigration is defective in at least one of the following ways:
1) morally defective (e.g. racist, nativist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, anti-foreigner, Nazi, white supremacist, bigot)
2) mentally defective (e.g. redneck, sheeple, rube, freeper, kool-aid drinker, Lou Dobbs fan)

In short, if you want any limits at all on immigration, there's something wrong with you and you should be ashamed of yourself. You should keep your opinions to yourself. Leave the immigration issue to those who instinctively know what's right and thus have no need to back up their beliefs with the clumsy devices of reason and evidence. You'll like the solution we come up with. Trust us.

For those who insist on continuing to speak out for some limits on immigration, there should be hate-speech laws to keep you Nazis in check. So, get with "open borders" program. It's the one and only true way.

-------------------------------

Recent Grades for the Democrats in Congress (relates to legislative actions during the years 2005 to 2006)
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=9">U.S. House
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=10">U.S. Senate

http://www.betterimmigration.com/thegrades.html">How the grades are figured

A+ Virtually always supports lower immigration and lower U.S. population growth
C Half the time has acted for lower immigration and half the time has acted for higher numbers
F- Virtually always acts to force higher immigration and U.S. population growth

[pooja]

1. #1 Why does a Mexican, who still loves Mexico go an work in

frigid Nebraska at a meat packing plant..... Why because NAFTA has made the problems worse for Mexicans not better. How is it cheaper to buy our corn than their own home grown maize? How has it been better for Americans that companies have gone south of the boarder.. auto factories, etc.

There was a small parts company that both of my parents worked for years... They specialized in precision parts. After NAFTA, in order to continue to qualify for Govt contracts, they had to expand and pick up a sister company in either the Old Russian block or Mexico. They went with Mexico. They gave the sister company the easiest, cheapest parts to make. Then the company sent them to the US. And then the US company fixed any of the parts that were any good, tossed the one's that sucked, and completed the Mexican order. A big waste of money that only resulted in cost cutting at this small company so they could still maintain Govt accounts.

Does this sound like a smart operation? No!!! So, I'm wondering what other companies have had to go through to keep up with the times if this was a requirement of a company with aprox. 300 people?

[Quequeg]

5. oh yea, NAFTA was why I voted for Ross Perot in 1992

It's obvious that these "free trade" agreements have been a disaster... I agree with Dennis Kucinich, we should abolish all the "free trade" agreements and the WTO while we're at it... Then, as Kucinich has said, we should go to bilateral trade agreements which put workers and the environment first.

That's a terrible story about the small parts company... Of course, now they go to China... E.G. Delphi Auto Parts whose Chinese workers make $3/hr (including benefits) compared to their counterparts in the U.S. who make more than $30/hr (including benefits)... How can American workers compete with that?

It's terrible that the gov't forced the company to split its operations in such an inefficient and destructive way... Was it cost-requirements that forced this split?.. And it doesn't sound like it even saved the company... So, I don't understand how this was justified and how this helped them to retain the gov't contracts.

The cheap-food products sent to Mexico have had a deleterious effect on the income of Mexicans, in an analagous fashion that the cheap-labor sent to the U.S. have had a deleterious effect on the income of Americans... We should stop subsidizing the agri-biz... Mexico needs to have tariffs or something.

Yes, NAFTA has been credited for creating a million illegal immigrants... So, we need to fix these trade agreements.

But we also need restrictions on immigration too.

As Thom Hartmann has said, Mexican citizens are no poorer than they were 50 years ago... A major reason why we have so much illegal immigration is just because our "cheap labor" gov't stopped enforcing the law about 30 years ago.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0705-23.htm">Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

And it's not just because poverty has increased in Mexico - today, about half of Mexico lives on less than $2 a day, but 50 years ago half of Mexico also lived on the equivalent of $2 today. Our trade and agricultural policies are harmful to Mexican farmers (and must be changed!), but we were nearly as predatory fifty years ago (remember the rubber and fruit companies, particularly in Central America?).

Yet fifty years ago we didn't have an "illegal immigration" problem, because back then we didn't have a conservative "Illegal Employer" problem.

