DES MOINES, IA - Legislative Democrats today are calling for steps to curb illegal immigration by holding corporate executives and employees accountable for hiring undocumented workers in Iowa.

A proposal backed by Democrats in the House and Senate seeks to impose fines and possible jail time for corporate leaders engage in unfair business practices aimed at exploiting cheap labor.

The legislative package also would outlaw human trafficking, provide whistle-blower protections to employees who expose the hiring of undocumented workers, and establish an employer accountability bureau in the Iowa Attorney General's office to probe companies suspected of hiring undocumented workers.

Legislative Democrats also are seeking to shut off state assistance, economic development grants or tax cuts to corporations proven to have hired illegal, undocumented workers.

Democrats are racist bastards to.

This must be the fringe elements of the party. If the party starts doing this our movement is in trouble.

I must give credit where credit is do, the democrats are finally doing the right thing by penalizing the corporations and private businesses that choose to engage in illegal hiring. As a country we must encourage legal and fair immigration.

>>illegal immigration<<

...it even sounds funny, doesn't it? "illegal" immigration. Hmm.

Why in the hell should immigration be illegal? If you're not carrying in a dirty bomb, I say, "welcome! C'mon in."

>>If the party starts doing this our movement is in trouble.<<

If your movement is that party, I'd say you're already in trouble.

sh(A)ne

The 1986 immigration reform law also had provisions to fine the employers.

To find out what happened to that, see Hoffman Plastics. The Supreme Court ruled that a worker who was laid off could have his immigration status checked upon return. If he was not documented, then, he could be fired without back pay.

So, what Hoffman did, was hire someone without papers, or fake ones. Then, when the worker started talking union, they laid him off. When they started him on again, they checked his status, found it wasn't right, and then fired him without back pay.

The Supreme Court basically made it *more* cost effective to hire undocumented workers, because, not only can you get them deported, you can also avoid paying them for a couple weeks of work when you do it!

Notably, it was the conservative judges who made this decision. They used the "MM/SOS" argument of "well, he wasn't supposed to be working here, so too bad."

They sided with the employer, basically letting them off the hook. They reinforced the separation of documented from undocumented workers, creating two classes of workers.

it's not new they backed prop 187. but the proggressive part of the demo are not though.

El Chivo wrote Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 11:21 PM

> it's not new they backed prop 187. but
> the proggressive part of the demo are not
> though

I'm amused that people like Barbara Coe, Jim Gilchrist, and
the Minutemen really think that the Democratic Party is
"pro-illegal alien" given that politicians from
that party historically have led the way in introducing,
supporting, or pushing for some of the most vile,
reactionary, anti-immigrant laws currently on the
books at the state and federal level.

In 1994, California Democrats were the ones who
pushed for legislation to strip undocumented workers
of the right to obtain a driver's license. If my memory
serves me correctly, I believe it was State
Senator Charles Calderon, a leading member of
the "Latino Caucus," who introduced that bill in
Sacramento.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed legislation that
federalized parts of Proposition 187, made "legal
immigrants" ineligible for certain types of benefits,
and opened the door to having local police enforce
federal immigration law. Costa Mesa Mayor Allan
Mansoor couldn't do what he's doing right now without
Clinton's help.

In 1997, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez actively
lobbied the Republicans in Congress to help fund the
stationing of INS agents in the Anaheim City jail.
Her predecessor, Congressman Bob K. Dornan, a
Republican, did not support the program. The
Congresswoman also voted in favor of a resolution
that authorized the deployment of 10,000 U.S.
troops along the U.S./Mexico border.

Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein have
been strong supporters of militarizing the U.S./Mexico
border (e.g., Operation Gatekeeper, etc) and
actually attacked Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
last year for being weak on "illegal immigration" for
supporting a bipartisan "guest worker program" going
through Congress.

