What is the Black Position on Illegal Immigration ???

Dolemite

Star
Registered
Temujin said:
Bottom line is guys the brown wave is comming.

And you have your surfboard.

mexicans are not our friends
Can any of you show a pattern of friendship or goodwill between mexicans or Mexican-Americans and Blacks of any nation anywhere? I am not speaking of individuals. I grew up in Los Angeles with many hispanic friends.

Partnering with brown people to line your pockets is bullshit.

I want to partner with those who have a shared interest aka tax paying american citizens of all colors. All issues do not require the alienation of white people because of historical differences. If the sun is out and a white man says the sun is out, do you claim its raining just to disagree with him? More bullshit.


We have nothing to fear you say. You find time to write many paragraphs of explanation regarding this issue and not one contains any attempt to explain the evidence that proves all your assertions of brotherhood with Mexicans is fraudulent.

You are on the same side of this issue as the people that you claim are in control. You benefit economically on a personal level from this bullshit.
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
QueEx said:
I agree with you here -- but IF AND ONLY IF they express interests which coincide with OUR INTERESTS. I haven't seen that, have you? If so, please set out in detail where they have done so. I think it would be a wonderful and powerful thing if that were so, but you saying it doesn't make it so -- so, show me when and how illegal immigrants have expressed solidarity with Black interests. Cite some of the comments of illegal immigrants and their supporters which pledge solidarity with Black interests. And, please don't give us more of whatchu think -- I wanna see, by acts and deeds, where they have pledged allegiance to the interest of Black America.

Latinos will say the same thing. I can give you plenty of historic examples from slavery all the way to the civil rights movement. But as for today this is something we need to develop. But it is something we cannot develop if we do not have the will. If we do not have the will to unite with the latinos then it will never happen. They idea that our interests are against one another is the main hurdle to our unity.

Just because the Hutsi's and Tutsis have never united does not mean the should not or cannot. Just because the bloods and crips have never united does not mean they should not or cannot. Just because there is division between the black and brown community does not mean we should not fight for unity.

QueEx said:
I suggest that what you and lot of others of us need to do is stop worrying about punishing whitey at every turn while missing opportunities to take and protect that which should be ours. We know full well how to win struggles -- lest we wouldn't have come as far as we've come. What we need to learn is to "Close the Deal" -- that is, finish with this business of overcoming and get on with seizing every damn opportunity this nation can offer any other citizen ... and jealously protect the same against all intruders, illegals included.

QueEx

This is not about closing a deal Que. This is about reconginzing the changing American demographic. We cannot be stuck in this bubble and believe that if we keep sending latinos back to Mexico they will never be the majority. As a businessman you know that change is certain. People that want to maintain the status quo always lose. If black people miss the opportunity to partner with latinos they will always be our enemy and they will eventually just replace white people as oppressors.

To "jealously protect" stolen land from the indigenous people is a sick trait of white people that I refuse to be a part of.
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Dolemite said:
And you have your surfboard.

mexicans are not our friends
Can any of you show a pattern of friendship or goodwill between mexicans or Mexican-Americans and Blacks of any nation anywhere? I am not speaking of individuals. I grew up in Los Angeles with many hispanic friends.

Partnering with brown people to line your pockets is bullshit.

I want to partner with those who have a shared interest aka tax paying american citizens of all colors. All issues do not require the alienation of white people because of historical differences. If the sun is out and a white man says the sun is out, do you claim its raining just to disagree with him? More bullshit.


We have nothing to fear you say. You find time to write many paragraphs of explanation regarding this issue and not one contains any attempt to explain the evidence that proves all your assertions of brotherhood with Mexicans is fraudulent.

You are on the same side of this issue as the people that you claim are in control. You benefit economically on a personal level from this bullshit.

First off I do not benefit personally in anyway from the current immigration system. Everyone of my employees and clients are American citizens. I would definetly benefit from having more consumers and workers who are American citizens. 11 Million would be great. So yes citizenship would benefit my company as well as any other small black company that sevices poor communities or poor people.

Through all your paragraphs I have yet to see where Latinos have oppressed African Americans. Unity between the black and brown communities at this point is horrible. That does not mean it cannot be fixed. You perhaps would like the latinos to team with white people so black people can be further oppressed. I would like to see black people team with Latinos against the white majority.

If you align yourself with every tax payin citizen. WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST HAVING 11 MILLION MORE TAX PAYING CITIZENS. And please don't give me your love of the white mans law rhetoric again I could give a shit about enforcing the whitemans bullshit laws.
 

Dolemite

Star
Registered
If we do not have the will to unite with the latinos then it will never happen.

that's right because they dont give a fuck about us or like us and I'm not in favor of trying to unite with Mexican economic refugees who have broken the law and cut in line in front of millions of black and other people
 

Dolemite

Star
Registered
Temujin said:
Through all your paragraphs I have yet to see where Latinos have oppressed African Americans.

Is oppression the only offense that can be committed against black people????? How about murder? How about prejudice?

:smh:



temujin said:
Unity between the black and brown communities at this point is horrible. That does not mean it cannot be fixed. You perhaps would like the latinos to team with white people so black people can be further oppressed. I would like to see black people team with Latinos against the white majority.

Read up - they already align themselves with whites rather than blacks. I'd like you to go to a jail in California during a race riot and then see what your inclinations are. Or I'd like to see you with a child in the LAUSD and then here your commentary.


Temujin said:
If you align yourself with every tax payin citizen. WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST HAVING 11 MILLION MORE TAX PAYING CITIZENS. And please don't give me your love of the white mans law rhetoric again I could give a shit about enforcing the whitemans bullshit laws.

I dont pay taxes to take care of illegal aliens. Youre an uncle tom. All evidence shows these people could give a fuck about us and you persist with your weak arguments for allowing millions of lawbreaking noncitizens to come to this nation despite the fact MILLIONS OF BLACK PEOPLE ARE WAITING TO LEGALLY IMMIGRATE. I hope someone robs and murders you and your family since you don't give a fuck about the white man's law.


Stupid shit. You act as if its fairplay for any refugee to illegally immigrate here and it isn't. You act like these assholes haven't been raping the system and not contributing shit tax wise. You act as if all these muthafuckas dont instantly have nothing to do with black people in areas where they have flooded in. You act as if the government hasnt purposely allowed these central americans to flood in as slave labor while halting as many black people from the caribbean as possible.

Don't act like you have answered shit about any of the documented ways that these assholes are a threat to our community.


Your alliance with the crackas who allow these assholes in this nation is sure sign of your sold out status. As long as there are countries with armies and borders and as long as there are black people in America I will not favor bullshit that makes rich white people richer and threatens black people.

This aint mexico fuck you and fuck them.
 
S

Shadow77

Guest
QueEx said:
You're right, they have a right to say (1) the law is inequitable,and (2) it should be changed. But you seem to suggest, however, that the law is, for some reason, wrong or immoral. You failed to state though, whats wrong with the law. Whats wrong with the law ??? What is unjust about our immigration laws that requires one (anyone) who wants to migrate to this country to go through the legal process of immigration ??? What ??? Please be specific.

Good point, I should have been more clear on that point. I'm against any form of quotas on immigration whatsoever, I see that as unjust, I'm against national boundaries of any kind. I didn't say that they shouldn't go through a legal process (a background check to find out if they have a criminal past, and a health check to make sure they're not carrying anything) but I'm against any quota or restriction on the numbers that come. I believe that's unjust for 2 reasons: first, there's no original precedent for it, in the 1700s people from Europe came here and were immediately citizens, in the mid 1800s there was a huge Irish migration here, they were discriminated against at first, but they weren't barred from citizenship and no quotas were placed on them. It was only once non-white populations came that restrictions on numbers started, starting with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (ahh, remember when laws were passed that clearly said what they meant?) which restricted Chinese from becoming citizens even though their immigration numbers were lower than European immigrants, and then in 1921 the Temporary Quota Act was passed which restricted the numbers (very lopsidedly) of who could come, in 1924 it was expanded so that Northern and Western Europeans could come almost unrestricted but very low quotas were placed on pretty much every non-white nation. So the whole idea of quotas was a racist practice from the start, designed to keep out darker skinned people, although when lots of white migrated here before that there was no quota. Point is quotas are designed simply to preserve white numerical superiority in this country, which I believe is unjust. Secondly, if a country strongly endorses the idea of protections of private property, which this country does strongly, the country really has no grounds for denying anyone the right to live here. The government doesn't actually "own" this land, it has juristiction over it but that's different from ownership, there is no basis for denying anyone the right to own land or rent it if an American decides to sell or rent their land. I'm leaving aside the question of citizenship for the moment but for people to literally come here, reside here, and work here is not in and of itself grounds for criminalization. That's why I say the immigration laws are unjust, and that's why I say immigrants have the right to protest them.

QueEx said:
Maybe you need to "study history" or, at least, "understand history" before you invoke it. Without getting into what you described as the "same bigoted and narrow-minded arguments" -- though I disagree with that statement (I argue against legalizing 11 million illegals with the wave of a wand -- and I don't consider my arguments bigoted or narrowminded -- instead, I think they are based in common damn sense), lets look at what the the Constitutional amendment you speak of actually says. The 14th Amendment provides, simply:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​
Do you see something wrong with the 14th Amendment as applied to illegal immigrants ??? Is there something wrong with a citizen of these United States being anyone other than (1) a person BORN HERE (the children of illegal immigrants born while they are here are U.S. citizens under this amendment); and (2) a person <u>naturalized</u> (naturalized is the way "immigrants" become citizens). ???

Ok, now it's your turn to explain explicitly, what's wrong with legalizing with the "wave of a wand" 11 million illegal immigrants? I see no "common sense" in not legalizing them, the main arguments I hear are about added crime (which the opposite is true, immigrants commit less crimes than American citizens), increased job competition (which is true to an extent, but first they tend to take jobs most Americans won't do, secondly, because they actually strengthen the economy they create more available job growth, thirdly, they become more of a competition with the American labor force as illegal immigrants because since they lack rights, they are more easily exploited and can be used as cheap labor alternatives when American citizens strike, if they were made citizens, they could join in the strikes without fear of deportation or criminal illegal immigration charges being taken against them) or they drain the system (which again the opposite is true because they pay taxes in the form of social security, income taxes, and sales taxes of purchases, yet don't tend to receive many of the benefits back from these services, the reformation of welfare during Clinton's years made it a lot harder for immigrants to receive welfare services), so what is the argument against them become legal?

On your other point, I wasn't refering specifically to the contect of the 14th amendment, more accurately I was refering to the Civil Rights act of 1866 which was passed right before the 14th amendment which granted citizenship to Blacks living in America. And I was simply pointing out that when blacks were originally freed from slavery, they weren't considered citizens. When they started to try to do the things the white citizens were doing, they were denied the right to do that and the basis of the argument was that according to the law, they were not citizens. They had to struggle to be granted citizenship, which is what happened with the Civil Rights Act, which I pointed out simply to contest the fact that you said there was "NO" relevance to the black struggle. I'm just trying to point out that very similar things that happend to us happened and are happening to them. But since you brought up the 14th amendment, I will answer your questions. Yes, I see something wrong with the 14th amendment applied to illegal immigrants, if you notice, the 14th amendment states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This part clearly makes the distinction that it's refering to "people" not just citizens. Those basic rights, life, liberty and ownership of property are supposed to be applied to anyone, making no distinction of if they're foreign born or not, which is why I say to make make non-citizens criminally "illegal" and deny them of any of those rights is an unjust law. And for your second question no I don't see anything wrong with citizens being people who are either born here or naturalized here, I take exception to limiting the number who can become naturalized through quotas. Because, as you should know, when the 14th amendment was written, there was no "quotas" so that wasn't an aspect of naturalization.