The fact is that we had an open border with Mexico for several centuries, and "illegal immigration" was never a serious problem. Before Reagan's presidency, an estimated million or so people a year came into the US from Mexico - and the same number, more or less, left the US for Mexico at the end of the agricultural harvest season. Very few stayed, because there weren't jobs for them.

Non-citizens didn't have access to the non-agricultural US job market, in large part because of the power of US labor unions (before Reagan 25% of the workforce was unionized; today the private workforce is about 7% unionized), and because companies were unwilling to risk having non-tax-deductible labor expenses on their books by hiring undocumented workers without valid Social Security numbers.

But Reagan put an end to that. His 1986 amnesty program, combined with his aggressive war on organized labor (begun in 1981), in effect told both employers and non-citizens that there would be few penalties and many rewards to increasing the US labor pool (and thus driving down wages) with undocumented immigrants. A million people a year continued to come across our southern border, but they stopped returning to Latin America every fall because instead of seasonal work they were able to find permanent jobs.

Recent Grades for the Democrats in Congress (relates to legislative actions during the years 2005 to 2006)
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=9">U.S. House
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=10">U.S. Senate

[msongs]

2. your logic is flawed as well...

don't know if he is a racist or not. is the definition of racist "someone who disagrees with you"?

but your logic is flawed in any event as your sequence is not necessarily true when you say:

"1) Obviously, anyone who wants any limits on immigration must not like the sort of people who are coming here.
2) The majority of people who have been coming here in recent years have darker skin.
3) Thus, anyone who wants limits on immigration must not like dark-skinned people, and thus must be a racist."

Your item one is a conclusion not based on evidence.
Your item two may or may not be true statistically, because you do not say darker than what.
your item three is not necessarily a true statement based on items one and two, whether one and two are flawed or not.

why you call immigrants "furrenners"? Did Krugman use that term? Sounds slightly derogatory. You have put quotes around it.

Why do you call people "...a dumb redneck.."? Sounds like you have racial issues of your own.

You describe people who may disagree with you as:

"Thus, anyone who wants any limits on immigration is defective in at least one of the following ways:
1) morally defective (e.g. racist, nativist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, anti-foreigner, Nazi, white supremacist, bigot)
2) mentally defective (e.g. redneck, sheeple, rube, freeper, kool-aid drinker, Lou Dobbs fan)"

Boy, those are not judgemental terms, are they?

If it is bad that one wants to keep out people who are of a different race/national origin, then why is it good to want people to come in solely BECAUSE they are the same race/national origin (as in 'my race/national origin good, yours bad').

Sounds like you and Krugman are two peas at the opposite ends of the same pod...pod people perhaps?

then again, I think perhaps your whole post is sarcastic.

have a nice day, but don't eat a turkey, because the turkeys were here before ANY immigrants, including the alleged Native Americans, who actually are NOT native because they immigrated here from somewhere else :-)

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Kelly Rupert]

3. Ladies and gentlement of the jury, I present

exhibit A: "then again, I think perhaps your whole post is sarcastic."
And now, exhibit B: "(Warning! This post is satirical. Do NOT take seriously.)"

[Quequeg]

7. I'm sorry about the confusion, but this whole post was satirical.

I agree with you on your post... My post was intended to reflect some of the most extreme elements among Democratic activists who appear to be so strongly in support of "open borders.".. I call them "open border liberals" and they appear to have made common cause with the "cheap labor conservatives" who also support open borders.

Recent Grades for the Democrats in Congress (relates to legislative actions during the years 2005 to 2006)
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=9">U.S. House
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=10">U.S. Senate

[ShrewdLiberal]

4. LoL. Nevermind.

I overlooked the first line! Don't mind me. I'm on 3 1/2 hours sleep.

[Kelly Rupert]

6. (Warning! This post is satirical. Do NOT take seriously.)

(Warning! This post is satirical. Do NOT take seriously.)
(Warning! This post is satirical. Do NOT take seriously.)
(Warning! This post is satirical. Do NOT take seriously.)
(Warning! This post is satirical. Do NOT take seriously.)
(Warning! This post is satirical. Do NOT take seriously.)
(Warning! This post is satirical. Do NOT take seriously.)
(Warning! This post is satirical. Do NOT take seriously.)
(Warning! This post is satirical. Do NOT take seriously.)