Senator Joseph Lieberman was the one who introduced
legislation to establish a Department of Homeland
Security -- thus merge the INS with Customs and
other agencies -- months before the Twin Towers in
New York City were knocked down on the morning of
September 11, 2001. He -- along with Senator John
Kerry -- was a strong supporter of the anti-immigrant "USA
Patriot Act."

Although Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa criticized the
Minutemen for being a bunch of amateurs, he's advocated
increasing funding for border patrol operations. In
other words, Villaraigosa doesn't want senior citizens
with binoculars patrolling the U.S./Mexico border; he
wants "professionals" armed with machine guns,
attack dogs, helicopters, and armored vehicles to
protect us from people coming here to work!

Sincerely,

Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com

It's nice to hear that some members of the party of Alger Hiss and Franklin Delano Rosenfeld finally figured out that they are Americans and that their duties are to the continued existence of America and not third world undesirables that will drag the USA down to the level of the third world cess pool from which these undesirables come.

Mexicans are nothing but vermin. They have no ability to create anything worthwhile. They already have their own country....IT'S CALLED MEXICO. Look at what a mess they have made of their own country...a country based on their "rich culture". If Mexican "culture" is so rich, why do millions of citizens of the country on which it is based dream of escaping it and coming to the USA, a society created by dirty rotten white racists whom they profess to hate?

No one on this pathetic site will answer any of these questions. Just more drum beating about "racism."

Great cultures produce great countries. Pathetic, dysfunctional cultures produce pathetic, dysfunctional countries...like Mexico.

I think you should refrain from calling people racists after this remark "Mexicans are nothing but vermin" If you look into a mirror you might see the real racist.

This being said, the issue of illegal immigration crosses party lines. I don't see where it makes any difference what party someone is from. This issue will never be resolved on boards such as this and I doubt anyone would be swayed by the debate that appears hear.

You stated:

"Why in the hell should immigration be illegal? If you're not carrying in a dirty bomb, I say, "welcome! C'mon in."

I do have one question, If someone enters the country from the southern border (which for the most part is a 3 strand barbed wire fence) and they do not get caught, how would you know if they had a dirty bomb?

It appears that tons of drugs can get smuggled across the border, what would prevent a few dirty bombs from being smuggled?

Hey Confused,

>>If someone enters the country from the southern border (which for the most part is a 3 strand barbed wire fence) and they do not get caught, how would you know if they had a dirty bomb?<<

It's a good point.

Personally, I don't have much use for borders myself. I don't see any reason for them to exist -- the people on one side are just as human as the people on the other. My picked-up-on-the-job-as-a-line-cook kitchen Spanish may not get me very far in communicating with the people on the other side of that barbed wire, but we're people just the same. I don't see any reason to keep them out.

In a world without borders, there wouldn't be much threat of people sneaking around with big bombs (dirty ones or clean ones). Those are really only good for beating up on nations. If you're pissed as a group of people -- say, the people on the next block over, who partied too loudly last night, a dirty bomb is usually overkill, if you'll pardon the phrase.

Sure, there will be crazies who do crazy things, but people are generally less-antagonistic when they're acting as individuals, rather than as nations -- the ultimate instigators of the mob mentality.

Having said that, I also realize that my little utopia world is a long way from where we are now. Since we _do_ have borders, and since we've done a pretty good job as a nation pissing off most of the rest of the world; I really don't have a problem with the idea of putting up a great big wall all the way across both borders -- just as long as there are plenty of places for peaceful people to cross freely. Yeah, sure, make crossing controlled. I won't argue with that too much. Just make sure it's just the threats we're keeping out, while we're letting everyone else pass freely.

sh(A)ne

America is not a white culture. Stop believing your fantasy.

Well at least you are reasonable and have a grip on reality. I do have an issue with complete open borders.

We have enough criminals in this country as it is. I don't think we need to freely alow criminals from other countries nor those fleeing justice from other countries into the U.S.. So checks are needed to limit this element.

