Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 1, 2007
There’s a Mexican Under Your Bed

by Slothrop

As expected, the batch of boneheaded bills on immigration was trounced this
week. Instead of reform to provide millions of undocumented workers a place to
truly call a home (rather like the rest of us) businesses will push for
accommodations on hiring immigrants, and Tom Tancredo will get his fence and a
passel full of stinking badges to "enforce" what passes as
immigration.

But the debate will continue as "illegals" remain and arrive
for permanent membership in America’s lumpen proletariat.

Disabusing the
rhetoric of the "debate" isn’t easy. According to the virtual rightwing book of
commonplaces the "illegal" immigration "crisis" will destroy America. If you’re
a knucklehead you have to know and repeat, to whomever is unfortunate to listen,
that illegals–and god only knows the millions of potentially "amnestied"
immigrants–will destroy America’s social services, healthcare and income
subsidy programs, economy and culture. The Mexican is undermining the American
Dream.

This is hardly limited to circulation among rightwing
knuckleheads. Looking for votes, few politicians would risk contravention of a
master trope. And to be sure, the god narrative featuring Mexican immigrants
gnawing at American prosperity is good for capital. 

Breaching this wall
of false consciousness isn’t easy, but it helps to be armed with a few quick
facts to disarm the depthless stupidity of the reigning discourse on illegal
immigration:

Myth #1: The Mexican under my bed will take away more than
give to America’s economy.

Nope. Study after study shows that illegals
contribute to economic productivity and profits. And the best support for this
comes from bourgeois economists who seldom pass up an opportunity to praise the
efficient maintenance of a reserve army of service workers. Support of this is
provided by the increase in productivity of efficiently employed workers. The
so-called immigration surplus, captured by employers as added productivity is
small, but positive (about .4 of GDP in 2004). George J. Borjas, Heaven’s Door:
Immigration Policy and the American Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1999); see also,
Hanson.

Even when considering skill differentials between immigrant and
native labor, immigration both legal and illegal is a plus for the
economy.

To the extent research like The Center for Immigration
Studies
honestly interprets a "drain" on the economy by illegal and possibly
"amnestied" immigrants, the upshot is that any successful integration of persons
requires an improvement of prevailing policies of education, healthcare, and
taxation. It is not the fault of illegal workers, or any workers for that
matter, that the principle social pathology of poverty remains inadequately
addressed in theory and in practice. To the extent persons are condemned to
penury and public subsidy is the result of structural imperatives of capitalist
accumulation solved by greater equity in the distribution of
resources.

Myth #2: The Mexican under my bed is destroying wages because
he’ll work for almost nothing.

Nope. First, illegal competition for jobs
no doubt reduces the wage-rate. But the amount is negligible at best, and indeed
impossible to accurately assess. Even the rightwing maven of immigrant labor
economics, George Borjas, must lump all immigrant labor together to limn a
national picture of wage-effects. And his more recent
projection
is around a 3.5% decline in wages among low-skilled native
workers. While immigration might have a downward pressure on menial wages, the
wage gap between dropouts and highschool graduates has remained constant for
nearly 30 years.

Secondly, the downward pressure on wages is not a choice
made by individual workers. All workers seek to rationally maximize welfare by
seeking higher wages. The problem is the declining solidarity of all workers to
confront capital, and the failure of labor to extract a larger share of the
national product. The wage-labor contract is the locus of class-war, regardless
of ambiguous and arbitrarily assigned "documentation" of the status of
individual workers. This would not change even if no Mexicans remained to
destroy America.

Myth #3: The Mexican under my bed is a parasite on the
healthcare "system."

Nope. A recent Rand study using excellent survey
data from Los Angeles found that foreign-born and especially illegal persons
spend far less, and utilize far fewer public subsidies, on healthcare.
Immigrants And The Cost Of Medical Care.  By: Goldman, Dana P.; Smith, James P.;
Sood, Neeraj. Health Affairs, Nov/Dec2006, Vol. 25 Issue 6, p1700-1711. Elsewhere,
researchers
accumulate more and more evidence suggesting quite low-rates of healthcare
consumption among illegal/legal immigrants. There is no shortage of studies
concluding the same. And as for the revolting slander repeated on knucklehead
radio that Mexican women illegally enter the US to conceive "anchor babies" in
order to win cash subsidies, nothing could be less
true
.

In any case, the "system" is in undeniable crisis owing to the
rationing of care by tenuously market-oriented competition, and the confiscation
of wealth by the capitalist class assured by the sanction of law. Pharma, HMOs,
insurance companies are the beneficiaries of this massively fraudulent transfer
of wealth, not "illegal immigration."

