So, here’s something people tend to not mention.
A number of walls have already been built along the US-Mexico border.
The Mexico–United States barrier (Spanish: barrera México–Estados Unidos) is a series of vertical barriers along the Mexico–United States border aimed at preventing illegal crossings from Mexico into the United States. [1] The barrier is not one contiguous structure, but a discontinuous series of physical obstructions variously classified as “fences” or “walls.” In between these constructed obstacles, security is provided by a “virtual fence” consisting of sensors, cameras, and other surveillance equipment that is used to dispatch United States Border Patrol agents to suspected migrant crossings. [2] As of January 2009, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that it had more than 580 miles (930 km) of barriers in place.[3] The total length of the continental border is 1,954 miles (3,145 km).
That cost, by the way, about six billion dollars. Trump wants seven billion dollars for his wall, which obviously wouldn’t cover the entire border.
The US has built walls along the border before.
What is more important, I think, is that the real problem isn’t a wall or walls. The real problem is that enforcement is extremely cruel. The problem is that this cruelty is mostly bipartisan: Trump has made it worse, but most of the high-profile cases which first came out happened under the Obama administration, which built plenty of camps; they just kept parents and children together in horribly inhumane circumstances.
What should be done is that responsibility for illegal immigrants should be handed back to a reconstituted “Immigration and Naturalization Service“, who ran it until 2003 (after the Homeland Security reorganization shoved through under 9/11 hysteria).
They were a lot less abusive, though the border patrol was still awful.
But the US wants para-militarized law-enforcement, and Americans believe that people should suffer and suffer bad, so we have the current regime. Again, a ton of abuses and cruelty happened under Obama, and the child separation, while a step too far for Democrats (at least in opposition), came on top of policies which were already disgustingly inhumane.
Seven billion is nothing. It isn’t even chump change in terms of the US budget. The wall is not particularly important in real terms of how it will affects people. It is a symbolic issue: Trump made it his centerpiece, so the Democrats oppose it.
Indeed, the Democratic compromise was to keep funding ICE, but not fund the wall.
This is symbolic politics. Trump’s signature campaign promise was “The Wall.” It doesn’t cost much, it won’t make immigration enforcement noticeably more cruel, but not funding it is a win.
Is it a win worth a government shutdown? Maybe. But crocodile tears about the suffering of civil servants from Dems fighting over a largely symbolic issue fail to impress. If they were actually fighting over stopping child separation, ending camps, or truly getting rid of the current regime and going back to something more humane, that would be worth some suffering, because it would end suffering.
Is this?
The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
Daniel A Lynch
Will working class Americans be harmed by a wall? No. And in fact, working class Americans were fine with a wall when Obama was building it.
For Trump, this is a hill worth dying on because he campaigned on it (though one wonders why he didn’t get wall legislation passed when Republicans controlled Congress?).
For Democrats, this is a lose-lose proposition. If they give Trump his wall, Democrats will appear to be sellouts, since they campaigned against a wall in 2018. But if the shutdown drags on then Democrats will share the blame for failing to pass a budget. Lose-lose.
The bottom line is that Democrats lack a positive agenda. They want to be the “resistance” but that does not help working class Americans.
Ten Bears
Build the Wall! From Eureka California to Eureka Montana.
Ain’t nuthin’ east of The Rockies we need.
S Brennan
Obama’s cruel coup in Honduras [which caused a lot of the emigration to begin with] was fine with his supporters, but the wall, now that’s a step too far for today’s hipster Democrats.
Obama’s cruel “regime change” in Libya [which led to a genocide of 20,000 negro-blooded Libyans and cost 80,000 civilians their lives…and a lot of emigration] was fine with his supporters, but the wall, now that’s a step too far for today’s hipster Democrats.
Obama’s cruel “regime change” in Syria [which cost well over 125,000 civilians their lives and a lot of emigration] was fine with his supporters, but the wall, now that’s a step too far for today’s hipster Democrats.
Obama’s cruel “regime change” in Ukraine [which cost civilians..well, honestly we don’t know yet…and over a million emigrants] was fine with his supporters, but the wall, now that’s a step too far for today’s hipster Democrats.
And let Trump try to stop the carnage in Syria and instead of supporting the tiniest step towards peace, the Democratic hipsters go ballistic…”it’s cruel to stop the war”…”what about the children”…or some such nonsense. All the Democratic hipsters have for policy is ad hominems against Trump…or ANYBODY who supports ANY specific policy of Trump.
The Democratic party has become this nation’s repository for some of it’s sickest most twisted minds, that is why the vast majority of “independents” are former Democrats. Independents are twice the size of either party at some 44% of voters and yet they are accorded less than 2% of congressional representation thanks to the machinations of the enjoined twin parties of the ruling elite.