QueEx said:
Doesn't this apply equally to Mexicans, Haitians, <u>supposedly</u> Cubans, Nigerians, Liberians, British, etc. ??? Does the 14th Amendment treat illegals playing hop-scotch across the Mexican border differently from any other people ??? More importantly, does it treat African Americans any differently from the Mexican fence jumpers ???

If you can legitimately answer "yes" to any of the questions above, you might have an argument. I suggest that you can't -- and that you can't show how the LAW is, as you suggest, is wrong.

Well I think I legitimately answered "yes" to some of your previous questions, and explained why I think the law is wrong, you have every right to disagree but I think I raise legitimate concerns and issues with our laws, that I believe "illegal" immigrants have the right to protest to. As to your question about whether the 14th amendment applies equally to all illegal immigrants, no it didn't. First, it didn't deal with "illegal" immigrants at all, because there was no such thing back then really (you were only "illegal" if you committed a crime that would be equally applicable to a citizen or a non-citizen, simply living and working here and not being a citizen didn't make you "illegal" because as I pointed out, blacks were legal residents but not legal citizens when freed from slavery, Chinese and Native Americans [sometimes] were also legal residents but not citizens), there were no quotas stopping anyone from becoming a naturalized citizen, it treated all "immigrants" the same at first, but again, I don't contest naturalizing immigrants, processing them to become citizens, I contest the idea of them being told they must go on a waiting list and if they live here while waiting they are "illegal". Second, the 14th amendment did eventually deal differently with the different immigrant groups. Only 4 years after it passed the "Naturalization Act" was passed which limited American citizenship to "white persons and persons of African descent," barring Asians (and probably Hispanics except they weren't immigrating to the US yet really) from U.S. citizenship.


QueEx said:
Does the law treat those Mexicans differently than African Americans ??? No.

The basis of my argument isn't that laws treated Mexicans and African Americans different, although at different times throughout the US history it did, at least as far as determining who could be citizens and differing quotas for different countries of origin, but my real point regarding African Americans and Mexicans was that they at times had very similar plights and what they're going through now is similar to what blacks went through at different time periods in this nation's history.


QueEx said:
Knowing a little history can be a dangerous thing. Knowing how to apply it can be rewarding.

Didn't the 14th Amendment put Mexicans on the same playing field as African Americans ??? Doesn't the 14th Amendment put all "Illegals" on the same playing field ??? Are Mexicans prohibited from becoming citizens of the U.S. by birth or naturalization ??? Why would you propose to make legal 11 million illegals who have <u>never applied for legal citizenship</u> ??? Get out of your tunnel vision and use your brain instead of your emotions.

No the 14th Amendment doesn't put all "Illegals" on the same playing field because they weren't "ILLEGAL", they were simply all non-citizens beforehand, regardless if they lived in America or not, and once the 14th admentment passed they all had the same options to naturalize, except even if they didn't and lived on the land they were not "illegally" on it, they were simply non-citizens. Now Mexicans are prohibited from becoming citizens of the U.S., not by birth or naturalization, but by quotas. And I would propose to make legal 11 million "illegals" for 2 reasons, 1) because there is no basis not to except for racist quota laws that were passed 2) because if not there is a labor pool that can be used as a cheap labor alternative that can't protect itself from the whims of the bosses, whereas if they are legalized they will have the rights to unionize and demand increased wages and increased benefits which will improve the conditions of the entire working class.


QueEx said:
Do you see whats wrong with what you're saying? If, as you said, "no illegal immigrant has more rights than another" - - then it must be that illegal Mexicans ARE ASKING FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT - aren't they?

No, you misunderstand what I'm saying, I say that no "illegal" immigrant has more rights than another, but what I'm pointing out is that Mexicans immigrants are simply the ones who have finally started standing up for their rights (the right not to have life, liberty or property disrupted without due process of law, which, according to the 14th amendment is granted to all "persons" not just citizens, which the Sensennburger [sp] bill would take away by declaring them felons for simply living in the land as non-citizens). And Mexicans illegal immigrants are not asking for anything specific to them to the exclusion of others. The ones who do want legalization aren't saying "Legalize us Mexicans but not the other illegal immigrants", they're saying "Legalize us 'illegal' immigrants", simply because it's mainly (but not totally) the Mexican immigrants who are saying it doesn't mean it something only for Mexicans, I'm for the end of all quotas on immigration regardless the nation. I know that's an extreme stance (and if you want I can get into that too) but at the very least I'm for not criminalizing the immigrants who are here now "illegally". And my position is not based on "emotions", my reasons are based on sound logical analysis of the situation.


QueEx said:
Please explain to us what is racist about the immigration laws and, -- please be specific. Maybe they are racist, but please explain it so that we can see what you're arguing -- so that we can distinguish fact from bullshit.

I went into why I think they're racist, so I won't repeat myself here, but just to add I don't think laws that were racist in origin suddenly become non-racists when tweaked a lil bit.

QueEx said:
I agree with you here -- but IF AND ONLY IF they express interests which coincide with OUR INTERESTS. I haven't seen that, have you? If so, please set out in detail where they have done so. I think it would be a wonderful and powerful thing if that were so, but you saying it doesn't make it so -- so, show me when and how illegal immigrants have expressed solidarity with Black interests. Cite some of the comments of illegal immigrants and their supporters which pledge solidarity with Black interests. And, please don't give us more of whatchu think -- I wanna see, by acts and deeds, where they have pledged allegiance to the interest of Black America.

The best place you could find alliances would be the Unions, because that's where people really realize that there are common class interests that the laborers share as opposed to the bosses. One interesting fact is that the largest number of Hispanics banded in any 1 organization is not some Latino organization, it's the United Steelworkers Union. The labor movement is where you really have to go for grassroots change. It's not about trying to get Hispanics to join or even work with Black rights organizations, or vice versa ('cause to be fair, what specifically black organizations to you see openly expressing solidarity with Hispanic causes). Once we realize that to improve our own situations we have to band together to fight against the ruling class for improvements that would benefit all layers of the oppressed, including lower class whites, we will (and have) gain a lot more concessions from the ruling class than taking this divided stance. And the one place this has the best place of happening (and is happening) is within the labor movement. You want specific examples, take the Socialist Worker's Party for example (although I'm not a member, I regularly attend their forums), this is an organization which fights for rights for all layers of the oppressed masses, including black rights, women's rights, immigrant rights, Union rights, etc, has membership which includes blacks, whites and hispanics...Malcolm X was the speaker at 3 of their forums in the past, and they nominated and ran the first black man for president ever Clifton Deberry (he ran under the socialist ticket) in 1965, the most recent election they ran a Hispanic immigrant as president (they had a black stand-in which is allowed by law when you run an a candidate who doesn't meet the current criteria for the position) and a black woman vice-president who ran. I've received very kind receptions by hispanics who saw me show just an inkling of support for their cause, and it opens up the chance for dialogue, but someone gotta take the first step. Bottom line, if we stand against them we're only screwing ourselves over. I support illegal immigrants, not because of some emotional desire to be nice to them, but because if I wanna look out for my own self interests I need to make sure the rulers don't have an exploitative source of labor they can use as leverage over me.

QueEx said:
You know, thats a good statement. I subscribed to that statement as well. However, before there can be a "Division" of people, there must first me a "Unity" of people or at least a "Common Interest" of people. Where is the unity or common interest as set forth by the Illegal Immigrants ???

I think the Common Interest of our people is that most of us working people, black, white or hispanic (illegal or not) are struggling, the middle class is becoming smaller and smaller, and though it's not really apparent right this second, things are leading to a really big exploitation of the working class and a recession of the concessions we've fought for in the past (length of workday, minimum wage, social security, medicare and medicaid, welfare, pensions, rights to unionize), if we fight among ourselves we're all gonna end up getting shafted, only ones who will really come out on top are the big bosses. Even if we were able to deport all these "illegal" immigrants and stop illegal immigration (which won't happen, not because the immigrants won't let it happen but because the ruling class won't let it happen, they need the cheap labor) another source of cheap labor would be formed, most likely the next widespread form of cheap labor would be the prison population, and you'd see the increase in blacks being sent to prison for pettier and pettier crimes with longer sentences, they're already trying to start back up chain gangs.

QueEx said:
Its true, Black people are the most forgiving people on the damn planet. Trouble with that is we just keep forgiving shit, even to the point of giving - up our own interests.


I suggest that what you and lot of others of us need to do is stop worrying about punishing whitey at every turn while missing opportunities to take and protect that which should be ours. We know full well how to win struggles -- lest we wouldn't have come as far as we've come. What we need to learn is to "Close the Deal" -- that is, finish with this business of overcoming and get on with seizing every damn opportunity this nation can offer any other citizen ... and jealously protect the same against all intruders, illegals included.

QueEx

I'm not about punishing "whitey", I make a distinction between the white working class man who's often in only a slightly better boat than you or I, he just doesn't realize it, and the upper class which is mainly white but also has a layer of blacks and hispanic house negros that mislead the rest of us. Those are my true enemies. But the whole "I'm out for delf, screw the next guy" attitude we have is just gonna end up screwing us all over in the long run. To end this, I wanna apologize to you and Blkvoz 'cause I came off like an ass when I first posted, I had just got off the yahoo boards and got done arguing with the most racists bunch of redneck hicks you could imagine about this whole immigration issue, so I brought that attitude into here. I'm actually pleasantly surprised that when I come to this black forum I get intelligent responses to my posts, even though they may disagree with me.
 
B

Blkvoz

Guest
Originally posted by Temujin
Nothing will happen if you do not believe it can happen. If you do not think black and brown people can come together your neglecting history. Black people fought with the Mexicans in the Spanish American war. Native Americans were part of slave uprisings with blacks. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. When people are oppressed wise people bond together to rise against the oppressor.


What I or you believe is of no consequence. What, we all of us believe, will determine the course of history.

True Black people fought with the Mexicans in the Spanish American war. However do not overlook the fact that Black people fought with the Americans in that same war. 9th and 10th calvary.

Native Americans played a very small part in the slave uprisings with Black men. Never forget that one of the most formidable fighting forces in the Indian wars was the 9th and 10th calvary.

Do I believe we Black and Brown people can or will come together, No. Do I believe it is possible, Yes, provided that is what the average person wants, and our so called leaders take the initiative to direct our efforts to that end.

Can it happen yes it is within the realm possibility, will it happen, hell no, not in our lifetime. Just look at the anti Mexican sentiment that looms here. The interesting thing is this anti sentiment does not follow any logical pattern. Instead of agreeing or disagreeing with civility, some of us verbally assault one another, again without rhyme or reason. How can we expect to come together with someone else, when we can’t be civil to one another.

