Migration, Movements, Wages and War in the Americas:
Reasons for Unity on May Day 2006 – And After
By Midnight Noters and Friends*
We
are witnessing an apparently unprecedented moment in the Americas, both North and South. On the one
side, millions of undocumented workers--the least visible and most repressed
workers--have repeatedly demonstrated in US cities, alongside their many
supporting co-workers, against a congressional bill that would criminalize them
simply for being in the U.S. without proper papers, and
criminalize U.S. citizens who provide them with
assistance. On the other, the people of Latin America in election after election are
voting into power governments whose platforms, and sometimes their practices,
reject the economic policies that the US government, on behalf of global
corporations, has been supporting for two decades. These policies (often named
“neoliberal”) have been the source of the decline of wages and working
conditions throughout the Americas, as well as the rest of the
planet.
In these surging movements, we are witnessing a
rebellion of people throughout the Americas. They are rising up against their fate of being
driven from their lands, targeted for repression and even death, forced into
sweatshops paying starvation wages or finding no income at all. The millions who have been forced to migrate
to the U.S. and other nations face humiliation, repression,
discrimination and super exploitation as second-class persons in apartheid
systems constructed on immigration status.
This pan-American rebellion may seem surprising, since
it comes at a time of the “war on terrorism,” an apparently near-endless “war”
reminiscent of the Cold War. The political atmosphere that has been generated
by this war has made it easy to pass repressive legislation such as the USA
PATRIOT Act and to demonize migrants as potential terrorists.
However, this non-violent rebellion is not
historically unprecedented. It is similar to what took place in the 1950s when
the Cold War and the terror inspired by the possibility of nuclear war was
unable to contain the rebellion of African-Americans who refused to “wait”
until the “threat of communism” was “under control” to bring down the US
apartheid based on race. They demanded “Justice Now!” in the face of the
congressional commissions that were roaming the country claiming to find
Communist spies and traitors in unions, school boards, civil rights groups and
universities throughout the country. Through unrelenting struggle during the
height of the cold war, the black civil rights movement destroyed established US race apartheid.
But the US movement was not alone. It operated in conjunction
with the anti-colonial movements in Africa that at the
same time were demanding an end to white imperial control of the African
continent by Britain, France and Portugal. The US civil rights movement and the anti-colonial movements
gave strength to each other, as the political reverberation between Birmingham and Algiers, between Watts and Nairobi, amplified each others’ demands and echoed arguments
from the “center” to the “periphery” of the world.
The new pan-American movement, feeling its growing
power, has planned a new kind of May Day for 2006 in the U.S. The movement has called for immigrants and their
supporters to stop participating in the US economy, either as (waged or unwaged) workers
(including students) or as consumers, for a day. This boycott may even spread
to other regions of North and Central
America. This one-day
equivalent of a national boycott and strike was called to make clear to
everyone the importance of immigrants (especially undocumented ones) to the
functioning of US society, including everyone’s immediate community.
We write to support common and overlapping demands of
movements in the US and Latin America; to explain to others in the US who are
documented (citizens and legal residents alike) why we firmly believe that
these demands are both just and in all of our interests; to explain why all
workers and activists in the US should support the movements in Latin America;
and to explain to people in movements that may seen somewhat distant from the
immigrant movements, such as the anti-war and anti-globalization movements, the
reasons why theirs is a shared struggle with immigrants and the movements of
Latin America.
The most immediate demands of the immigrant movement
in the US include: (1) the defeat of any legislation that would
criminalize undocumented immigrants; and (2) the legalization of undocumented
immigrants who now are in the US. The most common demand of the movements across Latin America is an end to neoliberal economic policies and U.S. and transnational corporate domination.
Are these just demands? Why should US citizens and
legal residents who are workers support these demands? Will support for both
immigrants and for movements in the lands from which the movements come
strengthen or undermine the conditions of U.S. citizens and documented migrants? We must ask both
questions because US workers have often not supported just policies when they
thought these policies were against their interests. The clearest example of
this was the support most white workers gave to the US version of race apartheid, “Jim Crow” laws, for the
first half of the twentieth century.