Willy
Smoke and mirrors hiding nefariousness. Trump couldn’t even successfully wall his own companies off from the undocumenteds which they employed.
ponderer
The cruelty is a feature of the system. It goes part and parcel with the anger on all sides of the issue, that keeps it “divisive” and thus usable by the political apparatchiks. The problem is cognitive dissonance and our inability as a people to have more than a 10 minute conversation about a complex topic. Immigration, like most important issues, are kept out of the hands of the 99% except for some theater.
I don’t think that is true necessarily. Which side of the issue are the Americans you speak of on? The establishment and the people are often at odds, in which case the people lose out. The militarized law enforcement is a more recent occurrence, mostly fueled by surplus military equipment combined with a woefully underpaid police force. During the Depression Mexican Americans were rounded up and deported in-mass, their citizenship ignored, we are hardly at that point. I don’t see any indication that we treat illegal immigrants worse than we do criminals for instance. Yes, we treat people bad in relative terms, but is that because the average person wants other people to suffer or because they just don’t know what its like in their local jail. If I didn’t have a family member that got into trouble I could have gone my entire life not knowing how the prison industrial complex ruins lives. Now, that I do, what power do I have as a citizen to do anything about it? One could just as easily say Ian Welsh is a cruel person, look at all the bad things done by bad people that Ian hasn’t stopped.
America allows about a million legal immigrants every year and has for some time. Its a long painful process, I’ve been through it. It’s no fun, but no worse than going to the DMV at any given point. Those million decrease wages and increase unemployment. It doesn’t matter what they do, it takes away from the native population some opportunity. It’s appropriate I think, even though you may support something, to realize the costs involved. People that have been through that process are often very anti illegal immigrant. They tend to blame illegal immigrants for the tightening of immigration laws that make it harder for legal immigrants such as family members. There were about 350-400,000 apprehensions at the border in 2017. Balanced against the 1 million welcomed, it makes the whole “wall” and migrant caravan situation just seem like kabuki. Through in the decline in the standard of living in the country at least between the coasts and its just sad.
S Brennan
My bad, not “enjoined”, should have been “conjoined” my apologies to the linguistic police.
Heliopause
Your thinking on this issue tracks closely with mine. Yes, the southern border is already militarized, authoritarian, and cruel, all of it assented to by leading Dems. Trump’s wall would make it worse, but probably only a bit, and in relation to other ridiculous and destructive things our government does would not cost a lot of money.
This is not a policy dispute, it’s a political one. Cruel vs. slightly more cruel is not something worth debating, if the lesser of two evils must be chosen then so be it, but dressing it up as a policy dispute is a waste of everybody’s time. Both sides have drawn their lines in the sand politically and don’t have obvious ways out. Popcorn time (if you can afford popcorn).
Heliopause
“though one wonders why he didn’t get wall legislation passed when Republicans controlled Congress?”
His excuse, and it’s the same lame one Dems used when they controlled the whole government, was that, goshdarnit, they didn’t have the 60 votes they needed in the Senate. So, he’s using the Continuing Resolution as leverage to get what he wants.
Will
Ponderer: What an interesting comment. Nuance is so rare nowadays that it’s appearance can throw one off balance. :p
As with a lot of issues, subterfuge finds ample room for concealment amongst the self righteousness of immigration debates.
Will
Herman
The fight over the Wall is mostly political theater designed to energize each party’s base. I get that symbols matter in politics but American politics is becoming almost entirely symbolic and tribal without much real substance.
The problem with the immigration issue is that the activists in both parties will never support any kind of solution to the problem so we have these endless wars over immigration and nothing ever gets done except things like Trump making the enforcement system harsher in order to throw red meat to his base. The activists control politics now because they provide the funds, foot soldiers and primary voters for both parties.
It also doesn’t help that we cannot even have a reasonable debate about the issue. For example, some people on the left consider anything short of open borders to be inherently racist and fascistic which perversely ends up limiting the debate to nativists on the right and open borders advocates on the left as more nuanced voices are drowned out.
Mandos
Politics in representative democracy is principally symbolic. If the wall is an important symbol, then ipso facto it matters more than issues that are less symbolic.
Stirling Newberry
The issue is the Trump’s wall is permanent. And it has net cost of $40B.
Hugh
Heliopause, differences between House and Senate spending bills are ironed out via the reconciliation process. The reconciliation bill is exempt from cloture requirements. The reason that Trump’s Wall never got funded when Republicans had majorities in the House and Senate is because Republicans in Congress couldn’t agree on it.