I also think infustructure and enviromental concerns need to be addressed. As it is now, developement of housing is encroaching on areas that really should be left to wildlife. Overcrowding in our schools need to be addressed and the transpotation system is overwhelmed. Sewage treatment plants are overburdened and allowing an unregulated amount of citizens from other nations to freely come and go will only compound the problem.

Limits on immigration need to be accessed. The U.S. does not have unlimited resources nor can it generate the tax revenue needed in a short period of time to fix the infrustructure to accomodate mass migration.

Many believe immigration is only a benefit to this country but they fail to recognize the burdens that goes with the benefits. The U.S. is really unprepaired for any open border policy that allows free movement across its borders. Many will argue this however, society on a whole will only benefit if it can sustain its viability.

Ignorance of some people is just amazing.

I've learned that there are some people you simply can't reason with, so...

...why bother? Just a reminder, though: We're only three years from Lamb & Lynx' 18th birthday, and you know what that means: Their first porn! Hell yeah! I'm thinking it'll be something along the lines of, _Prussian Black & Blue: An S&M Tale_, or something like that.

I'll be first in line. See y'a there!

sh(A)ne
your friendly neighborhood jew bastard anarcho-capitalist love child

Sure, again, you're right -- we aren't prepared for an open-border policy today. I'm the first to admit that. But I'd say that the _reason_ we aren't ready is precisely because we're thinking of many (or all) the things you mentioned as being services that can only be provided by taxpayers & the state.

The only way an open-border system could work is if the bulk (or all) of the burdensome taxpayer-funded services you mentioned were no longer an issue for taxpayers. Of course we can't expect citizens to cover the costs generated by non-tax-paying non-citizens pouring in. The only fair & workable way for an open border system to work is for these services to be provided in the same way we'd expect other needs to be met -- by the functioning of the free(ish)-market. (Notice that we aren't concerned about the strain migrants would put on the service industry, for instance. We're only worried about how our less-efficient public services will adjust.)

>>I also think infustructure and enviromental concerns need to be addressed.<<

I think I've made my view clear on the infrastructure part, but the environmental issues are certainly something to be concerned about. Again, I'm a free-market capitalist, so I'll bet you've guessed that I'm going to say that property rights are the answer here. (You'd be right ;)

Ownership is the surest way to promote stewardship. Groups like the Nature Concervancy -- which, btw, is the world's largest conservation group -- has done an excellent job of realizing & acting on this. They use donated funds to buy up lands that need protecting...and never letting it go. If the environmentalists owned all the wetlands, we wouldn't have to worry about them being developed! Of course, now that government can "eminent domain" anything that isn't being developed to produce tax revenue, that's a problem; and that's something we need to address as well; but generally, putting precious things under the control of people who care about them, is far better than putting them under the control of the majority will. I don't trust the republicans with the forests. I'd prefer the Nature Concervancy & its private land-owning partners to take care of them.

sh(A)ne

how about the European Union? it's some kind of a open border policy and exchange. sure it can work between border nations in North America. the E.U. working for the nation who signed on.

There are open borders between the states.

It doesn't seem like a big deal, but, before the states were united (and a while after) each state was like it's own little nation. Each state had its own currency, too.

States still have their own laws, and independent governments.

An open border across North America, whether legal or not, would mean that different organizations, government or not, would communicate with each other, to deal with the people who might cross it, exiting one jurisdiction and entering another. It would mean that if someone's running from the law, they can't do it in Mexico or Canada, for one. And vice versa, because cops could keep chasing you across the border for a while.

It also means that your Ralph's club card would work in all three areas, monitoring our condom and liquor purchases.

It would probably lead to a unified currency, and eventually, more uniform laws. In the case of the US Mexico border, it's more likely that US legal tradition would alter Mexican laws than the other way around, because the US is more influential.

Walling the border is not "anarchist".

Walls are a tool of segregation, to separate people from each other. A border wall is one of the boldest, and most offensive, expressions of state power possible.

Re: Walling the border is not "anarchist"

Yes, I know that. Like I said, I understand the argument for it, being that we currently do have a government. I'd much rather see that change.