It's the FIRST BLOODY LINE in the OP.

[Quequeg]

8. And I agree with you, ShrewdLiberal

You should have left your original post the way it was, rather than deleting it... It was a stirring liberal case for regulating the borders.

You're not the only one who missed the first line in the OP... I should have bold-faced it or something... I'll do better next time. ;)

Recent Grades for the Democrats in Congress (relates to legislative actions during the years 2005 to 2006)
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=9">U.S. House
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=10">U.S. Senate

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. The quaint satire of the anti-globalists

Free trade = free movement of labor. The two are interconnected. Borders are tariffs; impeding the free movement of labor across borders is impeding the efficient determinations of the free market. Labor is a market as well, so why shouldn't sellers go to the place where there is more demand? That this may hurt the workers in any one country is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant if a company loses market share because competitors enter the market. This is why Lou Dobbs' position - supposed free market capitalist arguing for border tariffs and government sponsered barriers to entry - is a joke, a laughable demogogue, a walking contradiction. He's a clown, as is Krugman. At least Krugman pretends to like certain elements of globalization, especially when he's lying about the effects of US farm subsidies (another government sponsored program that distorts markets, this time to the detriment of the "developing" world). Lou Dobbs, and the ridiculous anti-immigrant faction on DU, on the other hand, scream for more tariffs! more artificial barriers to entry on the labor market! when they would just as quickly turn around and deplore a trade tariff that prevented US businesses from selling soda in Madagascar, or some such. Free market? Yes. More of it, in fact. That means labor, too. If that results in problems for the US citizen labor force, then that's just how the market parcels out value. Too bad. So sad. You're the fuckers that extol capitalism, send your kids to die for its global reach, watch stock prices on the evening news, sing the praises of the market. SO FUCKING EAT THE MARKET. EAT IT. Lost your job? Too bad. That's the market. You're selling your product at too high a price. Why do you want government to intervene? The genius of the market, the invisible hand, will take care of that. So fucking eat it, US workers, you lovers of capitalism!

Now it's your turn to taste its fruits. No fucking whining now. Just eat it.

[Quequeg]

10. you're making a libertarian case

The irony is that the most celebrated libertarian in Congress is also against illegal immigration, guest-worker visas, and "free trade" agreements.

I'm talking about Ron Paul, who ran as the Libertarian party's candidate for President in 1988... Since then, he has served as a House Representative for Texas's 14th district.

If you look at this scorecard, Ron Paul is the 9th highest scorer on a scorecard that gives the highest rating to those Congress people who would like to stop illegal immigration, guess-worker programs, and "free trade" agreements.
www.GlobalismScorecard.org/USHouseSortScore.htm

Perhaps, Ron Paul is against illegal immigration, because we don't really have a pure "free market" in our social democracy with its safety net... Illegal immigrants cost money in gov't & health services, which are not reflected in the low price of labor... In other words, illegal immigration is a corporate subsidy, which the taxpayer ends up paying for.

Perhaps, Ron Paul is against guest-worker programs like the H-1B, because it basically leads to indentured servitude, because the guest workers are not free to move around to get the best price for their labor... Milton Friedman (who originally supported the H-1B) later recanted and said that the H-1B program is a corporate subsidy.

Perhaps, Ron Paul is against the "free trade" agreements, because they're not really about "free trade"... These agreements are more than a 1000 pages long... I saw Ron Paul speaking live on C-Span when CAFTA wa being debated on the floor of the House... He said that if this was about "free trade", then why aren't these trade agreements just 1-page long, which just lower our tariffs and say, "we shall have free trade"?.. In reality, the trade agreements have protections for corporations, which is another corporate subsidy.

I'm not a libertarian, but even honest libertarians like Ron Paul are closer to my views than the "open border liberals" and the "cheap labor conservatives."