This is a particularly screwy (and cruel) manufactured crisis. Refugees are not immigrants. They have, or are supposed to have, rights protected by both law and treaty. These rights are being flagrantly and illegally flouted. As for immigrants, legal and illegal, they currently compose something like 17% of the US workforce, and this has and has had big impacts on US workers. I think that current legal immigration to the US policy is pretty sloppy. It could be curtailed and made more reasonable. Illegal immigration has never needed a wall. Most illegals fly in and overstay their visas. Illegal immigration could be reduced simply by levying punitive penalties against those who employ them directly (like Trump) and indirectly through their contractors (also like Trump).
As the US has no coherent or honest immigration policy, hypocrisy abounds on all sides. Trump’s closing the government and screwing 800,000 US workers and their families over an issue he did not give anything more than a pro forma shit about until racists like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh made a big self-serving stink about it does represent a quantum leap in the overall degeneracy of US politics.
chum'sfriend
Sam Nunberg explained, that Roger Stone came up with “The Wall” as a campaign gimmick to keep Trump focused on immigration without his getting distracted during the 2016 campaign. It’s that simple.
Heliopause
@Hugh
Correct, many desired outcomes can be achieved with the reconciliation process if they are truly desired. The 60 vote threshold sensibly exists (from the politicians’ viewpoint) for when they don’t want something as badly as they are publicly pretending to.
Ché Pasa
The Wall is a marketing gimmick being used by both sides in the polarized “debate” over whether to let brown people continue to migrate north to the US. It seems to me that the media have decided that Trump will get his Wall in the bye and bye, precisely because it doesn’t matter. There’s already some 700 miles of hodge-podge barrier and tank traps at the southern border. Trump says he only wants to renovate what’s already there and extend it another couple of hundred miles. So why not?
Of course he lies and claims without His Wall it’s an open border. Nonsense. It’s also nonsense that Democrats advocate an open border.
Trump’s Wall is not the Great Wall of China snaking along the whole length of the US border with Mexico — though a big part of the marketing campaign has been that it would be at least as solid and effective as the Israeli wall snaking through the Palestinian territories. That’s not gonna happen.
The whole question about migration from the south has been made more difficult than it should be by many long years of US interference in Latin America and complicity in gross human rights abuses throughout the region. Simultaneously, migrants have been encouraged to come north by cynical exploiters who see profit from a poor and essentially rights-less workforce. The point is to keep them poor and rights-less. And whenever the rabble gets restless, to throw them back.
This has been going on for a very long time.
Anyone who remembers the farmworkers’ struggle in California (seems like such a long time ago) should have some idea how the migrant issue is really one of exploitation of a powerless minority for profit.
The actions of the Trump regime at the southern border are visibly cruel, yes, routinely and needlessly so, but they are mirrored by past policies and actions at the border. One can’t let these migrants get above themselves, no? That’s the point. Keep them in their place, but keep them coming.
Nothing will be done about the appalling conditions in their home countries — except perhaps to make them worse. The lure of el norte will always be dangled in front of the poor and increasingly desperate inhabitants of southern nations in crisis.
Trump will likely get his Wall for symbolic reasons, and it will make no difference. And some of the right people will make a handsome profit on the deal.
Stirling Newberry
> Sam Nunberg explained, that Roger Stone came up with “The Wall” as a campaign gimmick to keep Trump focused on immigration without his getting distracted during the 2016 campaign. It’s that simple.
No, because he would not mention it again. The reactionary right wants something.
gnokgnoh
@S Brennan, who exactly are “today’s hipster Democrats?” It seems like an insult, but not entirely sure, in an article about whether the wall along the Mexican border is useful, not useful, or just symbolic politics. I am a Democrat, and your apparent knowledge of my views is woefully inaccurate. I don’t want to spend more money on an already patchy barrier on the Mexican border because the cost/benefit ratio is extremely low. Last year, they interdicted 6 people that were on some watch list at that border, none of which have been proven to be a terrorist. The number of immigrants attempting to cross that border is at a 20-year low, while the number of refugee families (asylum-seekers) is at a 20-year high. The vast majority of illegal immigrants come on visitor visas and don’t leave.
The wall will cost about $20 per U.S. taxpayer. I would like my $20 to go towards funding healthy school lunches in public schools or continuing tax rebates for installing solar panels on residential homes. That rebate will disappear next year, unless refunded by Congress. Is that too hipster for you?
Billikin
“My father’s own father, he waded that river.
They took all the money he made in his life.
My brothers and sisters came working the fruit trees,
And they rode the truck till they took down and died.”
