Not that long ago, I pulled a flier about illegal immigration down from a bulletin board. I don't typically believe in censorship, but considering that I've had fliers pulled for educating tenants on their rights, I thought this action was warranted. The flier, written by a group called DefendDC, was speaking out against government money being used for a day labor site. Or that was the legitimate veil over the true intentions of the post - to speak out against "illegals."
Some background might be needed in order to clarify the situation. Washington, DC is a city with a long and complex set of racial ties. It has always had a large African American population, and much of the infrastructure and many of the buildings were built by African American labor. In the 60's, DC experienced race riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Washington has been referred to as "Chocolate City" and many of the residents feel a sort of blood connection for having lived here for so many generations. So it's not without surprise that residents of the predominantly African American Ward 5 would greet the prospect of a day labor site with some hostility.
The informational sheet describes DC as a "Sanctuary City," playing a active roll in the defiance of federal law by matching "people who can't legally work here with employers who can't legally hire them." If you go to the web site, you will find multiple references to public urination and drunkenness at labor sites as a main reason people are opposed to them. On the same page, it accuses undocumented workers of being criminals, here to "rob, steal and rape," and claims that "they are docile and hard-working." It throws around a handful of other accusations, like the idea that day labor sites are used only by illegal workers, and that employers never have to recruit workers after they hire illegals, due to their relatives and friends back home. None of these, of course, are substantiated in any way.
Immigration is one of the most complicated issues of our time. Most opponents of illegal immigration make a casual distinction between undocumented workers and ones with legal status, but do not work particularly hard to emphasize this distinction. What it amounts to is the assumption that anyone who is Latin American and looking for work must be illegal, or at very least, unwelcome here. My question is, who put up a big "keep out" sign in the first place? America has always had an underclass of workers seeking social mobility and a better life for themselves and their families. There's no sign preventing the flood of capital from our country into pre-developed nations, costing thousands more jobs than are lost through workers coming here.
The real question, though, is who does this hostility towards immigrant labor really benefit? It is essentially a victim blaming scenario perpetrated by another set of victims. It is not until the final paragraph of the info sheet that the author makes a valid point - that the construction industry is desperate for an influx of cheap labor that does not seek proper pay or benefits and fears deportation. Yet, the hostility is not towards the leaders of industry. It's from one oppressed class to another.
Any military strategist will tell you that the way to defeat your enemy is to divide and conquer. I envision the leaders of industry - corporate CEOs, construction magnates, mainly rich white men, laughing up at the top of the socio-economic ladder while African Americans and Latin Americans duke it out over who wants their low-paying jobs more. Rather than uniting against a common enemy and trying to make the situation better for everyone involved, they squabble amongst themselves, thus reducing their own credibility and directing attention away from the real criminals - not some Mexicans who work for $3 an hour and piss in public, but the folks who are driving luxury cars as a result of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Or the politicians who, through subsidies and the support of factory farms, have destroyed the agriculture industry to the point that illegal immigrants are necessary to keep food affordable. Or the American corporations that export their businesses to Mexico and destroy the Mexican economy and environment. I mean, it's not like we've ruined their country to force them this way. It's not like we're occupying land that used to belong to them. And it's not like America can be sued over the Statue of Liberty as a means of false advertising.
Pardon me as I go Jimi Hendrix on the sarcasm dripping down my throat.
This sort of thing, unfortunately, is part of a larger pattern of class relations that have plagued this country for over a century. The new-comers, whoever they are, are always a threat to those on the economic margins, while they are protected by the interests that make fortunes off of their labor. All too often, this sort of labor strife takes of the form of racial tensions, and the list of this sort of activity is too long to fully list here: Irish-Italian, Irish-black, black-Korean, Latino-Native American, etc. It does seem a distinctly American phenomenon to have the economically powerless duke it out in a racially contentious battle for scraps while those making fortunes off their labor (wealthy elites, as well as politicians and industries, as Ruxton talks about) manage to avoid scrutiny.
Thoughtful post, Alan.
Zach, I think you're right. Being on the punk scene I tend to focus a lot of attention on class consciousness. It might not be cool to be so impressionable by the film industry, but I found Martin Scorsese's film "Gangs of New York" quite shocking. When you look at the tectonic class tension our country has always had you can only wonder if society isn't due for an eruption soon. I think to a certain extent you can trace a lot of major conflicts to at least some degree of class struggle, but my prediction is that class will, at some time, be the cause of a very large civil unrest.
I think that class is probably the most substantive reason for tension in this country. However, I disagree that this is going to erupt into full-fledged civil unrest, at least in the foreseeable future. Our elaborate network of educational failures, constant mind-numbing entertainment, and consumer culture distract the lower classes and make them unaware of the deep inequalities that plague us. To have civil unrest, you need awareness and organization, and I just don't see that happening. People would much rather watch American Idol and go shopping.
On the contrary, I think the more frightening scenario for Americans would be the act of guerrilla warfare in the streets. It doesn't require too massive an organization to start the ball rolling either. Perhaps a militia from Idaho or a gang from Los Angeles could push the first domino. Maybe another "April 29, 1992 (Miami)," listing off riotous cities, can provide the anthem. Really, all it'll take the poor is the realization that there's more of them and that the rich, powerful, and corrupt elite bleed just as red as anyone else.
Daftar Piala Dunia 2018 dapat Hadiah
Post a Comment