John, you really don't need to question my credentials. I promise you that I get nothing good out of calling myself an anarchist in public.

sh(A)ne

Of course you get something good from putting that (A) in your name.

You're trying to get on the good side of anarchists who visit the IMC, to find people within the movement sympathetic to a capitalist perspective.

>>Of course you get something good from putting that (A) in your name....You're trying to get on the good side of anarchists who visit the IMC, to find people within the movement sympathetic to a capitalist perspective.<<

;) Actually, you're one of the few people who've caught on to the "(A)" thing. (I think it looks pretty obvious, but most people -- even anarchists -- just don't seem to get it.)

No, I started signing my name that way primarily as a way of "dispelling the myths" about anarchists being (1) violent and (2) anti-capitalist, among the more mainstream crowd. The Seattle protests & onward have given my brand of anarchists a bad name...and I have a real passion for playing the iconoclast. ;) (My current goal being to dispell the belief that pit-bulls & german shephards are inherently evil, among those that are pushing for breed-specific legislation all over the place. Fools. They'll all get theirs from a pissed-off cocker-spaniel one day.)

I think I make it pretty clear from the start that I'm a capitalist, though. The (A) doesn't get me very far -- anarchists usually just tune out anyone on the anarchocapitalist end of the spectrum. You'd be surprised by how many people don't understand that pro-property anarchists have been around since the beginning of the movement. They just deny our existence. I wouldn't get anywhere trying to "fool" them, even if I wanted to.

sh(A)ne

There is no connection between so-called anarcho-capitalism and anarchism. It's a movement being created after the fact, initiated by Murray Rothbard in the 1950s.

Most anarchists I've met, including myself, were "converts" from more authoritarian strains of socialism or communism, "converts" from a theological, or humanitarian pacifist perspective, or "converts" from capitalistic libertarianism. Anarchist projects are essentially communistic in form, but small scale communism, not large scale (aka Bolshevist) communism.

The argument that capitalism and anarchism are compatible is, at best, a rhetorical game. Capitalism inherently empowers owners over other people (workers), and creates hierarchies of power. If extended, that power leads to violence. Thus, most all anarchies oppose Private Property (though there are anarchies that also oppose collectivization of the products of labor).

The rhetoric of anarcho-capitalism exists, partly, because there's a desire for a reduction in the size of government, especially in the post-1950s era. One group opposing government are the large corporations. (Thus, we have think tanks like the Cato Institute, which generates the propaganda that Shane is emitting.)

(Here comes my pet theory.)

I believe the other group opposing growth in government are white people, specifically white males. That's the typical demographic for a member of the Libertarian Party (the leading anti-state capitalist group in America).

I believe this is directly related to reforms of the 1950s and later that removed discrimination in hiring for government jobs. The civil service tests levelled the playing field for government jobs, which, until then, were sometimes given out as rewards for political favors. Government jobs used to be mostly for whites, until the civil service tests. Since then, the government has been a common way that people of color enter the white collar workforce.

Since these reforms, the rage against the government from white people has only increased. It reached its zenith (or do I mean nadir), in my opinion, in the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Recently, a racist went on a rampage against postal workers in Goleta. (Also, another racist shot up the Jewish daycare center, and killed a Filipino postal carrier, in the SF Valley.)

How did these murderous situations arise? It was partly due to fair, nonracist hiring standards that eliminated racial preferences for white people. It was partly due to the buildup of resentment in among white people, against the government, especially against the federal government, which itself has a connection to anti-federalist sentiments arising from the federal elimination of segregation in the South.

Repetitive lesson #2 for the day: Corporations & the state:

>>The rhetoric of anarcho-capitalism exists, partly, because there's a desire for a reduction in the size of government,<<

Yes. Correct. Reduction to non-existence. That's what all anarchism exists to achieve.

>>One group opposing government are the large corporations.<<

So what? What would this prove, if it were true -- that both corporations and anarchists are opposed to government?