— Woody Guthrie
Billikin
Some decades ago, back when we had the INS, at the request of Iowa, the INS cracked down on illegal aliens living in that state. Iowa then asked them to stop, as they were ruining Iowa’s economy.
For many years US employers welcomed cheap labor from Mexico, and used the traditional tactic of racism to divide workers against each other, to get US born workers to regard Mexican workers as their enemies. The wall is a symbol of that racist/ethnic antagonism. But since the global economic crisis a decade ago, US workers have become so poor that Mexican workers are no longer a threat to them. That is why there is net zero border crossings between the US and Mexico. All that is left is the racism.
Vegetius
Americans have not voted to accept a fundamental change in the demographic composition of their Republic via criminal immigration.
When a million of these aliens cross the northern border, then we will see the limits of Canadian virtue-signaling. The moral superiority and clueless sentimentality epitomized by Trudeau is as weak as it is nauseating.
Cruelty is in the eye of the beholder. And crying “cruelty” is what you do when you have neither the support of the citizenry or a compelling argument.
Willy
Seems everything’s a balancing act. Labor/wages supply/demand is no exception. Problems happen when greed overcomes that balance. Sociopathic greed down there, has them moving up here, and sociopathic greed up here causes problems for the native masses up here. Some greed may be good. But not all, for damned sure.
The problem is black and white thinking. It used to be common sense that too much, or too little, of a great many things in life can kill you. Apparently the PTB have succeeded in creating an us-vs-them mentality which many regular joes are highly susceptible to. Even me. I despise white conservative evangelicals who cannot seem to reason ‘properly balanced’ solutions, anymore, even though such thinking can be found everywhere in their Bible.
Bill
For an example of what I mean by “PTB”, see the meatpacking industry. Once, “butcher” was a skilled craft requiring significant experience. With that system owners got their profits, workers earned decent wages, governments got their taxes, and people ate physically healthy amounts of red meat.
Today that industry relies heavily on fast moving (dangerous) machinery operated by undocumented workers. Corporate meatpacking giants donate money to corrupt politicians to ‘confuse’ the immigration issue, and various spin doctors to make the corruption appear legit. The only people coming out ahead are those involved with the big money. Everybody else loses.
But we here pretty much know all that.
S Brennan
Gnokgnoh;
To your post referencing me, you said; “your apparent knowledge of my views is woefully inaccurate” and while I note, I never claimed otherwise, I find myself in full agreement with that assessment.
But if I may suggest…that your expressed level of self-importance is more a matter of concern to your immediate family-girlfriend-boyfriend…no? You may wish to consider looking to those close to you for such self-validation and not to strangers?
But perhaps I am to infer from the desire that I personally inform myself of your views, that you presume to speak for multitudes? Okay, fine, let’s see your bonafides, are you leading a charge of yellow vesters on the streets of Paris, getting in between whalers and their prey with Green Peace, or just following Democratic talking points? Because if it’s the latter, your self-claimed “representation” of a large group of people is of little concern to me, or, for that matter…the universe at large…please make a note of it.
However, I think you answered your own question “who exactly are today’s hipster Democrats?”…huh?
Hugh
“Americans have not voted to accept a fundamental change in the demographic composition of their Republic via criminal immigration.”
Not sure what this means. In 1940, Americans were
88.3% Non-Hispanic White
9.8% African American
1.5% Hispanic
0.2% Asian
In 2018, Americans were
60.7% Non-Hispanic White
13.4% African American
18.1% Hispanic
5.8% Asian
Going to take a wild ass guess about this, but legal or not, voted or not, that ship has sailed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217
chum'sfriend
> Sam Nunberg explained, that Roger Stone came up with “The Wall” as a campaign gimmick to keep Trump focused on immigration without his getting distracted during the 2016 campaign. It’s that simple.
“No, because he would not mention it again. The reactionary right wants something.”
Trump had to use “The Wall” as a symbol to keep himself on track. Now his base believes that symbol is the real item and demand to see it in concrete reality. Donald painted himself into a corner by doing this.
S Brennan
Interesting, if Hugh is to be believed, which is always a dubious proposition, then according to Wikipedia, [also an institution with truth issues], whites have declined by ~12% since 2010. I think any rabid racist would be proud of that rate of ethnic cleansing.
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
88.9% 89.7% 89.8% 89.8% 89.5% 88.6% 87.7% 83.1% 80.3% 75.1% 72.4%
eth·nic cleans·ing
/ˈeTHnik klenziNG/
noun
noun: ethnic cleansing
the mass expulsion or killing of members of an unwanted ethnic or religious group in a society.