I am not talking turn the cheek philosophy, I am talking the exchange of ideas and giving someone with an opposing viewpoint, the courtesy of allowing him express that point without deciding that a person that differs with you or I, is a sellout, stupid or House Negro.

Quoting slogans mean nothing, unless one wishes to internalize that philosophical concept.

The enemy of my enemy, is nothing more than two forces with similar directions. If two friend with similar objectives decide to combine their strengths, in a unified effort, then the two of them will achieve much more together, than either of them alone.

I know black people and brown people can work together I do it everyday. Since my company started a bilingual program I have had to deal with hard core latin kings and MS-13 members. You know what we have in common. Our dislike of white people. I teach them how to adapt to the system so they do not have to be criminals. I teach them how to adapt and they love it. Other than the language barrier I have more trouble dealing with black gang members then latino. When they see someone trying to help them they have a lot of loyatly and love and they show it.

I too have worked with Brown people. So what, more often than not, after work we both go our separate ways

We have to get rid of this idea that the latino people are our enemies and we cannot come together. It is an illusion promoted by our oppressors so that they can maintain control.

I agree, how do we accomplish this?
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Temujin said:
Latinos will say the same thing. I can give you plenty of historic examples from slavery all the way to the civil rights movement. But as for today this is something we need to develop. But it is something we cannot develop if we do not have the will. If we do not have the will to unite with the latinos then it will never happen. They idea that our interests are against one another is the main hurdle to our unity.
Listen Podna, we've gone back and forth on this. I see it one way and you see it another. When someone debunks your myths, you simply come up with another "Subjective" argument. Face it, you believe that someday all the little people in the world wild magically unite in blissful harmony. Frankly, I'd like to teach the world to sing in that perfect h-a-r-m-o-n-y.

But what you believe or, better still, what you "wish" has very little to do with the present reality. That is, as of this writing, right now, tonight, there is no common-ness of ideological purpose between "Illegal Immigrants" and Black folks. You can wish upon that star for as long as you like, but the truth of the matter is, it doesn't exist. Period.

Now, until your fantasy becomes reality, protecting OUR interest should be the order of the day. My life experience, all my training (19 years of formal education and military experience), my advice to clients and my gut feeling tells me -- protect your interest, don't take any fuckin wooden nickels, and don't be brow beaten into giving up the protection of my interest by an idealist (like you - LOL) talking about the way shit ought to be who ignores the way things are all the while hoping the ideal comes true.

I don't have one single problem with unity between Black and Brown. Without question, together we are stronger and there is sooooo much potential if that happens. I agree, this idealist unity will not transpire without both parties overcoming obstacles. That said, I see absolutely NO reason to invite 11 million more of those to the table -- when no one (us or them) is even at the damn table. As a lawyer you should know: you negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness - because it only makes you weaker; and, never, I mean never, bargain <u>against</u> yourself - because it means you will always get less than what your claim is worth.

Another thing, my brother, I don't see where THIS COUNTRY has the responsibility of solving Mexico's economic problems by importing the damn problem. We don't owe Mexico or illegals from Mexico or anywhere else, shit! I said that so you will understand with clarity why I take the positions that I do. Fukk all the propaganda and niceties about this being an immigrant nation, blah, blah, fuckin blah. That stuff is for posters, TV ads, etc., for making somebody feel good about themselves and the USA. We all know that immigration has always been made easier for people the leadership in this country wants to let in at any particular time. But, if you look carefully, NOT ONE of the historic immigrant preferentials benefit Black people.

When European immigration was promoted and lauded, it didn't help Black people, it only brought in more Euros to subjugate US. In the 80's when we took in the boat people fleeing Vietnam, shit didn't benefit me -- it eased the conscious of some in leadership, brought in a group of people who don't vote with mine and some-fuckin-how seemed to either come here with cash or received some from someone to start businesses which take money from mine without hiring any (of course, we're dumb enough to buy from them). The Indians (from India) seem to be the Inn Keepers of America; and Arabs are a mainstay in most of the hood, and again, we buy, they don't hire. The common-ness between ALL of these groups is what some call "People of Color" or "Brown People" and the like. NOT GOTDAMN ONE ofhose groups gives-a-shit about yours and mine. There is no political alliance or allegiance between us and them. They pursue their interest, while we Black people always-saying-but-they're-people-of-color-and-have-black-blood are left to pursue ours. They tend to rise and we tend to, well ....

Now, Mr. Temujin, you're telling me here's 11 million more people of color, who like the other people of color, have no political common-ness with OUR causes, that we need to open our never-unforgiving arms to. Well fuck you and fuck that. LOL (I am laughing, but I hope you understand how I feel). By the way, I am 100% for all those who gain citizenship, whether Mexican, Haitian, Guatemalan, Nigerian, or whatever, in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, as the same has, from time to time, been amended.

I think I've said enough in this rant.

Thank you very much,

QueEx
 

elexington1989

Potential Star
Registered
QueEx said:
Listen Podna, we've gone back and forth on this. I see it one way and you see it another. When someone debunks your myths, you simply come up with another "Subjective" argument. Face it, you believe that someday all the little people in the world wild magically unite in blissful harmony. Frankly, I'd like to teach the world to sing in that perfect h-a-r-m-o-n-y.

But what you believe or, better still, what you "wish" has very little to do with the present reality. That is, as of this writing, right now, tonight, there is no common-ness of ideological purpose between "Illegal Immigrants" and Black folks. You can wish upon that star for as long as you like, but the truth of the matter is, it doesn't exist. Period.

Now, until your fantasy becomes reality, protecting OUR interest should be the order of the day. My life experience, all my training (19 years of formal education and military experience), my advice to clients and my gut feeling tells me -- protect your interest, don't take any fuckin wooden nickels, and don't be brow beaten into giving up the protection of my interest by an idealist (like you - LOL) talking about the way shit ought to be who ignores the way things are all the while hoping the ideal comes true.

I don't have one single problem with unity between Black and Brown. Without question, together we are stronger and there is sooooo much potential if that happens. I agree, this idealist unity will not transpire without both parties overcoming obstacles. That said, I see absolutely NO reason to invite 11 million more of those to the table -- when no one (us or them) is even at the damn table. As a lawyer you should know: you negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness - because it only makes you weaker; and, never, I mean never, bargain <u>against</u> yourself - because it means you will always get less than what your claim is worth.

Another thing, my brother, I don't see where THIS COUNTRY has the responsibility of solving Mexico's economic problems by importing the damn problem. We don't owe Mexico or illegals from Mexico or anywhere else, shit! I said that so you will understand with clarity why I take the positions that I do. Fukk all the propaganda and niceties about this being an immigrant nation, blah, blah, fuckin blah. That stuff is for posters, TV ads, etc., for making somebody feel good about themselves and the USA. We all know that immigration has always been made easier for people the leadership in this country wants to let in at any particular time. But, if you look carefully, NOT ONE of the historic immigrant preferentials benefit Black people.

When European immigration was promoted and lauded, it didn't help Black people, it only brought in more Euros to subjugate US. In the 80's when we took in the boat people fleeing Vietnam, shit didn't benefit me -- it eased the conscious of some in leadership, brought in a group of people who don't vote with mine and some-fuckin-how seemed to either come here with cash or received some from someone to start businesses which take money from mine without hiring any (of course, we're dumb enough to buy from them). The Indians (from India) seem to be the Inn Keepers of America; and Arabs are a mainstay in most of the hood, and again, we buy, they don't hire. The common-ness between ALL of these groups is what some call "People of Color" or "Brown People" and the like. NOT GOTDAMN ONE ofhose groups gives-a-shit about yours and mine. There is no political alliance or allegiance between us and them. They pursue their interest, while we Black people always-saying-but-they're-people-of-color-and-have-black-blood are left to pursue ours. They tend to rise and we tend to, well ....

Now, Mr. Temujin, you're telling me here's 11 million more people of color, who like the other people of color, have no political common-ness with OUR causes, that we need to open our never-unforgiving arms to. Well fuck you and fuck that. LOL (I am laughing, but I hope you understand how I feel). By the way, I am 100% for all those who gain citizenship, whether Mexican, Haitian, Guatemalan, Nigerian, or whatever, in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, as the same has, from time to time, been amended.

I think I've said enough in this rant.

Thank you very much,

QueEx

All I can say is that most Democrats(by the way of some Republicans) support Illegal Immigration. Does that mean that you and others that are against illegal immigration will be less supportive of them if they continue to encourage amnesty for the illegal immigrants???????????????
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
elexington1989 said:
All I can say is that most Democrats(by the way of some Republicans) support Illegal Immigration. Does that mean that you and others that are against illegal immigration will be less supportive of them if they continue to encourage amnesty for the illegal immigrants???????????????
Free your mind of labels; and a more intelligent vote will follow.

QueEx
 

Dolemite

Star
Registered
NYTimes

May 4, 2006
Growing Unease for Some Blacks on Immigration

By RACHEL L. SWARNS

WASHINGTON, May 3 — In their demonstrations across the country, some Hispanic immigrants have compared the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s struggle to their own, singing "We Shall Overcome" and declaring a new civil rights movement to win citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.

Civil rights stalwarts like the Rev. Jesse Jackson; Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia; Julian Bond and the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery have hailed the recent protests as the natural progression of their movement in the 1960's.

But despite some sympathy for the nation's illegal immigrants, many black professionals, academics and blue-collar workers feel increasingly uneasy as they watch Hispanics flex their political muscle while assuming the mantle of a seminal black struggle for justice.

Some blacks bristle at the comparison between the civil rights movement and the immigrant demonstrations, pointing out that black protesters in the 1960's were American citizens and had endured centuries of enslavement, rapes, lynchings and discrimination before they started marching.

Others worry about the plight of low-skilled black workers, who sometimes compete with immigrants for entry-level jobs.

And some fear the unfinished business of the civil rights movement will fall to the wayside as America turns its attention to a newly energized Hispanic minority with growing political and economic clout.

"All of this has made me start thinking, 'What's going to happen to African-Americans?' " said Brendon L. Laster, 32, a black fund-raiser at Howard University here, who has been watching the marches. "What's going to happen to our unfinished agenda?"

Mr. Laster is dapper and cosmopolitan, a part-time professor and Democratic activist who drinks and dines with a wide circle of black, white and Hispanic friends. He said he marveled at first as the images of cheering, flag-waving immigrants flickered across his television screen. But as some demonstrators proclaimed a new civil rights movement, he grew uncomfortable.

He says that immigrant protesters who claim the legacy of Dr. King and Rosa Parks are going too far. And he has begun to worry about the impact that the emerging immigrant activism will have on black Americans, many of whom still face poverty, high rates of unemployment and discrimination in the workplace.

"I think what they were able to do, the level of organization they were able to pull off, that was phenomenal," said Mr. Laster, who is also a part-time sociology professor at a community college in Baltimore. "But I do think their struggle is, in fundamental ways, very different from ours. We didn't chose to come here; we came here as slaves. And we were denied, even though we were legal citizens, our basic rights."

"There are still a lot of unresolved issues from the civil rights era," he said. "Perhaps we're going to be pushed to the back burner."