Recent Grades for the Democrats in Congress (relates to legislative actions during the years 2005 to 2006)
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=9">U.S. House
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=10">U.S. Senate

http://www.betterimmigration.com/thegrades.html">How the grades are figured

A+ Virtually always supports lower immigration and lower U.S. population growth
C Half the time has acted for lower immigration and half the time has acted for higher numbers
F- Virtually always acts to force higher immigration and U.S. population growth

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Not at all

I'm not a libertarian. The point is that markets will produce these destructive results, even if they're accepted just a little bit. At the end of the day, the only positive result of all this is that it will equalize labor conditions globally, such that the true terror of markets are no longer restricted to the developing world, but become clear to even first-worlders, who have been shielded from their effects for long enough to have bought the market evangelism. Hell, I'd like to see a global labor power that recognizes the depravity of so-called markets. Yes, indeed. US workers have been able to pretend that the market does good things for them, because they have cell phones and can go out to the Olive Garden. They haven't had to eat the terror of the market. Now they do, so the whining is predictable, and the rank hypocrisy transparent.

[Quequeg]

12. good governments can tame the markets

Between 1940 and 1970, we had low immigration, high tariffs, and strong unions... Consequently, we built a middle class in this country... It was a fair economy, such that as the economy grew (i.e. the "economic pie" so to speak), everybody got a larger and larger "piece of pie"... In other wages, the income of the poor went up about 3% per year, the income of the middle class went up 3% per year, and the income of the rich went up 3% per year.

The U.S. government was actually working on behalf of the interests of U.S. citizens, although it did allow the wealthy interests to corrupt and harm foreign governments and their citizenry... The American people were kept in the dark about this... It's not totally their fault... This was pre-Internet, with just 3 channels, and already there was corruption and concentration of the media, albeit to a lesser extent than today.

I'm not a libertarian. The point is that markets will produce these destructive results, even if they're accepted just a little bit. At the end of the day, the only positive result of all this is that it will equalize labor conditions globally, such that the true terror of markets are no longer restricted to the developing world, but become clear to even first-worlders, who have been shielded from their effects for long enough to have bought the market evangelism. Hell, I'd like to see a global labor power that recognizes the depravity of so-called markets. Yes, indeed. US workers have been able to pretend that the market does good things for them, because they have cell phones and can go out to the Olive Garden. They haven't had to eat the terror of the market. Now they do, so the whining is predictable, and the rank hypocrisy transparent.

The problem is already clear to many "first-worlders", even before there were cell phones and people have been complaining for a long time... The media doesn't focus on this... The "rust-belt" was a well-known phenomenon before cell phones.

But the "evil genius" of the corporate globalists is they destroy one sector at a time, while they anesthetize us with useless cheap bobbles & trinkets as well as vapid TV and other entertainment... If they attacked everything all at once, then too many people would protest and the corporate globalism would be stopped.

I think this is part of the idea behind "Friendly Fascism", which is a book that came out in the early 1980s... It's "fascism with a smile."

But while at the same time as their destroying our jobs, they're also destroying the framework for Democracy in this country as well as others... That's partially what the "free trade agreements" are about, as well as the North American Union, which was supported by Bush when he signed the SPP (Security and Prosperty Partnership) agreement, along with the Canadian and Mexican presidents.

Meanwhile, wealth is concentrating, which is something are Founding Fathers knew would be harmful to democrary... Our 2nd president John Adams said that as wealth concentrates into a few hands, political power tends to flow to those hands.

In short, there will be no global labor movement, because all governments will be destroyed and wealth will be so concentrated that people will be too busy working to stay alive and the mechanism for democracy will be destroyed... It's hard enough in a democracy to get the government to listen to the "will of the people", but when we have beauracracies like the World Trade Organization and we have electronic voting machines and the North American Union, then it's especially hard... And when you throw in the "concentration of wealth", with people just trying to work to stay alive, then this makes it doubly difficult... Instead, of a "global labor" movement on the horizon, I see a "global peasant" class on the horizon living in a tyrannical, corporate, semi-global government.

We need to protect our democracy and economic security, so that we can help other nations... We're wiser now... We know how our corporate masters have damaged the 3rd world... At the same time, as we're working to fix our democracy, we can do things like stop "free trade" agreements, which will help people in the 3rd world... I believe the way forward is through an enlightened nationalism, with a lot of concern about other countries too.