Myth #4: Isn’t the Mexican under
my bed a drug-snorting father-rapist?

Nope. Undocumented workers are not
more likely to be incarcerated or criminals. Many knuckleheads will offer FAIR(!)
research to argue otherwise. Disingenuously, FAIR correlates the adult
populations in and out of prison to reveal higher criminality among illegals. If
FAIR had fairly compared low-income non-incarcerated with incarcerated
undocumented males who are of course poor, the claim of the report could not be
supported. A more accurate assessment of crime and immigration comes from the American Immigration
Law Foundation
which shows that foreign-born high-school dropouts are
incarcerated at far lower rates than the corresponding native
population.

It is hardly surprising that low-income workers–all of whom
are forced to accept dismally low-paying jobs without benefits–sometimes commit
crimes.

Other "myths" including "problems" of cultural assimilation,
language acquisition, low-IQ, "reconquista" etc. are pursuits of implicit racism
deserving no response.

As for the Mexican under your bed, strike up a
conversation in poor Spanish, repeating the phrase: Ya se puede!

Comments

The problem is the declining solidarity of all workers to confront capital…
the lumpen do believe it is everyman for himself and belief is as much of the problem as hyper-individualism
I actually enjoyed the reading of this one 😉

Posted by: jcairo | Jul 1 2007 12:47 utc | 1

Good work slothrop.

Posted by: beq | Jul 1 2007 12:51 utc | 2

Whoa… slothrop can write so that ordinary people can understand him. Who knew?
Waves of immigration is, and always has been, a symptom of conflict somewhere else on the globe. But Americans are so totally solipsistic that they can only see events as it effects them (Gee, a lot of soldiers seem to be dying in Iraq; this isn’t good).
The problem with immigration is not a moral one: immigrants are not “good” or “bad,” per say; they simply are.
Past waves of immigration have been based upon localized conflict, income disparity, or environmental collapse: Swedes, Poles, Italians, Irish, Jews, Hmong, etc. Eventually the conditions causing migration end, or the human suffering balances out, and the wave ends.
The problem with this cycle of immigration, which makes it different from all past cycles, is that it is a vicious cycle. America has, in the past few years, become a net importer of food. This has caused the evil triplets (ADM, Cargill, and Monsanto) to spread their GM encrusted tentacles out throughout South and Central America producing export-oriented “mystery” food for US consumption. This has pushed even more peasants off their land causing more immigration. Which has only accelerated the process.
The logical conclusion of all this, as the elites have hinted at, is one vast neo-liberal, North American, “Free Trade” zone of vast teeming slums and ecological dead zones, punctuated by the occasional verdant gated community.
The answer, in addition to education and political action, is relocalizing production — particularly organic agriculture, and lessening population pressure below the sustainable carrying point.
In short, immigration is a sign that a localized system has become unsustainable. The answer is to address those problems which are causing the unsustainability, both in the US and abroad, in a humane and ecologically sustainable fashion.
Unfortunately, this approach does not lead to ever greater corporate control and profits, nor does it drive the sheeple towards fear-based electoral voting (which always leads to greater corporate control). So, I guess that it is not a viable solution.

Posted by: Bob M. | Jul 1 2007 13:44 utc | 3

Bob M’s conclusion that the conditions causing emigration need to be addressed rather than relocating the people affected by those conditions is certainly not unique to the US and Mexico. Europe has its fair share of immigrants from the Balkans and Africa seeking a better life and most of the bad stuff going down in Darfur is caused by hungry people seeking food.
Many people actually do try to address these issues. Peace Corp volunteers have genuinely tried to help people less fortunate than themselves. I would dare say that even some church organizations have done genuinely good things in so called third world nations. However, a lot of those good things are easily offset by a multinational with a weak bottom line. CEOs can’t afford to be good neighbors if they miss more than one quarter’s forecast. The US business model does not allow for long range planning and if profits are down because of spending on R&D the Chairman will quickly replace the irresponsible executive officer…..after all, he must respond to the shareholders. So, sound environmental practices are thrown out in favor of something cheaper, if the locals get out of line the Marines can be called in to slap them down, no consideration is given to anything past the next quarter.
As for the failed legislation, I am quite happy about that. we were not going to get any good laws out of it anyway. some bad things that were tossed around such as the establishment of a guest worker program is absolutely abhorrent to me…seems more like a barely disguised return to indentured servants and/or slaves. I have always maintained that the “problem” could be solved in a matter of days if there was a serious crackdown on the employers of these undocumented workers. Start putting some farmers or building contractors in prison for hiring illegals and watch what happens. There would be much howling from the business community and consumers would soon join in when their patios would cost more to build and the strawberries would be so much more expensive. But if there was the intestinal fortitude to follow through, the aliens would soon pack up and return to their homes. It is harsh but I think the only possible way to fix it, if it needs fixing at all.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jul 1 2007 15:10 utc | 4