Uncle Mark
S Brennan,
You listed the percentages of whites (White) in the Wikipedia article while Hugh listed the percentage of non-Hispanic whites (Non-Hispanic White). The decline of non-Hispanic whites from 2010 to 2018 is from 63.7% to 60.7%, not 72.4% to 60.7%.
The fact the percentage of whites in the United States went down doesn’t mean large numbers of white people were killed or kicked out of the country. If large numbers of non-whites come into the country, such as people from Mexico and Central America, the percentage of whites is going to go down.
S Brennan
UM;
Please explain the difference between (White) in the Wikipedia and Hugh’s (Non-Hispanic White)?
An FYI for the younger folks who have lived their whole lives in a sea of propaganda/self-imposed ignorance. Since the early 1960’s US citizens were encourage to have fewer children to create more opportunities for all and reduce our civilizations environmental impact on the globe. It worked, US citizens complied and reduced their growth, without immigration we would have a population of roughly 210,000,000 or less than 2/3rds of today’s population. When I was born there were roughly 155,000,000 people in the USA, there are now ~340,000,000, that is unsustainable growth, an ecological/social disaster.
What we have now is citizens within US borders limited to low fertility, while outside a replacement population is encouraged to migrate to the US. An ocean of corporate sponsored ink has been spilled to propagandize the urbane classes into believing that conditions prior to the great depression were desirable and…it has worked. I now hear urban elites nodding there heads in agreement and demanding excess workers to create low wages [and high prices/taxes for low wage earners], “we need to restore the conditions prior to 1932…restore the gilded-age” these hipsters cry “look at how miserable the Japanese are” they say.
Well, if you actually have Japanese friends, you’d know their lives are getting better, rents are down, wages up, working conditions better…and no, the Japanese are not going to increase their population with hundreds of millions of immigrants.
Mandos
I can’t think of a more nakedly morally bankrupt thing to say than “cruelty is in the eye of the beholder”. You may consider cruelty necessary and a majority of people may vote for it, but it is still cruelty, and you’re a cruel person, not that you care.
Mandos
Personally, I love population replacement and cultural dilution. We need every second room in all retirement homes to be filled by a young Afro-Hispanic gang member. Pls send Soros bux.
But, more seriously, I am a little bemused by the attempts to push the discourse onto “real” things that “matter.” This is why the economic left fails, well one reason why: it attempts to argue at a meta level, about whether issues of emotional appeal “matter”, rather than try to make opportunities of them. The wallfight is an opportunity.
Mallam
It’s good of the white supremacists here like Brennan who always talk about Democratic attachment to “identity politics” to say what they mean, be out and proud with “whites are being replaced”. It follows along with the sympathies with Trump and other fascist movements in Europe. Weren’t you here arguing about his vote for Trump wasn’t racist? Yet here you are days/weeks later yammering about “replacement”.
Meanwhile, our host is telling us that it’s a purely symbolic fight when that’s not true. Trump has engaged in a lock out of federal workers who are pawns in his hostage taking. If he wins now, why won’t he try it again? And again? And why should we back down and acquiesce to his demands when he’s the one who is losing and changing the line of attack every week? He is negotiating from a position of weakness which is why he is taking hostages. His position on immigration mixed with negative polarization is causing Dems to move towards open borders. We have Alexandria Oscasio-Cortez going on cable news saying things like this:
And you want to reward the toddler for his temper tantrum? I’m glad Alexandria is in some position of power showing the way forward on how to use this as an opportunity to push the discussion than wallowing about “important issues”.
S Brennan
Yep, this is [see quoted material below], as our enlightened truth teller Mallam says, “racist”, WHOA, not just “racist” but “white supremacists” you know, cross burning-KKK-Nazi death camp stuff.
FYI, the “white supremacists” material is a response to Hugh pointing out to another poster that whites are already on there way out, going from 88.3% to 60.7% in 6 decades. But perhaps after reading it you will agree with our our enlightened truth teller Mallam when labels it “racist white supremacist” material. With Mallam’s label I ought to be banned, I mean that’s Nazi/KKK territory…it’s either that or, a load of elitist bullshit from a spoiled Brahman who learned to use the term “racist” cower others into silence…you make the call?
“An FYI for the younger folks who have lived their whole lives in a sea of propaganda/self-imposed ignorance. Since the early 1960’s US citizens were encourage to have fewer children to create more opportunities for all and reduce our civilizations environmental impact on the globe. It worked, US citizens complied and reduced their growth, without immigration we would have a population of roughly 210,000,000 or less than 2/3rds of today’s population. When I was born there were roughly 155,000,000 people in the USA, there are now ~340,000,000, that is unsustainable growth, an ecological/social disaster.