This painful debate is bubbling up in church halls and classrooms, on call-in radio programs and across dining room tables. Some blacks prefer to discuss the issue privately for fear of alienating their Hispanic allies. But others are publicly airing their misgivings, saying they are too worried to stay silent.

"We will have no power, no clout," warned Linda Carter-Lewis, 62, a human resources manager and the branch president of the N.A.A.C.P. in Des Moines. "That's where I see this immigrant movement going. Even though so many thousands and thousands of them have no legal status and no right to vote right now, that day is coming."

Immigrant leaders defend their use of civil rights language, saying strong parallels exist between the two struggles. And they argue that their movement will ultimately become a powerful vehicle to fight for the rights of all American workers, regardless of national origin.

"African-Americans during the civil rights movement were in search of the American dream and that's what our movement is trying to achieve for our community," said Jaime Contreras, president of the National Capital Immigration Coalition, which organized the April 10 demonstration that drew tens of thousands of people to Washington.

"We face the same issues even if we speak different languages," said Mr. Contreras, who is from El Salvador and listens to Dr. King's speeches for inspiration.

Mr. Jackson, who addressed the immigrant rally on Monday in New York, echoed those views. He noted that Dr. King, at the end of his life, focused on improving economic conditions for all Americans, regardless of race. And he said the similarities between African-Americans and illegal immigrants were too powerful to ignore.

"We too were denied citizenship," Mr. Jackson said. "We too were undocumented workers working without wages, without benefits, without the vote. "We should feel honored that other people are using tactics and strategies from our struggle. We shouldn't say they're stealing from us. They're learning from us."

Mr. Jackson said corporate employers were fueling the tensions between blacks and immigrants by refusing to pay a living wage to all workers. John Campbell, a black steel worker and labor activist from Iowa, agreed.

"This is a class issue," said Mr. Campbell, who has been disheartened by black critics of the immigrant marches. "We need to join forces. We can't improve our lot in life as African-Americans by suppressing the rights of anyone else."

But blacks and immigrants have long had a history of uneasy relations in the United States.

W.E.B. DuBois, a founder of the N.A.A.C.P., and other prominent black leaders worried that immigrants would displace blacks in the workplace. Ronald Walters, director of the African-American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland, said blacks cheered when the government restricted Asian immigration to the United States after World War I. And many Europeans who came to this country discriminated against blacks.

Blacks and Hispanics have also been allies. In the 1960's, Dr. King and Cesar Chavez, the Mexican-American farm labor leader, corresponded with each other. And when Mr. Chavez was jailed, Dr. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, visited him in jail, Mr. Walters said. In recent years, blacks and Hispanics have been influential partners in the Democratic Party.

A recent poll conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center captured the ambivalence among blacks over immigration. Nearly 80 percent said immigrants from Latin American work very hard and have strong family values.

But nearly twice as many blacks as whites said that they or a family member had lost a job, or not gotten a job, because an employer hired an immigrant worker. Blacks were also more likely than whites to feel that immigrants take jobs away from American citizens.

Mr. Walters said he understood those conflicting emotions, saying he feels torn himself because of his concerns about the competition between immigrants and low-skilled black men for jobs. In 2004, 72 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless, compared with 34 percent of white and 19 percent of Hispanic dropouts.

"I applaud them moving out of the shadows and into the light because of the human rights issues involved," Mr. Walters said of illegal immigrants. "I've given my entire life to issues of social justice as an activist and an academic. In that sense, I'm with them.

"But they also represent a powerful ingredient to the perpetuation of our struggle," he said. "We have a problem where half of black males are unemployed in several cities. I can't ignore that and simply be my old progressive self and say it's not an issue. It is an issue."
 

Dolemite

Star
Registered
Black leaders claim immigration bias
By Brian DeBose
The Washington Times
Published May 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Black leaders say Mexicans and other Hispanic nationals are getting preferential immigration treatment, as the U.S. systematically turns away people from countries with largely African-descended populations, such as Jamaica and the Dominican Republic.

"We've told Haiti that their development strategy cannot be to send people to the United States, and if you put them on a boat we will send them back. But for Mexico it is OK," said William E. Spriggs, chairman of Howard University's School of Economics and a senior fellow with the Economic Policy Institute.

The leaders, especially conservatives, say the country can't have an honest immigration reform debate without discussing how much people are being paid and why only certain nationalities are allowed to come into the country illegally and work off the books.

"There can't be 10 million Mexicans in America worth $5 a hour and there aren't 10 million Mexicans in Mexico worth $5 a hour, that just can't be," Mr. Spriggs said. "We are letting Mexico get away with this, and until we have a full discussion on wage levels in Mexico we will never solve this problem."

The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a Los Angeles-based conservative talk show host and founder of the nonprofit Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, said the debate about immigration reform is all about politics.

"Unfortunately for blacks, politicians like [Sen. Edward M.] Kennedy are more interested in the next election -- and blacks are a small slice of the voting pie, while Hispanic numbers are exploding," he said. "Blacks must finally claim their birthright as Americans, and say 'no' to the further devastation of their work force and communities by illegal aliens and their political accomplices."

While many mainstream black leaders fall in line with Democrats, generally supporting guest-worker programs or amnesty for illegal aliens, blacks are split on how to reform immigration so that jobs, border security and the rights of migrant laborers are all protected.

Mr. Spriggs said blacks are not willing to turn Hispanic migrants away based on arguments that appear to be either xenophobic or racist.

"Most blacks don't think migrant workers hurt their chances to get work, with the exception of a few industries -- most notably construction -- and they want to show solidarity with the immigrants," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat.

But, he said, people are put off by the rhetoric used to support a guest-worker program for illegal aliens already in the U.S.

"The most insulting thing you hear is that [immigrants] are doing jobs that we won't do ... as if the idea is that if we won't do a back-breaking job for $5.15 an hour without protections -- health care, workers' compensation -- [it] means we are shiftless and lazy. That is simply an insult," Mr. Thompson said.

However, a recent poll by the Pew Research Center showed that blacks were more likely than whites -- 33 percent compared to 25 percent -- to say they think immigrants take jobs from Americans.

In 1986, during the last amnesty, black unemployment was about 15 percent while Hispanic unemployment hovered near 11 percent. Twenty years later, the unemployment rate is 9.3 percent for blacks and 6 percent for Hispanics.

The United States currently offers special protected status to people fleeing their home countries for reasons such as natural disasters, a group which currently includes Nicaragua and Honduras. In addition, illegal aliens from Cuba are usually released as they apply for refugee status, while those from Haiti and other nations are incarcerated.

Blacks also worry about the political consequences of amnesty, which could leave them with waning voting power if the approximately 12 million illegal aliens are made citizens. Black leaders who support a guest-worker program with an easier path to citizenship, such as Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat, speak of solidarity with unions -- which have long supported the Democratic Party and contribute millions to its candidates.

"We should want employees out of the shadows, because if they're legal they're subject to wage laws, taxes and Social Security," Mr. Obama said.

"There is a reason why the [Service Employees International Union] is focusing support for this bill, because right now illegals cannot be organized, and that will be for the [good] of African-American workers."

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





Im not a repub and this article fails to bring up that Bush started this shit with his guest worker card bullshit. It was an election year ploy for the latino vote that has since exploded and repubs soon saw their non-corporate base were not too thrilled about this shit and the milktoast dems then took over hyping up these illegals.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Finally, it seems, Black politicos are coming out of the closet and taking a stand, even though weakly. Frankly, I don't care which side of the issue they stand on so long as the matter gets debated by and between us. In the end, people will form opinions -- its just better they have the info, pros and cons, laid out, whatever they later decide.

QueEx
 

Dolemite

Star
Registered
definitely - check out my Why Mexico Sucks thread for the historical and political backdrop to what we are currently seeing. I wish HNIC didnt delete my"is south america goin commie" thread - this shit has serious implications in regard to all that
 
S

Shadow77

Guest
Dolemite said:
definitely - check out my Why Mexico Sucks thread for the historical and political backdrop to what we are currently seeing. I wish HNIC didnt delete my"is south america goin commie" thread - this shit has serious implications in regard to all that

As you put it, South America is "goin commie", and I have no issues with that at all. We see capitalism didn't work all that great for 'em. By the way Africa also was "goin commie" but the imperialist forces were a lil' more successful at counter-revolution in those areas then in Latin America.
 

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
Shadow77 said:
As you put it, South America is "goin commie", and I have no issues with that at all. We see capitalism didn't work all that great for 'em. By the way Africa also was "goin commie" but the imperialist forces were a lil' more successful at counter-revolution in those areas then in Latin America.
africa and south america are a little different

imagine africa with all white leaders and that is what south america is just emerging from.

Central and South America have suffered at the hands of American economic aggression. Its hard for these people to be moderate in the face of such aggressive political and economic maneuvering. Hungry aboriginal peoples who have been shit on for centuries who are fed up aren't likely to buy into a "just wait" or "take it easy" ideology. They want theirs now not later. The past 50 years in the Americas has been rife with harsh dictatorships and civil wars all supported by the US and other "Western" 1st world nations.

What we see now with this mexican continous migration north is a group of impoverished people who have given up on the lies of US backed Mexican politicians who do whatever the US wants.

The American people should not suffer because of the morally criminal dealings of our government officials and their allies in Mexico who allow 40% of their nation to be impoverished so US corps can have higher profits.

People like George W Bush are responsible for every level of this disaster.

I also note that Mexicans don't dare talk that reconquista shit in regard to the white spaniards who rule their society still.


Too bad the aboriginal peoples of America could not survive to see the reconquista movement. If it were cherokees and black foot nations marching in the streets I would not have any problem.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Makkonnen said:
... I also note that Mexicans don't dare talk that reconquista shit in regard to the white spaniards who rule their society still.


Too bad the aboriginal peoples of America could not survive to see the reconquista movement. If it were cherokees and black foot nations marching in the streets I would not have any problem.
Yeah, that is where things get really complicated and contradictory. Most of the "Reconquista" people aren't original as there are few original people left. I keep noting that the <u>leadership</U> of the "Illegal Movement" seems to have a lot of European influence - Vicente himself a prime example. That leadership doesn't seem to have roots as mgrant pickers. But hell, so long as they have a tinge of brown, they're people of color, regardless of their politics.

QueEx
 

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
QueEx said:
Yeah, that is where things get really complicated and contradictory. Most of the "Reconquista" people aren't original as there are few original people left. I keep noting that the <u>leadership</U> of the "Illegal Movement" seems to have a lot of European influence - Vicente himself a prime example. That leadership doesn't seem to have roots as mgrant pickers. But hell, so long as they have a tinge of brown, they're people of color, regardless of their politics.

QueEx
yeah Vicente is a migrant field worker and halle berry is a zulu princess

they are pawns - i have heard that some stories about immigrant violence have been blacked out by the media
 

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
QueEx said:
Yeah, that is where things get really complicated and contradictory. Most of the "Reconquista" people aren't original as there are few original people left. I keep noting that the <u>leadership</U> of the "Illegal Movement" seems to have a lot of European influence - Vicente himself a prime example. That leadership doesn't seem to have roots as mgrant pickers. But hell, so long as they have a tinge of brown, they're people of color, regardless of their politics.