Re, the question of reducing the factors which promote the desire to emigrate:
I have heard, on Danish radio, I think, that if the difference in income between two countries is less than 1 to 4 (we’re talking buying power with what the average joe has at the end of the day) if the diff is 1 to 4 or less, people prefer to stay at home — they don’t emigrate.
Seems kind of obvious. Why would anybody leave the land they had lived on for generations sometimes to go to the slums and barrios of the megacity in the first place, or emigrate to gringoland if conditions on the farm and the slums weren’t hopless, rotten and unbearable.

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Jul 1 2007 15:27 utc | 5

france’s and europe’s “problems” we/ immigration are more contentious and explosive than here.
but the numbers here are astounding. perhaps 40% of immigrants are undocumented. and the popular solution here is deport them all. now, that would be divisive, to say the least.

Posted by: slothrop | Jul 1 2007 15:37 utc | 6

Slothrop seems to have missed the one about immigrants being lepers with TB (per CNN’s Dobbs and Fox’s O’rilley)

Posted by: SimplyLurking | Jul 1 2007 15:45 utc | 7

for european immigration the typical figure is around a half-million per year.

Posted by: slothrop | Jul 1 2007 15:48 utc | 8

There was a scene from martin Scorcse’s “Gangs of New York” in which a “Native” New Yorker remarks about the Irish debarking at Ellis Island in 1864: “The Irish will do a job for a nickel that a nigger would do for a dime a white man used to get a quarter for!”.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jul 1 2007 15:58 utc | 9

Congress has approved the Iraqi Repatriation Bill, providing
resettlement funds and green cards for Iraqi corroborators
once Iraq falls, like US did for Vietnamese and Cambodians.
US military bases are building troop repatriation barracks and
Iraqi immigrant camps, like there’s no tomorrow.
And an anecdote from S.Cal., everywhere surrounding the gated
communities of Orange, Ollie North’s and Dmitri Negroponte’s
former El Salvadorian gangs running Little Miami operations.
Try to imagine post-Iraq US gang activities, to be blamed on
“El Norte” immigration, because “Free Trade” demands “Slave (criminalizing follow-the-money free immigration) Labor”.
“The logical conclusion of all this, as the elites have hinted
at, is one vast Neo-Liberal, North American, “Free Trade”
zone of vast teeming slums and ecological dead zones,
punctuated by the occasional verdant gated community.”
Global elites’ Capitalism by design a Vampiroyal jackboot,
sucking (precious because irreplaceable) estate out of
American’s pockets, herding them into condo concentration
camps, landlords and lenders and ‘leaders’ feeding on US
as we become eventual sharecrop tenants in our own land.
Capitalism combined with a Neo-Con ideology of Nationals
Patriotism against a perpetual and imaginary Enemy, is the
proven recipe for National Socialism, N.A.Z.I.’ism. Unlike
past Freedoms, there’s no Allied liberation to save US from
the Neo-Zi’s, no Mao to overthrow the KMT. We are alone,
TV-isolated videots, steroid-rage cattle, goyem
gone mad, free-range bison becoming, by Neo-Zi design,
little more than feed-lot hamsters, spinning our little Net
wheels furiously, but to no effect, like the inexorable
destructive progression of leukemia, Parkinson’s or AIDS.
Its over, it’s over
Now we’re over
It’s Neo-Zi’s turn
Now it’s over
The game run wild, sorry
Its over, it’s over
Now we’re over
It’s Neo-Zi’s turn
Now it’s over
The game run wild, sorry
(with apologies to Kurupt)
Our sole path to Freedom left is to CUT OFF THEIR TAX BLEED!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