Justice
We claim the immigrants’ movements are just because
the primary reasons for migration to the US are political and military repression, intense
economic exploitation, and the ensuing social crises, all fostered by the US government. Approximately 80% of the undocument
migrants to the US were born in countries south of the Rio Bravo/Grande. The other 20%
mostly come from other regions of the world also facing devastation, upheaval
and economic crisis.
The US government and corporations have backed repressive
regimes and have pushed these regimes to impose laws that have made it easy to
exploit their people. The latest version of these policies, “neoliberalism,”
requires cutting state assistance to workers and opening the economy to the
free entry and exit of foreign capital. Since the consequences of neoliberalism
include destruction of communities, privatization of common lands, and
reduction of income for the bottom half of the population, neoliberalism
requires repression to succeed, especially in countries whose working class is
already impoverished. Together, repression and neoliberalism produce community
disintegration, economic and environmental devastation, and fear. Many are
forced to flee to save themselves and their families from annihilation.
It is very easy to prove that the US government has
been responsible for military repression in Latin America: The dozens of US
invasions of Latin American and Caribbean countries in the last century, the
sordid history of the US military's “School of the Americas,” the US support
for coups against democratically elected leaders—from Guatemala in the 1950s
and Brazil in the 1960s, to Chile and Argentina in the 1970s, down to the
failed coup attempt against Hugo Chavez in 2002 and the successful coups
against Aristide in 1991 and 2004--are ample testimonies to the fact that US
government has been directly or indirectly responsible for the repression in
Latin America that has forced many to flee their homes with justifiable fear
for their lives.
The consequences of neoliberalism are equally evident.
We need merely look at Mexico, the primary source of US undocumented migrants, and
NAFTA, a classic neoliberal agreement, to see that the results have been
devastating. President Salinas relied on US support to steal his election
victory. He then implemented neoliberal policies carried on by his successors,
Zedillo and Fox, and approved NAFTA.
In two decades, the value of the Mexican minimum wage
has declined more than 80 percent. In twelve years of NAFTA, there has been a
sharp drop in the average wage and a dramatic increase in poverty. While the
“economy” grows, the people increasingly starve. One major consequence is
migration to the US – though Pres. Clinton sold NAFTA to the US on the grounds that it would reduce Mexican
immigration into the US. The same catastrophes can be tied to neoliberal
economic policies as they have been applied throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. They have
created a continent that has allowed capital to flow freely but left the majority
of the people in deepening poverty and unable to legally follow the money
toward possible jobs and survival.
So long as the US government supports with its economic and military
might the neoliberal policies and the repression of the struggles against them,
the people who are displaced economically and politically should be welcomed
here. This is based on a premise of justice: When one is even partially
responsible for the destruction of the livelihood and homes of people, then one
must do what one can to compensate for this destruction. If we US workers
cannot stop our government's behavior that causes demonstrable harm to other
workers, then it is only just that we support the most basic demands of workers
who have been displaced. If your child intentionally burned down your
neighbors' houses, then it is incumbent on you to at least welcome them into
your home, if they wish to come.
Surely, the long-term “solution” is to end the US government's past, present and, unfortunately,
near-term future actions that have kept millions of Latin Americans and others
around the globe repressed and poor. But until we win this solution, we should
fight to prevent the policies that further repress and immiserate the
immigrants who live here in North
America because of these
policies.
Interests
What is just is one thing, but is this just behavior
suicidal for US citizen and legal resident workers? Won't increased immigration
lead to lower wages for us here? Doesn't the “iron law of wages” state that
more workers competing for the same number of jobs lead to lower wages and
worse working conditions? And as it is also just for people to defend
themselves, should we not approve of policies that intensify US border controls
to keep out terrorists? In other words, even if we agree that US workers have
some responsibility to their fellow workers in Latin America and other parts of the world, is just thing to do
under the circumstances so much against our real interests that it is
politically pointless to insist on it? This has been the main political problem
that has surrounded the immigration issue for many years.