Recent Grades for the Democrats in Congress (relates to legislative actions during the years 2005 to 2006)
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=9">U.S. House
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=10">U.S. Senate

http://www.betterimmigration.com/thegrades.html">How the grades are figured

A+ Virtually always supports lower immigration and lower U.S. population growth
C Half the time has acted for lower immigration and half the time has acted for higher numbers
F- Virtually always acts to force higher immigration and U.S. population growth

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Between 1940 and 1970

we established the system that spared (a relatively specific segment of) US workers the ravaging effects of markets while imposing those effects elsewhere. The US (and Western) middle class is a local effect that existed 1) because those workers developed and struggled for anti-market mechanisms with respect to labor and 2) because the developing world could take the brunt of the destructive force of market capitalism. That's precisely the point. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, true globalization happens. That means US workers are no longer able to be protected by the sham system through which they (inadvertently or otherwise, together with the forces of capital) raped the workers of the developing world unmercifully, thereby installing themselves as the privileged labor class now crying foul about a free labor market. The complicity of the unions with conservative nativism during the 80's was only the beginning. Every protected class cries foul when their sham protections are pulled away. This is to the detriment of US workers, no doubt, but they were the ones bought off by the capitalist system with baubbles. Now their baubbles are being taken away, and the whining is predictable. No. They should be forced to compete on an open labor market like everybody else. Then they can see what their precious markets really look like, and can decide if that is the best method of social organization available - this time in a true global context.

[Quequeg]

15. I don't think the middle class is part of the conspiracy.

I don't think the middle class was bought off, like our politicians are... Americans are not even aware of what goes on in the rest of the world, because the corporate media focusses on such vital, international stories like missing, pretty white women.

I don't think American workers deserve the treatment that they are getting by their state/corporate leaders who are pushing this corporate globalism.

But even if American workers deserve this, I don't think it's wise to support "open borders", because it's really tantamount to the global destruction of democracy, without which workers around the world have no chance of protecting themselves against the state/corporate partnership that is turning everyone into peasants... Even if "open borders" will help American workers to wake up to what is happening, the mechanisms of democracy will be destroyed and there will be nothing they can do at the point.

Here's the way John Ralston describes the harm that globalism is doing to democracy.
http://www.jackdavis.org/new/articles/collapse.asp">The Collapse of Globalism: and the Rebirth of Nationalism

Soon people began to notice other contradictions in the Global orthodoxy. How could the same ideology promise a planetary growth in democracy and yet a decline in the power of the nation-state? Democracy exists only inside countries. Weaken the nation-state and you weaken democracy.

Recent Grades for the Democrats in Congress (relates to legislative actions during the years 2005 to 2006)
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=9">U.S. House
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=10">U.S. Senate

http://www.betterimmigration.com/thegrades.html">How the grades are figured

A+ Virtually always supports lower immigration and lower U.S. population growth
C Half the time has acted for lower immigration and half the time has acted for higher numbers
F- Virtually always acts to force higher immigration and U.S. population growth

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. It has absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy

It is a function of the market and very specific historical forces. I never mentioned anything about a conspiracy, so I'm not sure where you're even pulling that from. Yes, a conspiracy would be ridiculous. Obviously. Since I never suggested one, it is also irrelevant.

[Quequeg]

22. "open borders" won't lead to a global labor movement

That means US workers are no longer able to be protected by the sham system through which they (inadvertently or otherwise, together with the forces of capital) raped the workers of the developing world unmercifully, thereby installing themselves as the privileged labor class now crying foul about a free labor market.

From this quote, it sounded to me like you were suggesting that US workers have been complicit with the "forces of capital"... But even if I'm misinterpreting, it justs like you think American workers deserve a good schellacking for having enjoyed an exalted position in the world, while the rest of the world has suffered... And even if you're right that we do deserve to be lashed for acquiescing to this unfair system, I have to say, as an American worker, I'm not very excited about pursuing economic policies that would deliver such a lashing to myself and the fellow workers of my community and country...

But once again, I don't think we deserve such ill treatment, because I don't think we were complicit in the corporate exploitation of the developing world... Also, I don't think we benefitted from it either.

