Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

cesar chavez and illegal immigration

durruti02

love and rage!
from er a Minuteman web site! so if it is not true .. fine!

" .. His success stemmed from the long-term decline in the farm labor supply. According to agricultural economist Philip L. Martin of the University of California, Davis, migrant farm workers in the U.S. numbered 2 million in the 1920s. Eisenhower cracked down on Mexican illegal immigrants, shipping one million home in 1954 alone. The famous 1960 “Harvest of Shame” documentary by CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow inspired liberal Democrats in Congress to abolish the bracero guest-worker program in 1964. The supply of migrant workers dropped to about 200,000, most of them American citizens, making unionization and better contracts feasible—as long as what Marx called “the reserve army of the unemployed” could be bottled up south of the border. The next year, Chavez began his storied organizing campaign.

Growers fought back by busing the reserve army up from Mexico. In 1979, Chavez bitterly testified to Congress:

… "when the farm workers strike and their strike is successful, the employers go to Mexico and have unlimited, unrestricted use of illegal alien strikebreakers to break the strike. And, for over 30 years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has looked the other way and assisted in the strikebreaking. I do not remember one single instance in 30 years where the Immigration service has removed strikebreakers. … The employers use professional smugglers to recruit and transport human contraband across the Mexican border for the specific act of strikebreaking…"

In 1969, Chavez led a march to the Mexican border to protest illegal immigration. Joining him were Sen. Walter Mondale and Martin Luther King’s successor as head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Ralph Abernathy.

The UFW picketed INS offices to demand closure of the border. Chavez also finked on illegal alien scabs to la migra. Columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. reported in the Arizona Republic, “Cesar Chavez, a labor leader intent on protecting union membership, was as effective a surrogate for the INS as ever existed. Indeed, Chavez and the United Farm Workers Union he headed routinely reported, to the INS, for deportation, suspected illegal immigrants who served as strikebreakers or refused to unionize.”
 
it's great to see thats all the so called socialists on here are sooo :rolleyes: interested in trade union organising that they ignore a thread about one of the greatest and most successfull organisers of all time .. too contreverisal eh??
 
durruti02 said:
it's great to see thats all the so called socialists on here are sooo :rolleyes: interested in trade union organising that they ignore a thread about one of the greatest and most successfull organisers of all time .. too contreverisal eh??

durruti dear, they are more interested in the spat between Livingstone and Chavez, Hugo .. which no one in the w/c even noticed .. :D



( like Chavez's model has any relevance to britain .. interesting though it all is .. )
 
durruti02 said:
durruti dear, they are more interested in the spat between Livingstone and Chavez, Hugo .. which no one in the w/c even noticed .. :D
It's more likely that people see who the thread was posted by, raise their eyebrows and think "oh dear". :p
( like Chavez's model has any relevance to britain .. interesting though it all is .. )
But neither does Cesar Chavez's "model". Not for the last 60 years anyway. We don't have a very large soft fruit industry, and no vineyard or citrus industry to speak of, and that's why such massive amounts of cheap labour were needed: all that stuff had to be (and still is) handpicked. Our agricultural sector is much more heavily based on machine-harvestable foodstuffs than California's was or is.
By the time agricultural labour over here started to really organise, their jobs were being mechanised. :(

That doesn't mean Cesar Chavez's achievements aren't a good example, )the man did great work and frightened the shit out of people who needed the shit frightening out of them). Just that they don't "map" directly onto any UK sector.

The stuff you posted is accurate as far as it goes, and Chavez was bang on the money about capital and its' servants looking the other way when it is convenient for them to do so, though I'm pretty sure that most people are pretty aware of the "illegal labour" situation over here, and that strangely enough the Immigration and Nationality Service hardly ever turn up to inspect papers when harvest is taking place.