But is it true that the just thing to do
(support immigrant workers) is at odds with the interest of US documented
workers, especially those at the bottom of the wage hierarchy? First, we should
remember that the work that immigrant workers largely do is the dirtiest, the
most difficult work. It is essential, and there is a lot of it. For the average immigrant worker, coming to
the US to escape repression and economic misery
is hardly a picnic. The idea that immigrants come to the US to take advantage of “welfare” is a myth
that has been debunked many times over. It is now in the category of the claim
that African slaves in the US plantations were happy because they had
such secure jobs. In fact, undocumented immigrant workers work very hard at
jobs with a very low wage that makes large profits for their employers and
billions of extra dollars for Social Security and Medicare systems.
When undocumented immigrants come to the US, they face slave-like working conditions that are
backed up by the repressive apparatus directed by the US government (especially the agents of the Department
of Homeland Security, but increasingly local and state police). This repressive
apparatus and lack of rights as workers and humans force undocumented workers
to accept lower wages, substandard working conditions and humiliation. These
workers often fear standing up for their rights, never mind demanding more,
since their employers or even other workers might turn them into the
immigration agents or police.
What is the source of these low wages? Is
it the quantity of workers or their status? Is there such a large competition
for these jobs that leads to the reduction of wages, or is it the very
undocumented status of the immigrants that is the source of this reduction? We
argue that the latter is a more important element. If it were dealt with, it
would lead to higher wages for both immigrant and US citizen and legal resident workers.
Our argument is that a neoliberal
situation is the worst possible world for wages and working conditions across
the board. That situation arises when capital can flow across borders
freely while workers cannot. In that case, employers threaten citizen workers
whenever they demand more wages, by pointing to the fact that unless the
workers accept lower wages, they will easily take their production abroad.
Employers threaten the undocumented workers with deportation if they are
involved in labor struggles. In either case, workers are intimidated and fear
to struggle for their interests. It even appears as though it is in their
interests to oppose each other. The situation we are describing is exactly the
one that prevails in the US.
In addition, the slave-like situation of undocumented workers
creates the conditions for lowering the wage floor in the US, especially affecting those workers competing for
low-wage jobs. This is a far more significant cause for the erosion of wages in
the U.S. than is the number of job competitors, for if the
floor is slavery and bare subsistence, the rights and incomes of all workers
accordingly decline.
Therefore, the end of
neoliberalism--either cross border capital flows are restricted, or workers are
allowed to move across borders freely, or both--will lead to an increase in
wages for all. It is in the nterest of both US citizen workers and undocumented
immigrant workers in the US to oppose neoliberalism and not to oppose
each other.
But in addition to employers using the immigrant apartheid to super
exploit these workers, other racist and xenophobic elements use it to take
advantage, humiliate and mistreat undocumented workers and their families. The
economic conditions and the social antagonisms lead to divisions among workers
that make it harder for working people to organize together for better wages
and working conditions.
This being the case, only coming together to eliminate
the immigrant apartheid can establish a basis on which to battle for better
conditions and wages and against neoliberalism. Thus, it is apparent to us that
support for immigrant workers is not only just, it is also in the self-interest
of most US citizens and documented immigrants.
Other movements
But what about support for movements in other nations?
Why should documented US workers care about them? Justice is again one reason,
as the horrendous conditions against which people rebel are conditions created
in large part by the US government. Self-interest is another: if living
conditions were better in Latin
America and the Caribbean, people would not be compelled to move to the US. If corporations could not undermine US wages by
employing lower-waged workers in Latin
America, then US workers
have a better chance of stopping their decline in living. And if worker people
are to establish a world of shared well-being instead of exploitation, it will
require unity across national borders.
Across
Latin America and in the Caribbean, a variety
of movements and struggles are gaining strength. One form of the struggles has
been the election of new governments. Some that are supposed to represent and
be responsive to working/low-income/indigenous people appear not to be so
(e.g., Lula in Brazil); some seem now to be (Chavez in Venezuela); while in other cases it is too early to tell (Evo
Morales in Bolivia; Preval in Haiti).