The US (and Western) middle class is a local effect that existed 1) because those workers developed and struggled for anti-market mechanisms with respect to labor and 2) because the developing world could take the brunt of the destructive force of market capitalism.

The US middle class could have existed, even without #2... Furthermore, U.S. workers did not benefit from #2.

Also, there's nothing "anti-market" with respect to regulations that allow for unions, minimum wage, environmental protections, and restrictions on the flow of labor, goods, & capital... A "free market" doesn't mean there are no regulations... It just means that there's freedom to profit as long as all the players are following "the rules of the game", which were set according to the values, beliefs, & interests of "we the people" of this nation.

With the proper protections in every country, then all the peoples of the world can enjoy the "free market" in a way in which everyone benefits.

The dreams for a "global labor" movement seem far-fetched to me, because "open borders" will destroy democracy... Once again, here's the way John Ralston describes the harm that globalism is doing to democracy.
http://www.jackdavis.org/new/articles/collapse.asp">The Collapse of Globalism: and the Rebirth of Nationalism

Soon people began to notice other contradictions in the Global orthodoxy. How could the same ideology promise a planetary growth in democracy and yet a decline in the power of the nation-state? Democracy exists only inside countries. Weaken the nation-state and you weaken democracy.

How can we have democracy, if we have "open borders" complete with powerful international bureaucracies like the World Trade Organization and "regulatory harmonizing" agreements like the SPP giving rise to a North American Union?.. And if no country has democracy, how are the workers of the world able to create the kind of protections that the US middle class enjoyed from 1940 to 1970?

Instead, we can have a compassionate nationalism, which involves a focus on U.S. citizen interests, while at the same time concern for foreign-citizen interests... For example, currently, the U.S. governmentt only gives 0.15% of the GDP in foreign aid, whereas the scandinavian countries give 1.00%... In fact, most developed countries give a higher % of their GDP in foreign aid than the U.S. government... So, perhaps, we could step up foreign aid?

www.GlobalismScorecard.org/USHouseSortScore.htm

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. These are - finally - real concerns

1) No, I was not saying anything about a conspiracy. I was discussing the general effects of the accomodation reached between labor and capital in the US. There are such forces as labor and capital, you know? To posit these as terms that describe constituencies and interests doesn't mean positing them as subjects in the "conspiring" sense.

2) It has nothing to do with "dessrving" anything. You either have fair play on an open market or you have protectionism. National borders (and various perks received by US labor) constitute protectionism. This is not about US workers "deserving" some bad fate. This about all the other workers deserving a fair chance on the global labor market.

3) The US middle class could not have existed without US global economic policy. That's nonsense and you know it.

4) The union movements began as and did their best work as socialist organizations. That is, they forced the most concessions from capital when they were strong socialist, workers collectives. The watered-down capital loving unions are a joke.

5) Democracy will have to change forms. WHat is clear is this: the nation-state model of democracy is dead, or virtually so. It had a good run, but it is, in some sense, an epiphenomenon of the material form of nation-state capital that is itself eroding (for good reason). In the same way that the "founders" of nation-state democracy had to INVENT IT - think it up, more or less out of wholecloth (Greek "democracy was much different, as was Roman republicanism), we will have to INVENT what GLOBAL democracy will be. We have to invent it.

Nostalgia for the broken nation-state and the destructive accomodation reached between Western workers and rampant global capital is useless, foolish, and self-defeating. They are stop-gaps, but that's it. We need vision now, not more nataivism and stupidity.

[bvar22]

16. Sorry. No Sale!

One HUGE problem with your idyllic construct:
CAPITAL will ALWAYS outrun LABOR! It is much easier and quicker to move money than people.
Moving money is essentially FREE. Moving families costs money and time.

People with families, belongings, property, history, training, specific job skills, cannot simply relocate every time a Corporation decides to move to a new area of cheap labor. Even when they do, it takes time to organize Labor. It takes years for governments to impose environmental standards. Environmental standards and Human Rights MUST be violated BEFORE the grievances can be addressed. By the time this happens, the very mobile assembly plants simply pack up and move.

For proof:
The NAFTA Disaster in Mexico
Garment assembly plants in Thailand



Again, for emphasis:
Without restrictions, Capital will ALWAYS outrun Labor!
"Free Trade" is a scam.
There is no such thing as "Free Labor" (unless you mean migrant slave workers).