QueEx
yeah Vicente is a migrant field worker and halle berry is a zulu princess

they are pawns - i have heard that some stories about immigrant violence have been blacked out by the media
 
C

connectz

Guest
Makkonnen said:
Prisons are filled with black citizens who have broken federal laws for economic reasons yet no one has a problem with it. Many BLACK immigrants are refused entry to the US. Many Kenyans cannot get a visa at all. Many Haitians are actively sought out to be refused entry to the US and then shipped to prisons in Guantanamo Bay.

I'd say Haitians have it worse than any mexicans or central americans so fuck em.

Let me see, what nation can I immigrate to illegally and expect no recourse if discovered? Hmm.....................................................................
......................................................................................
..................................................
Mexico? Nope. El Salvador? Nope. Guatamala? Nope. Fuck this
These faggots wont even protest in their own countries to change shit but they wanna come here and break our laws, forge fake documents, use our welfare, healthcare and educational systems without paying for them etc.
Fuck that.

They broke the law. INS should process every person in those marches. And they should deport and imprison every illegal alien they find.

I want to break a federal law and not get in trouble too. How about robbing a bank? Cmon even if it is $50k that I get away with its less than the cost of one illegal family on our state and federal resources.


I agree 100%. And lets not forget that MUCH of the mexican community does not even remotely want to be associated with blacks. Many of them are just as racist towards us as white people are. So fuck being an illegal immigrant sympathizer, send them ALL back and let them fix their own damn countries.
 

sightunseen

Potential Star
Registered
Black people have a very wide range of opinions these days. TO ask this question would be very similar to saying all black people are alike.
 
S

Shadow77

Guest
Makkonnen said:
africa and south america are a little different

imagine africa with all white leaders and that is what south america is just emerging from.

Central and South America have suffered at the hands of American economic aggression. Its hard for these people to be moderate in the face of such aggressive political and economic maneuvering. Hungry aboriginal peoples who have been shit on for centuries who are fed up aren't likely to buy into a "just wait" or "take it easy" ideology. They want theirs now not later. The past 50 years in the Americas has been rife with harsh dictatorships and civil wars all supported by the US and other "Western" 1st world nations.

What we see now with this mexican continous migration north is a group of impoverished people who have given up on the lies of US backed Mexican politicians who do whatever the US wants.

The American people should not suffer because of the morally criminal dealings of our government officials and their allies in Mexico who allow 40% of their nation to be impoverished so US corps can have higher profits.

People like George W Bush are responsible for every level of this disaster.

I also note that Mexicans don't dare talk that reconquista shit in regard to the white spaniards who rule their society still.


Too bad the aboriginal peoples of America could not survive to see the reconquista movement. If it were cherokees and black foot nations marching in the streets I would not have any problem.

Actually Makkonnen, I agree with most of everything you just said, but I do think that Latin America and Africa had some very close parallels. I know Africa isn't ruled by white people in the way many Latin American countries are, but most of Africa was colonized by Europeans just like Latin America was, and for a time, much of Africa was ruled by white people. The point I was making when responding to Dolemite was that the revolutions that are taking place in Latin America (at the very least an ethnic revolution) where the indigenous people are both gaining more confidence in themselves and taking more leadership positions and trying to run their countries in the benefit of the vast majority (which tends to be the indigenous and black populations) instead of concentrating the economic benefits in the hands of a ruling elite (which tend to be the white hispanics) has happened in Africa as well. Africans overcame their white colonizers too, but only in face value, because when the indigenous African leaders came to power that wanted to look out for the benefit of the vast majority of their country, they were overthrown by imperialist forces, look what happened to Patrice Lumumba, or Thomas Sankara. And so even though African leaders usually ended up in office, because of the pressure of their previous colonizers or other imperialist forces, they ended up being puppets of the imperialist powers (either willingly or unwillingly). Latin America is going through the same things many African countries went through now, the difference is some of these potentially revolutionary leaders haven't yet been desposed of by counter-revolutionary forces. That's why I agreed with Dolemite that Latin America is "goin commie", and said Africa went through that too, but got crushed through counter-revolutionary mercenaries, imperialists backed coups, and economic strangleholds backed by imperialists forces.

That said, your points hit the nail on the head in regards to the harsh economic manueverings done by Western imerialist nations, like the US, towards the Mexican and other Latin American people. I think we see the same problem, the same root causes, but come to different conclusions on how to deal with it. A big part of the reason I have no issues with providing blanket amnesty to any immigrants (with non-criminal backgrounds) is because it creates additional laborers who can fight on the same level as other laborers who are citizens against the ruling class, the big corporate owners and the government officials in their pockets, without fear of deportation. When the fear of deportation is held over them (and it woulda been fear of jail time if that Sensennburger law passed) they have no defense against the whims of the corporate bosses. If the bosses want a low wage work force, who can't really organize to fight for better safety precautions, better benefits, higher wages, shorter hours, or anything else, all they have to do is turn to the illegals, who will accept the terrible conditions imposed on them simply because they have no choice. People have been talking a lot about the illegal immigrants not showing support for black causes, well most of our interests are shared, but they can't fight for them simply because they are "illegal". It's like if I was a wanted criminal, but I needed to work to feed my kids, and some job was like yeah, you can work for me, but I'm paying you half as much as the rest of these workers and you get no benefits, what can I do? I gotta feed my kids, the rest of the workers may wanna band together and strike and force better wages and benefits, and I may wanna join with all my heart, wanna support the cause, but I can't vocally do it, 'cause the job got leverage over me.

So when we talk about how the American people shouldn't have to suffer because of what the ruling class does to their country, I agree, but if we're letting our rulers do that to their country, and we let the ruling class pacify us by tossing us a few more crumbs off the table then the immigrants get off theirs, then we're at least partly responsible their plight by at the very least our passiveness to what we let our elected leaders and big business corportations do to them. But besides that, I don't even feel that giving them amnesty in this country is some kind of pity move to appease our collective guilty consciouses (which is how most liberals frame their argument for amnesty), but it cuts the strings attached on the illegal immigrants that stops them from being part of the solution and makes them into part of the problem. Once those strings are cut we can collectively fight for a better standard of living for us all, and even start working towards replacing this ruling class with rulers that truly represent our collective interests.

One last point, I'd agree that the Mexicans and Latin Americans in general need to focus on taking power back from these European Spaniard decendants still running their countries, but a major problem there is that when that's happened in the past, when Latin American countries have tried that, the US crushed those movements. Only Cuba has been able to have a successful revolution and they've been on the bring of being crushed because of the huge economic strain placed on them by the US embargo. The point I propose is that their revolutions would be a lot more successful if we revolutionized the system here, because otherwise, even if they do finally stand up to their oppressors in their native lands, our ruling class will just screw it all up for 'em.
 
S

Shadow77

Guest
QueEx said:
Yeah, that is where things get really complicated and contradictory. Most of the "Reconquista" people aren't original as there are few original people left. I keep noting that the <u>leadership</U> of the "Illegal Movement" seems to have a lot of European influence - Vicente himself a prime example. That leadership doesn't seem to have roots as mgrant pickers. But hell, so long as they have a tinge of brown, they're people of color, regardless of their politics.

QueEx

True as hell, the leadership of the "Illegal Movement" is largely the European Hispanics, I went to one of the organizing meetings of one of the rallies here in Atlanta the immigrants participated in, they held the meeting in Spanish but I was there with 2 companions who spoke Spanish and translated for me as they were speaking. There were a couple interesting points I took note of, first, I got shown mad love, I was pretty surprised how a lot of the hispanic people seemed really excited that a black guy was there, although I think some of them thought I was Brazilian 'cause a couple of them asked me that after the meeting. The other point was the the core leadership of the organizational committee was either very white looking or very middle clashish, they weren't the immigrants I see doing landscaping or construction and stuff like that. And they were very focused on framing the march as an extremely pro-american and peaceful rally. For example, they didn't want any flags from the immigrants' countries of origin shown, they were even gonna pass out American flags, they didn't want kids to skip school for it, or even workers to skip work if it would cause any sorts of problems. They had an official flier (which had a white dove in the background and basically explained that they are peaceful people who just want to do work to provide for their families and how they add their cultures to this rich diversified America and they just wanted people to reject these new laws being considered that would make them felons) and they only wanted their official flier distributed, some guy at the meeting had made his own which told people to come out and skip school and skip work and they went off on this guy. They also had agreed on only 2 of the leaders being the ones who could speak to the media about the rally, I found this out because of what I was told happened at the next meeting which I didn't go to, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (local newspaper) was there and went to this girl to ask her about the rally and one of the leaders stepped in and said she couldn't make a comment. So the reporter asked who he could get a comment from and the guy says only 2 people, 1 was not there and the other was the chair of the meeting and was in the middle of the meeting, so the reporter couldn't get a statement at all unless he waited until the meeting was over (which I don't know if he did or not).

The funny thing about this though is it reminded me of what Malcolm X said about the Civil Rights movement of his time. He would point out how many of the Civil Rights leaders didn't come from the same class as many of the people active in the Civil Rigths movement, and how because of this they often compromised a lot when dealing with the ruling class, or too quickly accepted token acts of generosity of the ruling class which actually weakened the movement from the full potential it could have achieved. Because this immigration movement is being led by this white middle class hispanics, it's like a powerful body with a weak head, they're gonna compromise on the issues. I think all immigrants with non criminal backgrounds should get amnesty, but the leadership of the immigrant movement will back down from that stance, they'll accept something that will "graduate" people into citizenship after several years, and the leadership of the movement is going to be integral to convincing the masses of immigrants to accept a "compromise" which really isn't entirely in their favor.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Shadow77 said:
True as hell, the leadership of the "Illegal Movement" is largely the European Hispanics,
I think perhaps you may have not read my other posts in this thread or misread my intent at sarcasm in the last sentence of the quote above. My fault.

I wasn't suggesting at all that amnesty or citizenship be granted. In fact, I oppose the mass grant of citizenship. Illegal immigrants should apply for citizenship, etc., through the normal channels and their applications should not be reviewed ahead of any pending applications.


I went to one of the organizing meetings of one of the rallies here in Atlanta the immigrants participated in, they held the meeting in Spanish but I was there with 2 companions who spoke Spanish and translated for me as they were speaking.

There were a couple interesting points I took note of, first, I got shown mad love, I was pretty surprised how a lot of the hispanic people seemed really excited that a black guy was there, although I think some of them thought I was Brazilian 'cause a couple of them asked me that after the meeting.
I'm glad you got to go to an organizational session. If you said you were shown "mad love" I think thats great. On the other hand, since you speak english and they spanish, I'm not sure that you understood them or that they weren't sure who you were, so the warmth may not have been what you thought it was. But still, sounds like a good exchange.