What we have now is citizens within US borders limited to low fertility, while outside a replacement population is encouraged to migrate to the US. An ocean of corporate sponsored ink has been spilled to propagandize the urbane classes into believing that conditions prior to the great depression were desirable and…it has worked. I now hear urban elites nodding there heads in agreement and demanding excess workers to create low wages [and high prices/taxes for low wage earners], “we need to restore the conditions prior to 1932…restore the gilded-age” these hipsters cry “look at how miserable the Japanese are” they say.
Well, if you actually have Japanese friends, you’d know their lives are getting better, rents are down, wages up, working conditions better…and no, the Japanese are not going to increase their population with hundreds of millions of immigrants.
Ché Pasa
So what’s the source of this paranoid panic that (some) white people have that the Brown Hordes are assembling at the gates and gaps all along the border to replace everything good and holy? It’s absurd on its face.
A Wall, therefore, is the Only Answer. Build A Wall Now! Horsepucky.
Time was, and not that long ago, either, that the border between Mexico and the United States was more symbolic than real. People crossed freely in both directions, and so few white people were scared of being “replaced” that those who were panicked were considered deranged.
After all the “replacement” was taking place in the other direction, white folks appropriating land from Hispanics and exploiting the labor of Brown folks for profit.
What changed, and when? Was it the civil rights movement? Farm workers’ movement? Multiculturalism? Race mixing? What? Was it decades of propaganda about the drugs and the gangs?
And what would A Wall do to make things better for anyone but the builders and profiteers?
We once had an open border on the south just like the one on the north.
What changed and when?
Uncle Mark
S Brennan,
In the Wikipedia article Hugh linked to, the table listings for Non-Hispanic White have a link to a Wikipedia article that explains what non-Hispanic whites are.
I was pointing out the Wikipedia article has two categories of whites: whites and non-Hispanic whites. Hugh was using the non-Hispanic white statistics in his comment while you were using the white statistics, and the two sets of numbers are not the same.
S Brennan
Here’s Pasa re-writing history with Orwellian flair
“Time was, and not that long ago, either, that the border between Mexico and the United States was more symbolic than real. People crossed freely in both directions”
Yeah sure Pasa, here’s some snippets of history for you while you kumbaya by the campfire:
=========================================================
“During the Great Depression, in the early 1930s, the United States deported between 500,000 and 2 million people of Mexican descent (including the illegal expulsion of up to 1.2 million U.S. citizens)[4] to Mexico (see Mexican Repatriation), in order to reduce demands on limited American economic resources. By the late 1930s, about three million Mexican Americans resided in the United States. Los Angeles had the highest concentration of ethnic Mexicans outside Mexico.[5]”
“The story of Latino-American discrimination largely begins after the United States won the Mexican-American War…as the 19th century wore on, political events in Mexico generated emigration to the United States. This was welcome news to American employers like the Southern Pacific Railroad, which wanted cheap labor to help build new tracks. The railroad and other companies flouted existing immigration laws that banned importing contracted labor and sent recruiters into Mexico to convince Mexicans to emigrate.
While relations had been good in most communities, Anti-Latino sentiment grew along with immigration. According to historians William D. Carrigan and Clive Webb, mob violence against Spanish-speaking people was common in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the late 1920s, anti-Mexican sentiment spiked as the Great Depression began. As the stock market tanked and unemployment grew, Anglo-Americans accused Mexicans and other foreigners of stealing American jobs.”
“In 1931, police officers grabbed Mexican-Americans in the area, many of them U.S. citizens, and shoved them into waiting vans. Immigration agents blocked exits and arrested around 400 people, who were then deported to Mexico, regardless of their citizenship or immigration status.
The raid was just one incident in a long history of discrimination against Latino people in the United States…illegal deportations, school segregation and even lynching—often-forgotten events that echo the civil-rights violations of African-Americans in the Jim Crow-era South.”
=================================================
What white elitist don’t know, or, are willfully ignorant of, is that all mass migrations end badly for somebody, there ALWAYS hatred/violence/death even if there is no racial difference, either the newcomers end up on top [see how mass immigration effected the native 1st peoples], or the natives repel the newcomers [see Siege of Vienna, Muslims vs Christians in 1529, or Muslim expulsion from Spain in 1502] both events were bloody murder brought on by a mass influx of migrants. HISTORICALLY, THIS ALWAYS ENDS BADLY in hatred & bloodshed which continues for centuries afterward.