These
governments deserve explicit support to the degree they practically oppose
neoliberalism and are responsive to and even supportive of the movements. While
the positioning of these governments depends on many factors, the power of the
movements to ensure the governments do their bidding is among the most
important.
That
power of the movements in turn significantly depends on whether the U.S. will be able to organize their destruction via
economic or military means. Here, the willingness and ability of US workers to
support them is essential.
Opposition
by US workers to U.S.-initiated or backed coups should be a matter of basic
principle. Sadly, some activists violated this principle when they excused the
coup in Haiti against Aristide by pointing to Aristide’s purported
flaws. Similarly, the US state has been demonizing Chavez. The point is not
the perfection of Aristide or Chavez, or even whether they reasonably (in the
current world context) support movements; it is whether the most egregious
exploiter, the US, should be free to promote coups. In any event, it is more likely that
governments will actually be responsive to and supportive of movements if they
do not face US intervention. It is the power and growth of the
movements that is most essential, and those movements should not have to fight
US coups or military intervention.
To
the extent the movements’ power produces improved conditions for the people,
those people will be less compelled to flee to another nation and less
vulnerable to super-exploitation in their home nations. Both results are
beneficial to the workers, documented and undocumented, in the US.
In
addition, it is essential to oppose initiatives such as the Free Trade Act of
the Americas (FTAA) and to oppose U.S. military involvement (advisors in Colombia; the School of the Americas military training program). These are tasks of the
movements in both Latin
America and in the US. Stopping such initiatives increases the likelihood
of movement success and of not allowing governments to betray them.
But
based on historical experience and current facts, the US government will not peacefully allow the movements to
eliminate neoliberalism and establish new economic and social relations. The US anti-war movement must develop now the capacity to
resolutely oppose covert and overt US operations in Latin America.
But
the US anti-war movement has lacked power and a successful
strategy. Bush simply ignored massive demonstrations, while voters in 2004 had
the choice of two pro-war candidates. The rising power of the immigrant
movements, expressed in the strikes and boycotts of MayDay as well as the
student walkouts, demonstrations and boycotts of the previous month, may signal
the capacity of movements in the US to take far more powerful actions than has
been possible for many years.
The
repressive laws ostensibly designed to combat “terrorism” will be used against
those in the US who support the movements in Latin America, as well as the immigrant movements within the US. Thus, all those who oppose the PATRIOT act and
similar laws and who support civil liberties should support the immigrant
movement and the movements in Latin
America, for the power of
those movements will make it harder for repression in the name of
“anti-terrorism” to succeed. On the other hand, the power of the immigrant
movements and the movements in Latin
America strengthen the
capacity to retract repressive legislation.
Thus,
the anti-war and anti-globalization movements must be pro-immigrant in the U.S. as well as against economic and military imperialism
in Latin America and the Caribbean. They must
support the movements of workers across the continents, indeed across the
world, for real peace and prosperity. Only then will forced migration end.
Conclusion
The rebellion of Latin American workers in Latin America and immigrants in the US is radically challenging neoliberalism's pillars
(regardless of the often soft and even pro-US rhetoric of some components of
that movement). The question is whether we “American” workers in the US of
America will join them. If we do, then we will begin to liberate ourselves from
the demoralization of living in the worst of all possible worlds for workers.
If we do not, then we will lose the opportunity to do justice and act in our own interest. This is a
rare historical moment. To fail and be stuck in this worst of all possible
positions will prove to be a hell on earth for us here in the US. So on May Day and after, let us join together,
documented and undocumented, stop our work and our buying, go into the streets
and escape our earthly damnation. Let us also join together with the anti-war
movement this May Day and after to stop US aggression throughout the world, a major source of
planetary forced migration. Let us
unite, because that truly is both just and in the self-interest of all working
people.
BASTA YA...Si Se
PUEDE...
* This was written by some members and friends of
Midnight Notes (www.midnightnotes.org).
We have written it for MayDay 2006 but for after that day as well. It is a
statement that comes at the start of our investigations of these multiple
movements, and early in the unfolding of these struggles, and represents
therefore simply a partial first draft. We welcome comments sent to midnotes@aol.com.