The other point was the the core leadership of the organizational committee was either very white looking or very middle clashish, they weren't the immigrants I see doing landscaping or construction and stuff like that. And they were very focused on framing the march as an extremely pro-american and peaceful rally. For example, they didn't want any flags from the immigrants' countries of origin shown, they were even gonna pass out American flags, they didn't want kids to skip school for it, or even workers to skip work if it would cause any sorts of problems. They had an official flier (which had a white dove in the background and basically explained that they are peaceful people who just want to do work to provide for their families and how they add their cultures to this rich diversified America and they just wanted people to reject these new laws being considered that would make them felons) and they only wanted their official flier distributed, some guy at the meeting had made his own which told people to come out and skip school and skip work and they went off on this guy. They also had agreed on only 2 of the leaders being the ones who could speak to the media about the rally, I found this out because of what I was told happened at the next meeting which I didn't go to, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (local newspaper) was there and went to this girl to ask her about the rally and one of the leaders stepped in and said she couldn't make a comment. So the reporter asked who he could get a comment from and the guy says only 2 people, 1 was not there and the other was the chair of the meeting and was in the middle of the meeting, so the reporter couldn't get a statement at all unless he waited until the meeting was over (which I don't know if he did or not).
I can't blame them for organizing, I just don't agree that we should give-in to the demands. Its not unusual that the so-called "intellgentsia" or "educated" types plan and organize the rallies. It was common in many of the Civil Rights Era rallies and it makes good sense. Somebody has to do it; and it might as well be someone with experience and vision as to how to best conduct the rally to have the intended result.

The funny thing about this though is it reminded me of what Malcolm X said about the Civil Rights movement of his time. He would point out how many of the Civil Rights leaders didn't come from the same class as many of the people active in the Civil Rigths movement, and how because of this they often compromised a lot when dealing with the ruling class, or too quickly accepted token acts of generosity of the ruling class which actually weakened the movement from the full potential it could have achieved.
Malcolm was probably right and wrong in that assessment. His earlier leanings were probably aimed at "purifying" the leadership of white-compromised types but it probably also had the effect of alienating some who might have been characterized as white-compromised but who had no such leanings at all - but who had different ideas than Malcolm. Understand that Malcolm had differences with some aspects of the Civil Rights Movement. He wasn't necessarily all wrong in that regard, but he wasn't all right either.


Because this immigration movement is being led by this white middle class hispanics, it's like a powerful body with a weak head, they're gonna compromise on the issues.
I disagree with this point. In fact, I believe just the opposite. If you remove those leaders, their movement probably dies or is severely crippled. In my opinion, it takes at least three broad categories of operatives in any movement: the planners - who usually come from among the educated class; the masses - who have the visible impact, carry the message, etc.; and the middle managers. I doubt that any movement can survive and flourish without either group.

Wonder which one we have the most strenths and/or weaknesses in ??? If you have the time, rate the current Black levels on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the best rating. How would you rate OUR Intellgentsia, middle level managment, and masses in terms of moving US toward attaining "Our Goals" ???


I think all immigrants with non criminal backgrounds should get amnesty, but the leadership of the immigrant movement will back down from that stance, they'll accept something that will "graduate" people into citizenship after several years, and the leadership of the movement is going to be integral to convincing the masses of immigrants to accept a "compromise" which really isn't entirely in their favor.
Two things: (1) I disagree strongly that ANY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS should be given a free entry pass. We have laws that provide for becomming legal; no one has shown me how those laws are immoral or unjust; therefore, I see NO reason why they shouldn't be upheld and enforced. (2) The leadership of the Illegal Immigrant movement IS NOT ABOUT TO BACK DOWN. Hell, LOL, at this point they are about 50% towards their goal and counting. The leadership is smart. Its constantly gauging American opinion and constantly adjusting to the arguments against them (a simple example of the adjustment is evidenced by their reducing the visibility of foreign flags and the sharp increase in public display of the American Flag in their rallies. Also notice that the movement does not use the term "Illegal Immigrants" -- it refers to illegals as just "Immigrants" -- also note that most of the U.S. news media are likewise using just "immigrants". I think that means the leadership is doing a damn good job influencing the debate in its favor).


Anyway, thanks for your comments, though we have some disagreement.

QueEx
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Shadow77 said:

Please do me a favor: use more paragraphs. More paragraphs makes the type easier to read. You appear to be like me (long-winded). I can't help it, but breaking what you have to say it more paragraphs helps.

QueEx
 

Dolemite

Star
Registered
QueEx said:
Please do me a favor: use more paragraphs. More paragraphs makes the type easier to read. You appear to be like me (long-winded). I can't help it, but breaking what you have to say it more paragraphs helps.

QueEx
ditto im still waiting to read that response in full :D

shadow - dolemite/makkonnen are the same person sorry about that
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
LOL ....

I wanted to read his comments to you but my eyes were weary from reading his comments to me ....
 

Dolemite

Star
Registered
QueEx said:
LOL ....

I wanted to read his comments to you but my eyes were weary from reading his comments to me ....
:lol: same here - i skipped his reply to me and read yours cuz it was shorter

but its great stuff and very much worth the read
 
S

Shadow77

Guest
Ok, I admit I have a bad habit of not breaking up paragraphs as I should, sorry 'bout that, I'll try to change that, but it's always been an issue, anyway regarding your comments:

QueEx said:
I think perhaps you may have not read my other posts in this thread or misread my intent at sarcasm in the last sentence of the quote above. My fault.

I wasn't suggesting at all that amnesty or citizenship be granted. In fact, I oppose the mass grant of citizenship. Illegal immigrants should apply for citizenship, etc., through the normal channels and their applications should not be reviewed ahead of any pending applications.

I understand that's your stance, I wasn't trying to imply your stance was mine, but just that I was agreeing with you that the leadership of the "illegal" immigration movement is largely white, and also middle class.

QueEx said:
I'm glad you got to go to an organizational session. If you said you were shown "mad love" I think thats great. On the other hand, since you speak english and they spanish, I'm not sure that you understood them or that they weren't sure who you were, so the warmth may not have been what you thought it was. But still, sounds like a good exchange.

To clarify that a lil' more, most actually did speak English, they just held the meeting in Spanish because that was their native tongue and they were more comfortable speaking it, and there were a few people who didn't speak any English there. So it seemed there was a genuine warmth towards me from some people and at the very least, I didn't catch anyone being uncomfortable with me there which I was specifically checking to see.

QueEx said:
I can't blame them for organizing, I just don't agree that we should give-in to the demands. Its not unusual that the so-called "intellgentsia" or "educated" types plan and organize the rallies. It was common in many of the Civil Rights Era rallies and it makes good sense. Somebody has to do it; and it might as well be someone with experience and vision as to how to best conduct the rally to have the intended result.

This part I see things a little differently than you. I don't see being educated as necessarily seperating yourself from the masses. During the Civil Rights Era it was common that the "intellgentsia" were usually the leaders (although not always the organizers) of events. But I see this as weakening the movement. An interesting parallel, Malcolm pointed to the fact that when black civil rights organizations were funded by government grants, or by white people funding it, the stances were compromised so that they were acceptable to the people funding the organizations. When I speak about the immigrant movement I can only speak with confidence on what I've seen with my own eyes here in the area I live, the stance of the leadership of the white hispanic "intellgentsia" leadership was not blanket amnesty, it was simply expressing the idea of "illegal" immigrants not being seen as criminals and opposing any legislature that presents them as such. It was not the amnesty that I would argue for, or that many actual "illegal" immigrants would argue for. I think only compromised success comes from "compromised" leadership, I strongly feel that the leadership of any movement of people has to be based directly from those people themselves in order for the leadership to truely fight for the best interests of everyone involved, this is why with labor unions, if you want unions most free from corruption you need leaders who share no common bonds and next to no interests with the bosses or management levels in their jobs.

QueEx said:
Malcolm was probably right and wrong in that assessment. His earlier leanings were probably aimed at "purifying" the leadership of white-compromised types but it probably also had the effect of alienating some who might have been characterized as white-compromised but who had no such leanings at all - but who had different ideas than Malcolm. Understand that Malcolm had differences with some aspects of the Civil Rights Movement. He wasn't necessarily all wrong in that regard, but he wasn't all right either.

I agree that before Malcolm's last year of life, he alienated a lot of potential allies at first because he was clearly directed to while in the Nation of Islam, he himself said that he never had an original thought while he was in the Nation, he was just a spokesman for Elijah Muhammad. But afterwards he did become more inclusive in working with others and towards common goals, but he still maintained the stance that for a people to move forward against an oppossing force, the leadership needed to be based within the people themselves, or else it becomes more easily compromised because the interests of the leadership is not exactly the same as the interests of the people the leadership fights for.

QueEx said:
I disagree with this point. In fact, I believe just the opposite. If you remove those leaders, their movement probably dies or is severely crippled. In my opinion, it takes at least three broad categories of operatives in any movement: the planners - who usually come from among the educated class; the masses - who have the visible impact, carry the message, etc.; and the middle managers. I doubt that any movement can survive and flourish without either group.

This is partly true, removal of leadership tends to cripple the movement, but this is often based on how the leadership has led. The reason the planners who tend to lead the movement come from this middle class layer, is not because they're just so much smarter than the masses, but because the masses, the lower class layers of society lacks confidence in itself because of how it has been socialized. When Malcolm was asked about how to increase participation by the masses he responded that they need to be taught to wake up, to which he was asked "To their oppression?" Malcolm responded "No, they're already aware of that, to their self-worth." It's not unprecedented that successful leadership of movements arises from the people themselves. Many revolutions that overthrew corrupt governments or dictators were led by people in the class or race of people being oppressed. When the coup against Hugo Chavez happened in 2002, there was literally a mass movement of the peasants who mobolized from the hills that pressured layers of the military to take action and place him back in power. Malcolm X himself is someone who was in the same class of people he led. So was Rosa Parks, a seamstress very active in the labor movement.

QueEx said:
Wonder which one we have the most strenths and/or weaknesses in ??? If you have the time, rate the current Black levels on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the best rating. How would you rate OUR Intellgentsia, middle level managment, and masses in terms of moving US toward attaining "Our Goals" ???

I'd rate our Intellgentsia as a 2 or 3 (the Jesse Jackson, Al Sharptons, or other members of the black leadership who lead the black masses towards the Democratic party as a positive alternative to the Republican party). Our masses I'd rate as a 3, maybe a 4, I'm a substitute teacher right now, and the state of the black people I deal with is deplorable. Many of these kids aren't really aware of their self worth, and they see themselves as having no stake in this system above the personal goals of individual weath (through quick means, either the drug game, or sports or rapping) to rise above the situations they're in. They see that as the more viable alternative than actually changing the system they don't see themselves having a stake in. I don't blame them though, because they're given the Democrats vs. Republican choice and stuff don't really change for them either way. So they see their only stake in the future as ensuring their own personal situations are good even at the expense of others. About the middle management, I'm not sure what layer that would be so I can't really comment on that.

QueEx said:
Two things: (1) I disagree strongly that ANY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS should be given a free entry pass. We have laws that provide for becomming legal; no one has shown me how those laws are immoral or unjust; therefore, I see NO reason why they shouldn't be upheld and enforced. (2) The leadership of the Illegal Immigrant movement IS NOT ABOUT TO BACK DOWN. Hell, LOL, at this point they are about 50% towards their goal and counting. The leadership is smart. Its constantly gauging American opinion and constantly adjusting to the arguments against them (a simple example of the adjustment is evidenced by their reducing the visibility of foreign flags and the sharp increase in public display of the American Flag in their rallies. Also notice that the movement does not use the term "Illegal Immigrants" -- it refers to illegals as just "Immigrants" -- also note that most of the U.S. news media are likewise using just "immigrants". I think that means the leadership is doing a damn good job influencing the debate in its favor).