Odd that, isn't it? :D
 
my god, mother of mary etc etc .. vp agrees with D02 and vice versa :D

(and it is sad if people do go :rolleyes: these are important issues)

yes of course british industry is in no way like what Chavez was dealing with .. though i suspect it becomes more like it by the day ..

as you are obviously aware my point is to show that to cahnge the world people need to gain control of where they work (and live). To Cesar Chavez then it meant here doing these things

tbh i can not agree with working with the state as he seems to have done .. and demonstrating at the border for borders controls seems extreme .. the Rio Grande is of course a Quixote Windmill(?) .. most immigrants just fly/drive over

but if you and i can not agree with these tactics what else can we do??

i think the unions need;

to have a major campaign to bring back the closed shop

to campaign against recruitment agencies and companies who deliberately recruit abroad for low wage ( the demonstrations in ireland re the Irish Ferries dispute were of great interest .. and i understand managed to talk well about the issues without letting racists gain the upper hand)

to talk honestly about the issue for workers instead of pretending it is all about asylum seekers ( who usually do need defending) and improving teh economy and take the lead from John Cruddas ( and er me and TommyB!:p )
 
durruti02 said:
my god, mother of mary etc etc .. vp agrees with D02 and vice versa :D
Feels unnatural, doesn't it? :D
(and it is sad if people do go :rolleyes: these are important issues)

yes of course british industry is in no way like what Chavez was dealing with .. though i suspect it becomes more like it by the day ..
In some respects I agree, especially if we're talking about industry's attitude to unions.
Problem is that in this country people have been indoctrinated to believe that trades unionism is a "bad thing" in a similar way to what the Yanks did back iat the turn of the 20th century, they've tied the idea of unions to mass civil unrest, and people have bought it, especially those that weren't around when unions still had a modicum of muscle.
as you are obviously aware my point is to show that to cahnge the world people need to gain control of where they work (and live). To Cesar Chavez then it meant here doing these things

tbh i can not agree with working with the state as he seems to have done .. and demonstrating at the border for borders controls seems extreme .. the Rio Grande is of course a Quixote Windmill(?) .. most immigrants just fly/drive over.
I think he had Hobson's choice. The only way he could support his members' interests was to reveal the state's complicity with big business. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
but if you and i can not agree with these tactics what else can we do??

i think the unions need;

to have a major campaign to bring back the closed shop

to campaign against recruitment agencies and companies who deliberately recruit abroad for low wage ( the demonstrations in ireland re the Irish Ferries dispute were of great interest .. and i understand managed to talk well about the issues without letting racists gain the upper hand)

to talk honestly about the issue for workers instead of pretending it is all about asylum seekers ( who usually do need defending) and improving teh economy and take the lead from John Cruddas ( and er me and TommyB!:p )
I wholeheartedly agree about the closed shop for those union and members that want it (some trades functioned better without it, some better with it).

I also agree about recruitment agencies, and reckon they should be properly licenced, have to set out their rates and tariffs, and only recruit abroad on a need rather than (as is usual) a cost basis.

As for the economic migrant/asylum seeker argument, you're never going to avoid the issue in a so-called "global economy". You won't solve the problem of the draining of human resources from some countries to others without putting in place systems that mean that the UK "grows" enough of it's own nurses/doctors/engineers etc, and is prepared to pay them a competetive rate.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Feels unnatural, doesn't it? :D

In some respects I agree, especially if we're talking about industry's attitude to unions.
Problem is that in this country people have been indoctrinated to believe that trades unionism is a "bad thing" in a similar way to what the Yanks did back iat the turn of the 20th century, they've tied the idea of unions to mass civil unrest, and people have bought it, especially those that weren't around when unions still had a modicum of muscle.
as you are obviously aware my point is to show that to cahnge the world people need to gain control of where they work (and live). To Cesar Chavez then it meant here doing these things

tbh i can not agree with working with the state as he seems to have done .. and demonstrating at the border for borders controls seems extreme .. the Rio Grande is of course a Quixote Windmill(?) .. most immigrants just fly/drive over.
I think he had Hobson's choice. The only way he could support his members' interests was to reveal the state's complicity with big business. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

I wholeheartedly agree about the closed shop for those union and members that want it (some trades functioned better without it, some better with it).