The fact is, it isn't true, and I can't figure out why it's so difficult for you to see this: Corporations ARE government entities. They represent the single-largest intrusion by government into the economy. The government sells businesses "corporate licenses", which limit their owners' liability for the actions they take through their business. Without a "corporate license", a business isn't a corporation. Without the government, there aren't any corporate licenses. (Take the next big logical leap on your own.)

Besides, the "large corporations" you're talking about are in fact more likely to support government regulation of the markets. Regulations cost them money, it's true, but more often than not, the cost is offset by the benefit of the barrier of entry into the market created by the regulations.

For instance, if the FCC requires radio stations to purchase a $50,000 license in order to broadcast, that keeps an awful lot of would-be broadcasters priced out of the market. Viacom & Clear Channel certainly aren't complaining about the $50k, because it protects them from would-be competition in the market. This is the way most regulation goes.

>>Thus, we have think tanks like the Cato Institute, which generates the propaganda that Shane is emitting<<

(1) I don't think Cato exists _because_ we have corporations. If it does, you certainly haven't shown this with your "A and B, thus C" syllogism there.

(2) What makes you think that Cato makes my propaganda? I make my own propaganda, damn it! Cato is a public-policy-oriented think-tank. They write stuff targeted for consumption by politicians. I'm an anarchist, working with an apolitical activist group. I don't have much use for public policy.

sh(A)ne

There is no connection between so-called anarcho-capitalism and anarchism. It's a movement being created after the fact, initiated by Murray Rothbard in the 1950s.

Why is it that, every time I post to an indymedia site, I wind up having to give people a lesson in the history of anarchy?! Why, for once, can't people actually read & study the history of the theories they're advocating, instead of skimming the heavily-biased & inaccurate articles on infoshop.org? The literature is out there -- the original texts aren't hard to get your hands on, so I don't think that's the problem.

Is it really that offensive to people to recognize that anarchism comes in different flavors -- some of which are "capitalist"?! I think you guys need to get out every once in a while & exercise your dogma.



Okay, one more time. First, some terms:

The structure of "Capitalism" involves nothing more than the existence of property rights, which, I'll argue, can and do exist apart from government; and the absence of artificial restrictions on trade, which, it would seem clear, follows from an absence of government. No other institutions or ideas are necessary for a free-market capitalist economy.

Property rights (including "self-ownership") + free-trade = capitalism.

To define Anarchism, I'll defer to Peter Kropotkin – an early and major anarchist theorist, and an anti-capitalist (so it's okay for you to believe him):

(From Kropotkin's 1910 article, "Anarchism", written for the Encyclopaedia Britannica)

[Anarchism is] the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary - as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.

You'll see that there is nothing anti-property, and nothing restrictive of economic (or any) freedom in this deffinition; and I doubt you'll find anyone who would consider Kropotkin to be less-than-qualified to define Anarchism. Thus, anarchism is not inherently anti-capitalist; though it certainly doesn't (on the surface) seem to prevent its followers from proposing theories of anarchy that are.

While it's true that the term "anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new one (as is "libertarianism" and "progressivism"), and was likely coined by Rothbard as you stated; the _idea_ of anarcho-capitalism have been around since the first conception of "anarchy" as a theory of social order. The word "anarchism" was used previous to this, to describe a specific set of economic beliefs; but its first use as a description for a society without government (as defined above) is credited to Pierre Proudhon, who, despite his often mis-quoted, "property is theft", was in favor of property rights and free trade. (He cited "abuse" of property & natural resources as a restriction or limit to the property right, but then so did John Locke; this isn't enough to make either of these men out to be against property rights.)