Anyway, thanks for your comments, though we have some disagreement.

QueEx

For your first point, I agree that laws as far as processesing should be upheld, I wouldn't be for importing criminals from other countries, but I'm against the quotas, that only a set number can come each year. The stances against quotas are based on unsound arguements in my personal opinion. I presented them in a lot of detail in my earlier response to you but it was really long winded so I don't blame you if you didn't read it. But briefly stated the arguement that they take American jobs is only partly true, they've strengthened the economy which allows for additional job creation, the arguement that they'll overpopulate the US isn't grounded in truth because we could take half the population of China and if it was distributed evenly we still wouldn't have the population density that we have currently in New Jersey. They don't raise crime levels, in fact they're only a 5th as likely to commit a crime as someone native born here, America has just about the highest violent crime rate out of almost any country (not counting country in civil wars right now), so we don't import criminals, we most likely teach 'em how to be criminals. And finally it doesn't drive wages down, the fact they're "illegal" drives wages down, if made legal, they could work more freely in labor unions to drive wages up. So I just don't see a lot of strong arguments against amnesty or open immigration for immigrants.

For your second point, ok maybe the leadership won't back down, but I'd be willing to bet that they're not gonna keep fighting for amnesty (I haven't even seen them fighting for that here in Atlanta), they're probably just gonna keep fighting until the bills that would make "illegal" immigrants either felons or legal indentured servants are defeated. So on those points they probably won't compromise, but for the masses of illegal immigrants, amnesty is what they'd really want, and that's what will be compromised probably. But only time will tell who's prediction will be more accurate. Anyway thanks for this discussion and keepin' it civilized. And sorry Dolemite/Makkonnen, didn't realize you were the same person, makes a lot more sense now.
 

Dolemite

Star
Registered
Shadow77 said:
Actually Makkonnen, I agree with most of everything you just said, but I do think that Latin America and Africa had some very close parallels. I know Africa isn't ruled by white people in the way many Latin American countries are, but most of Africa was colonized by Europeans just like Latin America was, and for a time, much of Africa was ruled by white people. The point I was making when responding to Dolemite was that the revolutions that are taking place in Latin America (at the very least an ethnic revolution) where the indigenous people are both gaining more confidence in themselves and taking more leadership positions and trying to run their countries in the benefit of the vast majority (which tends to be the indigenous and black populations) instead of concentrating the economic benefits in the hands of a ruling elite (which tend to be the white hispanics) has happened in Africa as well. Africans overcame their white colonizers too, but only in face value, because when the indigenous African leaders came to power that wanted to look out for the benefit of the vast majority of their country, they were overthrown by imperialist forces, look what happened to Patrice Lumumba, or Thomas Sankara. And so even though African leaders usually ended up in office, because of the pressure of their previous colonizers or other imperialist forces, they ended up being puppets of the imperialist powers (either willingly or unwillingly). Latin America is going through the same things many African countries went through now, the difference is some of these potentially revolutionary leaders haven't yet been desposed of by counter-revolutionary forces. That's why I agreed with Dolemite that Latin America is "goin commie", and said Africa went through that too, but got crushed through counter-revolutionary mercenaries, imperialists backed coups, and economic strangleholds backed by imperialists forces.

That said, your points hit the nail on the head in regards to the harsh economic manueverings done by Western imerialist nations, like the US, towards the Mexican and other Latin American people. I think we see the same problem, the same root causes, but come to different conclusions on how to deal with it. A big part of the reason I have no issues with providing blanket amnesty to any immigrants (with non-criminal backgrounds) is because it creates additional laborers who can fight on the same level as other laborers who are citizens against the ruling class, the big corporate owners and the government officials in their pockets, without fear of deportation. When the fear of deportation is held over them (and it woulda been fear of jail time if that Sensennburger law passed) they have no defense against the whims of the corporate bosses. If the bosses want a low wage work force, who can't really organize to fight for better safety precautions, better benefits, higher wages, shorter hours, or anything else, all they have to do is turn to the illegals, who will accept the terrible conditions imposed on them simply because they have no choice. People have been talking a lot about the illegal immigrants not showing support for black causes, well most of our interests are shared, but they can't fight for them simply because they are "illegal". It's like if I was a wanted criminal, but I needed to work to feed my kids, and some job was like yeah, you can work for me, but I'm paying you half as much as the rest of these workers and you get no benefits, what can I do? I gotta feed my kids, the rest of the workers may wanna band together and strike and force better wages and benefits, and I may wanna join with all my heart, wanna support the cause, but I can't vocally do it, 'cause the job got leverage over me.

So when we talk about how the American people shouldn't have to suffer because of what the ruling class does to their country, I agree, but if we're letting our rulers do that to their country, and we let the ruling class pacify us by tossing us a few more crumbs off the table then the immigrants get off theirs, then we're at least partly responsible their plight by at the very least our passiveness to what we let our elected leaders and big business corportations do to them. But besides that, I don't even feel that giving them amnesty in this country is some kind of pity move to appease our collective guilty consciouses (which is how most liberals frame their argument for amnesty), but it cuts the strings attached on the illegal immigrants that stops them from being part of the solution and makes them into part of the problem. Once those strings are cut we can collectively fight for a better standard of living for us all, and even start working towards replacing this ruling class with rulers that truly represent our collective interests.

One last point, I'd agree that the Mexicans and Latin Americans in general need to focus on taking power back from these European Spaniard decendants still running their countries, but a major problem there is that when that's happened in the past, when Latin American countries have tried that, the US crushed those movements. Only Cuba has been able to have a successful revolution and they've been on the bring of being crushed because of the huge economic strain placed on them by the US embargo. The point I propose is that their revolutions would be a lot more successful if we revolutionized the system here, because otherwise, even if they do finally stand up to their oppressors in their native lands, our ruling class will just screw it all up for 'em.
I agree with you for the most part. I had threads about Lamumba and the CIA and politics in south america and its leftward slant and they got deleted :mad:

I wouldn't blame the people of this nation for believing the lies they have been bombarded with from birth. Its kinda like blaming a molested child. The tribal movements across Central and South America are really going ballistic on these anglo-latino assholes. I feel sympathetic toward them but they are not running away from their problems and I feel that is a crucial point. My vigorous objections on this whole immigration issue are totally in defense of our position in this nation politically, economically and to promote the cause of Haitians and others who aren't given the same "pass" that hispanics are when it comes to illegal immigration.

Im gonna bump a few threads that you should find interesting on South America and our (The US) economic practices within the hemisphere. Although I'm fairly sure most of the info is known to you already.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
First article I've found in a Black newspaper on Illegal Immigration l


<font size="5"><center>Black legislators identify with workers’ cause</font size></center>

The Wave (Los Angeles)
By BETTY PLEASANT, Contributing Editor 03.MAY.06

As immigrant rights forces gear up for a national march on Washington, the U.S. Senate is preparing this spring to debate the legislative measure in the eye of the storm raging throughout the country — H.R. 4437: The Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 — which the House passed on Dec. 16, 2005 by a vote of 239 to 182.

The so-called immigration bill, authored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), was thoroughly trashed during the debates in the lower chamber by House Democrats, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus who viewed the entire bill — complete with its 25 amendments — to be a piece of enforcement legislation designed to punish illegal immigrants rather than a measure to reform the immigration and naturalization system, which is what they say is needed.

Of the 40 members of the Congressional Black Caucus who were eligible to vote on the bill, 39 voted against it, and only one, Rep. Harold E. Ford of Tennessee, voted for it.

Illinois’ Sen. Barack Obama is the only African-American in the Senate and the only CBC member yet to debate and vote on the bill, but he has his opinions. In a written statement, Obama spoke of his understanding of the immigrant story. “My father came here from Kenya, and I represent a state where vibrant immigrant communities ranging from Mexican to Polish to Irish enrich our neighborhoods,” he said.

The senator described H.R. 4437 as “a strong enforcement bill,” which he says is necessary to secure our borders. He said that while security may start at our borders, it doesn’t end there. “Millions of undocumented immigrants live and work here without our knowing their identity or their backgrounds,” he said. “We need to strike a workable bargain with them. They have to acknowledge that breaking our immigration laws was wrong. They must pay a penalty, and abide by all our laws going forward. They must earn the right to stay over a six-year period, and then they must wait another five years as legal permanent residents before they become citizens.”

The senator said that for accepting those penalties, the country must allow undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and step onto a path toward full participation in society.

“In fact,” Obama said. “I will not support any bill that does not provide this earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population — not just for humanitarian reasons, but also because this is the only practical way we can get a handle on the population that is within our borders right now.”

The Bush Administration supports the House bill but also wants to create a new guest worker program permitting foreign citizens the opportunity to work in the U.S. on what it describe as jobs no U.S. citizen wants.

However, Obama said, “we cannot create a new guest worker program without making it as close to impossible for illegal workers to find employment. We do not need new guest workers, plus future undocumented immigrants. We need guest workers instead of undocumented immigrants.”

Toward that end, Obama and other members of the CBC believe American employers need to take responsibility. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a non-elected civil rights leader, insists that the government crack down on exploitative employers and off-the-books hiring. Jackson said that black, lower-wage workers in this country worry that employers are using immigrants to displace them, to undermine good jobs, force wages down and weaken labor organizing.

“But the answer to that isn’t to turn on other poor workers,” Jackson said. “It is to raise the minimum wage — which has been frozen since 1997 — bolster union organizing and run a full employment economy.

“Part of the anger directed at immigrants comes from workers understandably scared as manufacturing jobs are shipped abroad, and lower paying service jobs take their place. But global corporations, not immigrants, are taking those jobs abroad. The answer isn’t cleaning up immigration, but cleaning out Washington and electing leaders who will challenge the corporate hold over our trade policies.”

Rep. Diane Watson agrees with the citizenship requirements described by Obama but adds “learning to speak the English language” to the list. Watson and Reps. Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee agree that the H.R. 4437 is “cynical, divisive, impractical and ultimately unworkable legislation.” They support the passage in the Senate of the McCain-Kennedy “Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act,” which they claim provides for meaningful and comprehensive reform through measures to increase border security, a crackdown on businesses that employ illegal immigrants and a path for illegal immigrants to earn citizenship.

Jackson’s son, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill), who voted with the rest of the CBC on this issue, makes the distinction between immigrants and African-Americans. “Americans are fond of saying that we’re a nation of immigrants, and that’s true for many but not for African Americans,” Jackson Jr. said. “Immigrants, technically, are volunteers. African-Americans didn’t come to this country as volunteers. We were forcibly brought here as non-citizens in violation of our human rights to participate in a labor system called slavery.”