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Unless there is no place without a unified labor movement for capital

to run to. Which seems to me the point. Capitalism has always "outrun" labor because it has lavished benefits on some workers (never without struggle, though, mind you) and thereby pit them against others. The entire anti-immigrant nonsense is just such an episode (which is the only non-contradictory reason for uber-capitalist douchebag Lou Dobbs to be "championing" the American worker). Of course, it is utterly reasonable for American workers to get in an uproar about it. They've essentially built their own movement and privilege through 1) intense struggle with the capitalist class on the one hand (1840's-1930's), and 2) reaching accomodation with the capitalists that bestows some limited privileges on first world labor while including thorough exploitation of the third world (1945-1990's). That this accomodation is now collapsing is obvious. The question is: What are American workers going to do about it? The answer, from the so-called liberals on this board, looks pretty obvious: continue arguing for the accomodation whereby American workers receive privileges from the state apparatus and capitalist class in return for standing by and doing nothing while the ravaging of the developing world goes on unabated (this is basically what the American labor movement did 1945-1990, for a variety of geo-political reasons). Of course, there are several problems with this strategy. First, the capitalists no longer need the American worker in the same way; manufacturing can proceed apace in developing nations as a result of various infrastructural moves in the 1970's. Second, the global information economy means that a good deal of the labor can be moved where it is cheapest. We've all seen this. Lou Dobbs arguments against outsourcing are as absurd as his arguments against immigration; he can't argue on behalf of the shareholders on the one hand and against outsourcing on the other, at least until there are real downsides of the cost-savings appearing in all sectors. Third, the developing world itself is no longer the primary site of ideological battle, and it is no longer willing to acquiesce to the power of the global north. Finally, the accomodation itself killed the labor movement in the US. American workers were basically bought off by the capitalists for long enough to erase class struggle from their vocabularies. In short, all the material and ideological conditions whereby American workers worked out the accomodation have disintegrated. To call for a return to it is foolish and self-defeating. What we need is a global class struggle, not a return to American privilege and global exploitation.

[bvar22]

20. Then you do admit that your support for Free Trade .....

Then you do admit that your support for Free Trade is based on pure fantasy.

"Unless there is no place without a unified labor movement for capital to run to."

And where is this magical planet?

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. It has to be created

Since you don't feel the need to read the rest of my post, I don't feel the need to reply to your bullshit.

Cheers.

[Joanne98]

14. Democratic victorys in Ohio are due to hatred of "free trade deals"

If the Dems thinks this translates into "open borders" they are making a big mistake. I remember when Paul Krugman wrote his article and he was called a racist. It didn't matter if it was TRUE or not. I'm against "amnesty" but I'm afraid the PRO-WALL STREET one worlders will get their way. Because the US Chamber of Commerce is the one pushing this and they always get what they want. BUT, the day is coming when the globalizers get their asses kicked from one side of the planet to another. I guess I'll just have to wait for the show.

[Quequeg]

17. the Dem leaders know that voters are against "open borders"

If you go to most Democratic campaign websites, they avoid the immigration issue... The party leaders don't like to talk about... Many think that Nancy Pelosi will hold off on any amnesty program for fear that it would cost them the 2008 elections.

I was watching C-Span one morning earlier this year and the topic was relating to the Democratic party... One caller identified himself as a black man and said that "the Democrats would have it made, if they stopped pushing this amnesty.".. A couple calls later a black woman said the same thing.

I think if enough people join Numbers USA, we may be able to stop it... The Wall Street Journal was shocked when CAFTA passed by just 1 vote, after the vote was kept open for over an hour on the floor of the House... The reason CAFTA was almost cancelled is that so many people actively opposed it, from the Hispanic caucus, to immigration reformers like Tom Tancredo (who voted against CAFTA), to labor leaders, and the general public as well... I think globalism can be derailed, but only if many people put forth effort toward the cause of more responsive, national governments.
www.NumbersUSA.com

Recent Grades for the Democrats in Congress (relates to legislative actions during the years 2005 to 2006)
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=9">U.S. House
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?Category=0&Status=Recent&Flag=10">U.S. Senate

http://www.betterimmigration.com/thegrades.html">How the grades are figured

A+ Virtually always supports lower immigration and lower U.S. population growth
C Half the time has acted for lower immigration and half the time has acted for higher numbers
F- Virtually always acts to force higher immigration and U.S. population growth

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Whether or not immigration is good for America is only half the story.