Growing up in Chicago you’ll learn about the 1917 “race riots”. What had been good [circa 1865-1885] race relations between Irish & African-American former slaves turned sour when, hundreds of thousands, fleeing Jim Crow migrated to Chicago forcing up rents, food prices, and other sundry daily-necessaries and just as dramatically, forced down wages. The two ethnic groups were pitted against each other in a death match for the benifet of Chicago’s wealthiest, who owned the tenements and food supplies and factories. People who insist we intentionally repeating the mistakes of the past for their personal esthetics while they live unaffected are like those living in the 5 wards of Chicago that receive all the benefits of city life, while the working-class look on in envy…and most recently, move away.
Mallam
Che: not sure about Europe. I suspect that’s partially rooted in the refugee crisis that occurred after Arab dictators — with the blessings from their imperial masters — gunned down peaceful protestors in the street which also was happening in conjunction with the aftermath of the financial crisis and austerity. Plus Europe’s never done well with immigrants and assimilation and forces the Brown Menace into walled off ghettos.
However, here in the US, we can draw a direct line from the election of Obama. His mere presence in office was enough to “racially polarize” the populace to any issue of political concern implicitly put race at the forefront. So you’d have voters who before Obama would have agreed to left wing issues on economics, but proposed in the context of him being in power increased the salience of “race” and would feel threatening that perhaps race based hierarchy’s time was limited. That’s why Trump won, that’s why he is doing what he’s doing with this wall bullshit. He needs to wave that red flag to keep his racist base approving of him. Given the crimes he’s committed in office and that he entered into a conspiracy with the Russian, Israeli, Qatari, and UAE governments to help him win, his time might be numbered anyway.
Chris Hayes speaks with political scientist Michael Tesler about his revelations on racial resentment, economic anxiety and the 2016 election.
BlizzardOfOz
Just like the left showed they were never in favor of free speech as a principle, they have now shown they never opposed ethnic cleansing. As long as the good people are doing the cleansing, and the bad people are being cleansed, then they’re all for it.
Hugh
S Brennan seems intent on achieving new heights of codgerdom. You can almost see him waving his cane at you. Anti-immigrant feeling is hardly an unknown in US history, but this is not the same thing as life along the border. Anti-immigrant feeling waxes and wanes and doesn’t always correlate with immigration patterns. According to the Migration Policy Institute, an offshoot of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in 1980, there were 2.2 million Mexican migrants in the US. This peaked in 2010 at 11.7 million. So during those 30 years, the border does appear to have been pretty open.
As for Blizzard’s contribution, it is largely incomprehensible, other than left = bad, for some definition of left that does not exist in the real world. The left certainly has lots of problems. I have problems with the lack of clarity and coherence in many of its views, but I find it rich that a right winger would beat the left over the head for its racism when racism is at the core of so much of what defines the right.
S Brennan
Hugh says; ” You can almost see him [S Brennan] waving his cane at you.”
Hugh; I box at the gym twice a week…you are welcome to join in and show your youthful talent as a macho stud…sheesh.
As a low rent cutout, Hugh works with stereotypes and misdirection…he hopes…someday…to become a major league suck-up like his idol, EZ-Rah-Klien. Hugh; I’ll be at the bar if you need me…
Mandos
No one should be “cleansed”, BOO. It’s merely that no one should be allowed to maintain purity at the expense of violence against others. I know that for you, that is “cleansing” — for you, it is purity or death.
Hugh
Dear S Brennan, that you have taken one too many blows to your head would explain a lot.
Ché Pasa
The history of racial prejudice and discrimination against immigrants in the US is well-known, or ought to be, but it is also a different topic than what sort of border controls have historically been in place.
Historically both the northern an southern borders of the United States have been essentially open — indeed, it was a point of pride that there were only minor border formalities between the US and Canada and Mexico. In many places there were none at all.
Even after strict and overtly racist immigration controls were instituted in 1924, the northern and southern borders of the US remained essentially open, and there were no restrictions placed on Mexican or Latin American immigration to the US, unlike the case with Southern and Eastern Europeans, Africans and Asians.
Even during the deportations of the ’30s, the southern border was not walled nor more than lightly fenced, and for most of its length it wasn’t patrolled.
Prejudice against brown people is quite a different thing than “sealing the border” — which is what some white rightists have been advocating during the current panic.
Going back and forth between Canada and the US and Mexico and the US was taken for granted and moving from either Canada or Mexico and to US was effectively unimpeded.
It’s not true, however, that Democrats as a party are calling for a return to the days of an open border. Far from it. In fact, most elected Democrats are in agreement with at least some of the Trumpian anti-immigrant fervor, and most would be OK with increasingly strict enforcement of restrictions on immigration from the south and continued deportations of those already illegally here from “undesirable” nations and regions.