I also agree about recruitment agencies, and reckon they should be properly licenced, have to set out their rates and tariffs, and only recruit abroad on a need rather than (as is usual) a cost basis.

As for the economic migrant/asylum seeker argument, you're never going to avoid the issue in a so-called "global economy". You won't solve the problem of the draining of human resources from some countries to others without putting in place systems that mean that the UK "grows" enough of it's own nurses/doctors/engineers etc, and is prepared to pay them a competetive rate.

sorry VP i missed this post! it's a durruti balders VP love in!! :D
 
and again! ;)

is it that people have not heard of CC?? one of the most successfull organisers of poor labourers in history? .. who workered predominately with immigrants?

.. the left on here are constantly saying .. hey lets just organise the immigrants ( i obviously agree ) .. but then in cal in the late 6ts the bosses imported a load more ILLEGAL immigrants .. so CC did what he did ..

so what would you .. the SWP/SP do??
 
durruti02 said:
and again! ;)

so what would you .. the SWP/SP do??


Em, sit around for a month (is it a month already?) replying to bulletin board persona called durruti (the one man 'immigration issue' and generic dead thread bumper) in the vain hope of trying to change his mind on an issue it is clear he has a major bee in his bonnet about and will not change the stuck record that is his somewhat confused 'arguement'? :p

Then again maybe not... (so, thats the generic 'left' exposed then - well done durruti, glad you got your priorities right)


in other words - its become a bit boring and stale, mate (or stalemate?)
 
dennisr said:
Em, sit around for a month (is it a month already?) replying to bulletin board persona called durruti (the one man 'immigration issue' and generic dead thread bumper) in the vain hope of trying to change his mind on an issue it is clear he has a major bee in his bonnet about and will not change the stuck record that is his somewhat confused 'arguement'? :p

Then again maybe not... (so, thats the generic 'left' exposed then - well done durruti, glad you got your priorities right)


in other words - its become a bit boring and stale, mate (or stalemate?)

:confused:

sorry do not undertand your first para.. who has sat around for a month .. have i not replied to you on something?

actually i tend to like what you right .. you are ireland/ SP right ?? .. they actually have written some half decent stuff lately as i can tell ..

you and many leftists may find it boring but clearly the voters of barking and all find immigration very interesting .. the left ( apologies i guess this is aimed more at SWP .. i'm being lazy) may not think it is a major issue .. everyone else does

and just fill me in please as to what is confused in my arguement?? ( p.s. this was actually about what CC did in california in the 6ts .. but hey tell me ..how am i confused .. )
 
durruti02 said:
i think the unions need;

to have a major campaign to bring back the closed shop

The problem is the closed shop leads to massive inertia and conservatism among the few inside the shop.
 
888 said:
The problem is the closed shop leads to massive inertia and conservatism among the few inside the shop.

Not just that, it also leads to the "family-isation" of union membership, where getting your "ticket" becomes a matter of who you know, and nothing to do with how well you practice your trade.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Not just that, it also leads to the "family-isation" of union membership, where getting your "ticket" becomes a matter of who you know, and nothing to do with how well you practice your trade.

wow .. what rubbish VP!! sorry just noticed this .. so if the closed shop is reactionary so must communism be :rolleyes: .. you lefties are very strange .. you seem to know nothing of work and the workplace or the history of labour and the indispensability of the closed shop to the w/c and w/c politics
 
But why do it, you're essentially talking to yourself and you are literally making the same points over and over in a very short period of time. You might as well go and smash your head against a wall.
 
cockneyrebel said:
But why do it, you're essentially talking to yourself and you are literally making the same points over and over in a very short period of time. You might as well go and smash your head against a wall.

cos i do not want to live in a BNP society ..
 
Back
Top Bottom