Posted by: Chow EnLie | Jul 1 2007 17:12 utc | 10

Essentially, the majority wants to keep the status quo. They want to vilify and blame illegals, but keep them coming in, though they don’t say that.
Some may genuinely be hankering after a past America, with more white faces and an easier, settled, way of life, perceived as ‘fairer’, ‘more traditional’, etc. (Setting black presence aside…)
California produces a huge slice of the US’ agricultural products. 90% of the workers are Mexicans; 60% of these illegals. (I have read.)
Measures such as walls, punishments, deportation, serve only to further stigmatize, threaten, frighten, control. That is their purpose, because they are not just symbolic sops to racists, and don’t diminish immigration at all, just make it more hazardous and terrifying. Exploitation on its own is not enough, it has to be accompanied with racism and sadism.
The principle that labor should be as mobile as capital has always been applied by the US, and in varying degrees by e.g. Great Britain (Israel has an open borders policy as well, with the particular restrictions they apply), all of which are experiencing a sort of hate backlash, not seen in other high immigration places (Canada, Switzerland, Spain, to mention only OECD examples) though of course one could argue about that endlessly.
Naturally Sarkozy is doing the punitive bit, taking on the US/GB attitudes and posturing, scandal mongering, showing he is cracking down, pandering to the elderly that elected him, the rabid right wingers, Le Pen voters who switched to him, etc. etc. though on the ground nothing will change. It will be hot air, drama, hype, etc. Very nefarious, very stupid, possibly just a strategy, in fine, to divide society and increase ethnic strife, hate of Arabs and Blacks, etc.

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 1 2007 19:30 utc | 11

Thank you for a good post Slothrop. And thanks also, as others have noted, for the extra effort in grammar and punctuation. It does make for easier reading.
I am not familiar enough with the legislation to offer a comment one way or the other on that. Off hand, I never considered immigration to be a major problem, and there are many Mexican immigrants here in Eastern North Carolina. I believe immigration became a hot issue when “conservative” talk radio could no longer defend the disaster in Iraq and it was a quick issue to not only deflect the Iraq fiasco, but also insulate the talk radio hosts from President Bush as Bush’s ratings fell through the roof.
And I agree with Bob M. on his basic premise that the problems causing immigration need to be addressed. But I disagree that simply localizing production to meet localized populations is a proper answer. Transportation is not that great a burden. The burden, as was pointed out by many on this thread, is corporate greed. Bob M.’s mention of the “evil triplets” was right on target. People should not be losing their small farms and homes to become economic slaves of large corporations. And one doesn’t need to be a peasant in a third world to loose your land because of corporate greed. As Michael Moore illustrates so well in his new movie “Sicko”, payments going for a medical emergency instead of being used to pay a home mortgage is now the #1 cause of people losing their homes in the United States. This is a modern phenomenon here in the U.S. And yet, looking on a global view, many other causes of such a misfortune are even more significant. Besides health care or food production, one can look at almost any commodity or service, from oil to diamonds to mercenary armies, and give bleak examples of personal devastation due to corporate dominance.

Posted by: Rick | Jul 2 2007 2:24 utc | 12

I just saw a depressing news report about thousands of farmers in India who have committed suicide, after facing financial ruin due to falling prices for their cotton crop. Monsanto (one of the evil triplets) sold many of them GM cotton seeds, which were aggressively advertised to give dramatic increases in yields. Many of the farmers who were financially ruined were those who had invested in these seeds. The seeds were supposed to incorporate an insecticide barrier against pests; but farmers learned later that they would have to come back to the seed store, to spend further sums on chemicals to protect the cotton from a certain kind of blight.
Indian film stars endorsed the product and many farmers were seduced by the slick ad campaign. Farmers who didn’t look closely at the fine print were also to learn too late that the GM cotton would only survive and reach its high yield if it received much more water than the native plants were accustomed to. And so farmers who had no access to irrigated fields or were caught in drought had to watch their crop shrivel and die.

Posted by: Copeland | Jul 2 2007 4:33 utc | 13

I cannot imagine that there is the political will in America to build and maintain an impermeable physical barrier on its border or to create a bureaucratic apparatus to regulate access to the USA across the barrier.
Until then, we will see nothing other than political posturing.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jul 2 2007 6:05 utc | 14

as long as the political use value of hating mexicans/border security is in effect….nothing will actually be done.
mobilizing the vox populi is far more important than eliminating illegal labor. the latter exists for a reason, and demonstrates a key feature of capitalist economics: necessity.
when ground beef is 12 dollars a pound since there aren’t illegals in the slaughterhouse, the moralists and nationalists will see. but, it won’t ever get to that. the people who really run “the economy” and “the law” are those who like their tiramisu too much to live without cheap illegal labor.

Posted by: Sam Curtis | Jul 4 2007 10:21 utc | 15