And yes, most Democrats in office would likely vote for a Wall By Another Name if proposed by a Democratic leader — or even by Trump if he were less obnoxious about it. That’s how seven hundred miles of fence-barrier-wall-tank traps have already been built. As I understand it, Trump is proposing a couple of hundred miles more (not all the border) and renovations of what currently exists for his $5.7 billion.
The politics and the optics of all of this are terrible, but the US has taken this route before and somehow survived the shame. I think the calculation in the White House and the Congress is that it can do so again, no matter what happens to the refugees, asylum-seekers, and illegales. After all it’s not as bad as rounding up the Japanese Americans and sending them to camps during WWII or refusing entry to the Jewish refugees on the St. Louis in 1939, effectively sending them to their deaths in Nazi concentration camps. It’s not that bad. Not yet.
Will
What exactly would you expect? When you weaponize immigration this is what happens: a nasty blowback.
It is a major reason the PTB could break the middle class and the labor movement. It allowed the democratic party to turn their backs on the working class. Free trade, mass immigration, and the reserve currency… Look no further to understand why this country has become hellish to make a living in.
The fact it puts one on the same side as the Koch brothers doesn’t seem to be a concern. Jeez…..
Will
Ché Pasa
So all those years the northern and southern borders were essentially open, the US was self-evidently going to hell in a handbasket. Got it.
Even today, despite the hysterics, the borders are pretty much open. Annoyance has increased significantly — for example, needing a passport to visit Mexico or Canada and return to the US, or being suspiciously detained for no reason at all — but there’s no lack of travel back and forth.
A point of information: approximately 7 times more suspicious travelers — ie: their names appear on one of the myriad watch lists — have been stopped at the Canadian border than at the Mexican border, thus refuting the claim that all these terrorists are getting into the country from the south. In fact, if there are any at all (none of these people are confirmed terrorists) they’re coming through the relatively lightly patrolled northern border, not the heavily surveilled and partially walled-fenced southern one. But oh well.
Panic does strange things to peoples’ judgment.
Will
As does greed and the thirst for power…
Will
gnokgnoh
@Ché Pasa. ++ for your posts.
Real life on the ground at the border bears little resemblance to the political debate about immigration and walls.
NYU staged the play, Juarez, A Documentary Mythology, at their Abu Dhabi campus. I was most struck by the stories about people working on one side of the border and living on the other and effortlessly going back and forth every day, pre 1920’s and 30’s. Restriction of border crossings began during prohibition, when all the bootleggers moved to Juarez.* The U.S. Army helped to crack down on liquor and crime in El Paso and started to restrict travel across the border. Still, the passage of workers and tourists was relatively easy. Today, travel has been restricted further and border controls increased, but still, over 20 million people pass through its four border crossings every year.
*Reminds me of dry towns/counties in NJ and PA, where all the bars open up across the town/county border. This causes a lots of extra DWIs, because the bars are too far away to walk.
NAFTA was passed in 2004. In 2008, Juarez was one of the most dangerous cities in the world, and El Paso one of the safest in the U.S. Today, Juarez’ crime has dropped by 70%. The two cities, to this day, work together as a joint metropolitan region of over 2 million residents. Juarez has been one of the fastest growing cities in the world, and its economy has exploded since NAFTA. Over 300 assembly plants for U.S. manufacturing exist just over the border. After NAFTA, in 2006, the then-new husband of my ex-wife went down to Mexico to negotiate contracts for auto parts manufacturing for a company in Bensalem, PA. All of the parts are now shipped across the border rather than manufactured here. His plant still does some assembly.
Real life on the ground at the border bears little resemblance to the political debate about immigration and walls. The implications of NAFTA and the removal of most tariffs between the U.S. and Mexico and Canada have had profound implications for life, especially in the North of Mexico.
The new trade deal includes the following changes, some good, some not so good.
1. Country of origin (must be North American) rules increased from 62.5% to 70%. This will have a slight impact on Chinese manufacturing finding its way to the U.S. through Mexico.
2. Increased minimum wage to $16/hour + right to unionization for 45% of auto workers in Mexico. It would be nice if Trump would support something like this in the U.S.
3. Canada opens up its dairy market to the U.S.
4. U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs remain in place, although Mexico worked a side deal to protect them from U.S. auto tariffs. Sorry Detroit.
5. Sixteen-year sunset clause, with review every six years.
Not much will change, although the minimum wage rules may increase the standard of living in Mexico and make U.S. workers more attractive (lower wages), especially to auto manufacturers.