In other words, the first person to use the term "anarchism" to describe a society without government, was an anarcho-capitalist. Again, I'll defer to Kropotkin to substantiate this:

(ibid.)Proudhon was the first to use, in 1840 (Qu’est-ce que la propriete? first memoir), the name of anarchy with application to the no government state of society...[He] repudiated, as is known, all schemes of communism, according to which mankind would be driven into communistic monasteries or barracks, as also all the schemes of state or state-aided socialism which were advocated by...the collectivists. When he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that ‘Property is theft’, he meant only property in its present, Roman-law, sense of ‘right of use and abuse’; in property-rights on the other hand, understood in the limited sense of "possession", he saw the best protection against the encroachments of the state.

Beyond Proudhon -- and well before Rothbard -- there's a long line of pro-property-rights anarchists. All of the "individualist anarchists" -- such as Max Stirner, Stephen Pearl Andrews, William Grene, Lysander Spooner, and Ben Tucker -- would fall into this category. While I'm not going to sit here and prove that each of their theories are what we'd call "anarcho-capitalism" today (though that would make for a fun paper), I will make the generalized argument that it's pretty hard to be an individualist and have collective ownership of property.

Given that each of the people I've mentioned is an anarchist, and thus wouldn't advocate artificial restrictions on trade; and that they're all supportive of private property, it seems pretty safe to say that they're all what we’d call today, “anarcho-capitalists” -- and therefore that anarcho-capitalism is not some new idea, with no historical connection to anarchist theory.

Besides, even if it were a new idea, would that really make it any less valid?

sh(A)ne

Dear workerbee johnk.
Did you type this?
"Since these reforms, the rage against the government from white people has only increased. It reached its zenith (or do I mean nadir), in my opinion, in the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building"
The OK bombing? This was not the product of some white, government hating, lone nut.
Evidence shows direct federal complicity.
This was government involvement in the most direct way.
These little comparisons you come up with...
Would you mind reading this thread?
The OK Bombing
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/12/142002.php

I'm no expert on it, but I thought it was McVeigh and another guy.  I also assumed that others were involved, but not the government.

I'll read up some more.

-----------
On to the Anarchist hairsplitting and exposure of truth.  As Kropotkin wrote...:


This would imply that private property would not enjoy special protection from the state.  Private property, as it exists today, is state-protected, and state regulated.  Property without the state would collapse into small parcels that people use for home and work.  It would be difficult to impossible to maintain large holdings of rental properties.  Corporations could not exist.

Moreover, Kropotkin's view of anarchism was anti-capitalist.  From the same Britannica article, the next paragraph:


And a few paragraphs down from that, he situates anachism in the left-wing, against capitalism:



Proudhon's position has been in debate, I think, because he wavered on the issue.  He was opposed to private property that extended beyond the home and workplace.  He was born a peasant, and sympathetic to workers who produced things, and argued that the worker owns the products of his labor (rather than the collective owning them).  So, if I create a shoe, then I own it (as long as I pay for the materials and own the tools and rent space).

Proudhon, was in favor of private property limited to that which you use to produce your work, and the products of labor.  That bears no resemblance to private property as we know it.

The current definition of private property extends to the products of the worker's labor.  If I work for a company, I don't own the product of my labor; rather the owner of the company owns it.  That's different from owning the product of your labor because if your productivity increases, you're not paid in proportion to your production.


Incidentally, I don't think Stirner was in favor of property rights, but I'll have to go read him again when I'm in the mood for dramatic prose.  Here's an excerpt from The Ego and It's Own.  It's an anti-capitalist bit from the end that restates the labor theory of value.  He definitely believed that private property was maintained by the state:

I consider Spooner a capitalist, or a small-scale capitalist.  I haven't read him too deeply, but, he seemed to be okay with property.  Tucker, like Proudhon, advocated "possesson," not private property.  I haven't even skimmed Tucker in ages, so I'll refer to Wikipedia, which states that Tucker was opposed to: the money monopoly, the land monopoly, tariffs, and patents.  Contemporary captialism supports all these things, and via organizations like the IMF/WB, extends all four things globally, via the goal of harmonizing laws across countries.

Andrews and Grene are unknown to me.