Krugmann may very well be right that low-skilled immigration is bad for those people already living in the country being immigrated to. But the flip side of it is that it's good for those immigrating.

I do not think that an immigration policy based on strict selfishness is morally justifiable.

[Quequeg]

26. true, but we can help others while helping ourselves too

Right now, immigration is being used to lower wages, which amounts to transferring wealth from the poor & middle class U.S. citizens to the richest people in the world. It's really class warfare.

But it's true that it's helping foreign citizens. Yet, perhaps, we could increase foreign aid, while at the same time reducing immigration. Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said on C-Span a few months ago that the U.S. was amongst the stingiest countries in the world when it comes to foreign aid. We only give 0.15% of our GDP in foreign aid, while the Scandinavian countries give 1.00% and France gives 0.70%. Perhaps, we could step this up to 1.00%.

And we could increase foreign aid with a progressive tax which primarily impacts the wealthiest, which is fair, because they have the most discretionary income and they've been benefitting from the globalism for the last 30 years while the poor & middle class have been hurt. The wages of the top 1% have gone up by more than 100% over the last 30, whereas the household income of everyone else has gone up something like 14% and that's with 2 people working.

If we reduce immigration, this will help the poor in this country. If we increase foreign aid, this will help the poor in other countries. Also, foreign aid could help people who are older or have illnesses and can't come to the U.S. for work. So, perhaps, comprehensive immigration reform would involve reducing immigration and increasing foreign aid.

[Sensitivity]

25. Krugman is CORRECT- Last Decade of illegal immigration has hurt low-wage low-skill U.S. workers

[Jack Rabbit]

27. You can disagree with Krugman if you like

However, calling a White man with an Afro-American wife a recist semm a wee bit of a stretch.

[Quequeg]

29. (Warning! This post is satirical. Do NOT take seriously.)

The first line in my post mentioned that it was satirical. My point was just that a number of people I have heard on-line take an extreme "open border" position. They accuse anyone of disagreeing with them, as being a bad person.

But I didn't know that Krugman had an African-American wife. That makes it even more absurd. All I knew about Krugman is that he was a well-respected liberal economist who has a lot of credibility. I've read his articles defending social security and supporting universal health care. He doesn't sound like a right-winger.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. I was going to say your argument is post hoc propter ergo hoc

But then I saw the satire warning at the top.

[Quequeg]

30. after the fact, because of the fact

One of the Latin expressions I know. I agree the argument is flawed. Actually, I never really analyzed it. It just seems intuitively flawed to me. How is it post hoc propter ergo hoc?

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Here's how it is

"Obviously, anyone who wants any limits on immigration must not like the sort of people who are coming here."

There is nothing that goes from point A to point B. Had this been a serious argument the OP would've been claiming that the reason people want limits on immigration is because they don't like Mexican people. There are plenty of other reasons for people to support limits on immigration. Thus, you can't assume that people who support immigration limits don't like Mexicans, there's no evidence to connect the two.

It doesn't make as much sense when you just use the literal expression, but this type of argument is known in the study of rhetoric as a "Post Hoc fallacy".

[Quequeg]

32. Post Hoc Fallacy

Thanks for the explanation.

I didn't know the name of the fallacy, but I think this fallacy comes up a lot on the immigration issue. People who are in favor of increased immigration often try to make the case that all of this talk about economic concerns is really just a thin veneer used to hide prejudice. In other words, the real reason has something to do with not liking the people coming here, not because of harm to the labor market.

But I think it's unhelpful to do this. We have to be honest about these matters.

Here's what we could do. I like the idea of increasing foreign aid, while reducing immigration. In this way, we can help the poor in other countries, while at the same time, helping the poor in this country.

But it's hard to start even considering alternative ideas, if we can't at first be honest about the impact.