As a result, African-Americans were undocumented and without legal protection and citizenship for 246 years and afforded second class citizenship for another 100 years. So why does the Congressional Black Caucus identify with the immigrant cause? Because we, as a people, have been there, they said.

http://www.wavenewspapers.com/defau...ame=&pform=&sc=1019&hn=wavenewspapers&he=.com
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Activists draw battle line over immigration</font size></center>

The Wave (Los Angeles)
By GENE JOHNSON JR., Staff Writer 26.APR.06

LEIMERT PARK — A coalition of community activists from diverse backgrounds came together in Leimert Park Wednesday to denounce homeless activist Ted Hayes’ recent alliance with the ultra-conservative Minutemen Project as a means of battling illegal immigration.

During an afternoon news conference at the Lucy Florence Coffeehouse, activist Najee Ali said he believed Hayes is being used as a pawn by what he called a racist faction that never has affiliated itself with the black community until now.

“Ted Hayes and his involvement in the Minuteman group is certainly an issue that we should be concerned about,” Ali said. “We feel that [the Minutemen] will polarize the [black and Latino] communities. It will bring us farther and farther apart instead of [bringing us] together collectively to talk about tolerance, peace and resolution.”

Hayes, who did not attend the news conference, said he approached the Minutemen about eight months ago, in part, because they were in support of helping the homeless. Hayes help organize Dome Village, the homeless encampment west of downtown.

“I’m realizing that illegal immigration is taking away the resources of the homeless,” Hayes said. “The Minutemen are right. They want to help the homeless. I can’t get Jesse [Jackson] or [Rep.] Maxine Waters to work with the homeless. Who’s helping me? White people.”

Others speakers at the Leimert Park news conference faulting Hayes’ alignment with the Minutemen included Randy Jurado Ertll, executive director of El Centro De Accion Social; Gideon Krakov of the Progressive Jewish Alliance, attorney Cynthia McClain-Hill and writer and activist Earl Ofari Hutchinson.

“We [have] enough violence between black and Latinos in schools, jails and in the community,” Ali said. “We’re speaking out against potential violence that may happen based on Ted Hayes.”

Ertll agreed with Ali saying that “we need to unite both communities. I think it’s time that [blacks and Latinos] start talking to each other more and finding common ground and common issues that we can work on together.”

“I think the president and Congress need to find a solution to [illegal immigration] because it will create more divisions in the future,” Ertll said.

It’s a matter of learning to listen and “walk in other people’s shoes,” added Krakov “and not being a part of the problem, but being a part of the solution.”

Hayes, a Republican, his newly formed Crispus Attucks Brigade, and some of his Minutemen allies held a forum Sunday in Leimert Park, drawing more than 100 people. It became an intense war of words between him and another group, the Progressive Alliance, a coalition of blacks and Latinos urging unity.

The argument grew into a physical altercation for which Hayes later apologized.

During the Sunday forum, Hayes announced a plan to hold a protest march in downtown Los Angeles on May 21 and invited gang members to join the border patrol.

Tuesday Hayes said he went to the downtown Mexican Consulate to “clarify” the goals for his new group.

“We support civil rights for illegal immigrants — but in Mexico, in the country that drove [illegal immigrants] out — whatever country that drove you out,” he said. “[Iillegal immigrants are] coming here to get my civil rights, something [blacks] fought for. You just can’t come here and take our civil rights.

“We’re going to champion your cause for civil rights in Mexico. We, as blacks, are going to be your champion,” he said. “You might not understand now, but in time you will.”

Hayes said he wrote the Mexican consulate general a letter about five weeks ago, asking President Vicente Fox to allow a multi-ethnic delegation led by blacks to talk with Fox, Cardinal Roger Mahony and other Mexican civic and social leaders as a means of restoring civil rights back to Mexicans.

Hayes has called illegal immigration the “biggest threat to blacks in America since slavery.”

http://wavenewspapers.com/default.a...ame=&pform=&sc=1019&hn=wavenewspapers&he=.com
 

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
Where Did Mexico's Blacks Go?

Most Americans, and even many Mexicans, don't realize that a significant fraction of the Mexican population once looked markedly African. At least 200,000 black slaves were imported into Mexico from Africa. By 1810, Mexicans who were considered at least part-African numbered around a half million, or more than 10 percent of the population.

Mexican music, for example, has deep roots in West Africa. "La Bamba," the famous Mexican folk song that was given a rock beat by Ritchie Valens and a classic interpretation by Los Lobos, has been traced back to the Bamba district of Angola.

What's especially ironic about Mexico's "racial amnesia" -- a term coined by African-American historian Ted Vincent -- is that during Mexico's first century of independence, more than a few of its most famous leaders were visibly part black.

Emiliano Zapata was perhaps the noblest figure in 20th century Mexican politics, a peasant revolutionary still beloved as a martyred man of the people. Although Marlon Brando played him in the 1952 movie "Viva Zapata!" the best-known photograph of the illiterate idealist shows him with clearly part-African hair. His village had long been home to many descendents of freed slaves.

Zapata_black_hair.jpg


SOURCE: http://www.isteve.com/2002_Where_Did_Mexicos_Blacks_Go.htm
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Latinos Urged to Head for the Polls</font size>
<font size="4">A nationwide campaign begins today to enroll 1 million
<u>new citizens</u> and <u>voters</u> this year.</font size></center>

Los Angeles Times
By Teresa Watanabe, Times Staff Writer
May 17, 2006


At 7:45 a.m. on a recent cloudy morning, Salvadoran emigrant Rafael Rosales was answering some rather embarrassing questions.

Are you a habitual drunkard? Are you a prostitute or have you ever procured the services of one? Have you ever sold or smuggled narcotics?

No, he said to all.

Rosales is no criminal suspect. Along with 35 classmates at Evans Community Adult School near Chinatown, the 36-year-old Santa Fe Springs steelworker is an aspiring American being led through questions for the U.S. government's citizenship exam. Inspired by the last few months of pro-immigrant marches and rallies, Rosales said, he aims to become a citizen by November so he can vote for policies that aid immigrants like himself.

He represents the potential new Latino voter whom immigrant rights organizations are targeting as they kick off a campaign to produce 1 million new citizens and voters this year, beginning with a "national lobby day" today.

The civic action campaign, coordinated by religious, labor and community organizations in the We Are America Alliance, aims to channel street passions for immigrant rights into a muscular political force that can persuade Congress to legalize the nation's estimated 12 million illegal migrants, increase family visas and approve other reforms.

"This is a way to continue building on the momentum of the marches by building political power," said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. "We want to be a force in our community and participate in determining our future," she added.

Los Angeles immigration alliance members announced Tuesday that they would begin registering voters, handing out citizenship materials and offering postcards and phones to use in contacting elected representatives today at about 50 "democracy centers" set up at churches, union halls and community centers around the region.

They also said they would send an 18-member delegation to Washington, D.C., today to lobby for "just and humane" immigration reform and against President Bush's plan to use the National Guard to protect the U.S.-Mexico border.

Organizers face both tantalizing possibilities and tough challenges in their quest to expand the Latino electorate. With as many as 12 million potential new voters — both legal residents eligible for citizenship and citizens not yet registered to vote — the community could nearly double its 2004 vote.

But, with the exception of Cubans, Latinos have comparatively low rates of citizenship and voter registration.

Only one of every five Mexican adult immigrants in the United States, for instance, was a citizen in 2004, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group based in Washington, D.C.

In addition, some immigrants could have a tough time meeting citizenship requirements, which include English language ability and a $400 application fee.

Low rates of citizenship, along with the Latino community's relative youth, is why only 39% of the nation's 41 million Latinos are eligible to vote, compared with 76% of whites and 65% of blacks, said Pew Center director Roberto Suro. Of those 16 million eligible Latinos, 58% were registered for the last presidential election, he said.

The largest single pool of potential new Latino voters is also regarded as among the most difficult to organize: Native-born citizens between the ages of 18 and 29.

In addition, voter registration drives can be costly. Experts say it could cost at least $5 million to meet the voting campaign's registration goals. And get-out-the-vote work isn't easy.

The tedium of vote-gathering was evident last week, when volunteers from the Central American Resource Center set out to nudge those who don't vote regularly to go to the polls next month in 33 precincts in the Pico-Union district of Los Angeles.

Trudging along Burlington Avenue, past Central American markets, money-wiring shops and Our Lady of Guadalupe murals, Liz Yaeger and Flor Vera encountered locked apartment gates, broken call boxes, barking dogs, several children and older relatives — but very few voters. Most of those who answered the doors said the voter in question was away at work, including one on duty in Iraq.

After two hours, Yaeger and Vera had managed to meet only one of about 20 voters on their list. It was Yaegar's third outing that week; all told, she contacted 11 of 60 voters in six hours of precinct walking.

"It's definitely labor-intensive," she said.

Still, Latino activists say the marches, which drew hundreds of thousands of people, have sparked new enthusiasm — and a sense of urgency — among Latinos to project their civic voice.

Maria Teresa Petersen, executive director of the New York-based Voto Latino, said her e-mails from youths wanting to volunteer for the voting effort has leaped from 50 a month to 200 a week.

Her group, founded in 2004 by actress Rosario Dawson and other Latino celebrities, is tackling head-on the 4.9 million eligible Latino voters younger than 30. Fewer than half of them were registered to vote in 2004.

Suro said young native-born Latinos are more sympathetic to immigrants than their middle-aged counterparts, in part because many have directly witnessed the struggles of migrant parents or relatives.

That personal connection to immigrants can be used to motivate young people to vote, said Ricardo Ramirez, a USC assistant political science professor.

To reach its young audience, Voto Latino has produced public service announcements featuring actress Cameron Diaz and reggaeton artist Tego Calderon. It has organized "street teams" of party promoters and other young Latino trendsetters — called "Kool Kids" — to create buzz about voting at concerts and other youth venues.

By employing a paperless approach based on Internet use and cellphone text-messaging, Petersen said, the group hopes to cut costs by at least half. She added that Voto Latino expects to make a major push in Los Angeles this year, with plans to set up street teams and hold its annual fundraiser in the city.

One young Latino already on board is Fernando Franco, a Belmont High School senior who turned 18 in January and has registered to vote.

The native-born son of immigrants from Mexico and Ecuador, Franco said he walked out of school and joined the downtown Los Angeles march on May Day and, like many of his friends, would not miss the chance to vote this year.

"I've never seen my friends this passionate about anything," he said.

Excitement over Latino political empowerment was also evident at the Evans school, where about 7,400 are enrolled in English and citizenship classes this spring.

Rosales and classmate Guadalupe Herrera of Mexico said the marches had created a surge of interest in their communities about joining the American electorate.

With processing times for citizenship applications reduced from more than a year to less than six months in Los Angeles, the men could potentially cast their first vote this November.

"We want people to hear our voices," said Herrera, a truck driver who is scheduled for his citizenship interview in June.

"And the only way you can do that," Rosales said, "is to be a U.S. citizen and vote."

*

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Lower registration, turnout

Among those who are eligible to vote, Latinos have been less likely to register and less likely to vote than whites or blacks. The numbers from November 2004:

Percentage of registered voters among those eligible

Latino: 58%

White:75%

Black: 69%

Overall: 72%

Percentage of voters among those registered

Latino: 82%

White: 89%

Black:87%

Overall:89%
_________________


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-vote17may17,0,7031864.story?coll=la-home-local
 
Top