Actualité - Bush Proposal on Immigration
Franc-Parler publie un article, à titre d'information, de Voice of Revolution, une publication américaine, sur les propositions de George W. Bush sur l'immigration. Bush a annoncé qu'il ferait intervenir 6000 militaires de la garde national pour militariser la fontière entre les États-Unis et le Mexique.
President George W. Bush presented proposals concerning border “security” and immigration in a televised speech May 15. Notable in the speech was the plan to send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico and the stepped up use of “state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions.”
Bush also elaborated the plan for a biometric identification card for workers, using digital fingerprints. The card would serve to verify “work eligibility.” Bush is calling for “every legal foreign worker,” to have one. However, given that employers will be doing the verifying, it is likely that the cards will be required, as Bush indicates, for “work eligibility” for all workers. His speech on immigration April 24 put it this way, “You got to have the card to get work.”
The speech again put forward a “guest worker program,” that would force many immigrant workers into indentured servitude, much like the Irish and Italian immigrants before them. The government would act as a “hiring hall” for the monopolies. Immigrants would be forced to sign individual contracts with employers for a set period of time, would only be allowed into the country if the employer says so and deported if the employer fires them or lays them off. When the set time period is completed, they would be deported. The plan is much like the old WWII bracero program, notorious for imposing slave-like conditions of work and deporting workers without paying them, or based on their resistance. It should also be noted that if, over time, all workers are required to have the identification card, it is quite possible that all workers would also be subject to signing individual contracts with employers for set periods of time in order to work.
Bush also repeated that being a citizen means submitting to what the government decides are “American values.” These requirements are listed on the White House webpage on immigration as acceptance of “liberty and civic responsibility, equality under God, tolerance for others, and the English language.” In his speech Bush stated it in a similar manner, saying anyone who wants to be a citizen must recognize that “Americans are bound by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly and an ability to speak and write the English language.” He concluded the speech by giving an example of who qualifies for citizenship — an immigrant from Mexico who joined the Army and was wounded in Iraq.
Arrangements of Annexation and Police State
Bush’s emphasis on “a system that is secure, orderly and fair,” together with the specific proposals, shows that the main significance of the May 15 speech is the effort by the Office of the President to more fully put in place arrangements of annexation externally and a police state internally. This is evident in the proposal to place 6,000 National Guard troops along the border with Mexico, the increased use of local and state police agencies in federal law enforcement, the ID requirements for “work eligibility,” and imposing the concept that only those who agree with the government can be citizens. Or, as Bush put it in his April 24 speech, “I believe that a person should never be granted automatic citizenship.” While the context in which he was speaking was for existing immigrants, the statement is consistent with the general direction of government to strip people of their rights, as can be seen with Katrina survivors, with those forced to show proof of citizenship to receive health benefits, and so forth.
Bush’s speech followed massive demonstrations of millions of workers, in the U.S., Mexico and Canada as well as worldwide, marching for rights on May Day. Millions also demonstrated in the U.S. in March and April. It also comes on the heels of the summit between the U.S., Mexico and Canada, where “law and order” and a single border perimeter, embracing all three countries and controlled by the U.S. and its military, were discussed.
The proposals serve the government’s need to pit workers against each other, in the U.S. and North America as a whole, and to secure a single border perimeter. The documents from the summit, for example, speak to “a single integrated North American trusted traveler program and swift law enforcement responses to threats posed by criminals or terrorists.” In his speech Bush added, “We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime, and to reduce illegal immigration.”
A main aim then of troops on the border, as distinct from Border Patrol and local law enforcement, is to have a force that can “work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border.” Migrants trying to come into the country to work will be used as an excuse for U.S. troops to go into Mexico, either in “hot pursuit,” or as a “pre-emptive” measure. One can readily imagine the troops being used to go after vehicles branded as those of “human smugglers,” and to do so “on both sides of the border.”
The positioning of the Guard on the border then has far more to do with U.S. efforts to increase its presence inside Mexico as part of annexationist efforts, than it does with immigration. This is further evidenced by the known failure of similar measures for border “security,” already implemented in Arizona.
Consistent with striving to secure arrangements for U.S. military control in Mexico are the arrangements inside the country to unify U.S. military and police agencies. One of the difficulties facing any police state is centralized federal control of the military and policing agencies. This is particularly difficult in the U.S., where there are so many different agencies at various levels, all of them armed to the teeth and highly “turf” conscious.
The governor of each state controls the National Guard and the president must request that they be federalized. In calling for National Guard troops, Bush is forcing the governors of the southern border states (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas) to agree to have their troops federalized and controlled by the president. Once this action is taken, the governors will have little ability to reverse the decision, as can already be seen with Bush forcing Guard deployment to Iraq. Thus the Office of the President is acting to have control of the National Guard for internal and external use, particularly for the border states, and absent any national emergency or “civil unrest.”
Additionally, the call for “state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions,” is a mechanism to assert federal control over state and local authorities. At present, state and local authorities are not permitted to enforce federal immigration laws and there has been broad resistance to such a role by local governments and police forces (see L.A. City Council for example). It is recognized that such enforcement would require racial profiling and force officials who are neither equipped nor trained to verify a person’s immigration status. One main result of local enforcement is increased racist harassment and brutality against immigrants, with and without documents, in the name of “border security.” It also creates a situation where everyone will need to carry the special identification at all times and accept being stopped, harassed and detained for no reason.
These measures will do nothing to solve the problems of immigration and poverty, a main source for immigration. Taken together, including the requirement that everyone submit to the government’s “values” of racism, war and aggression, these are measures for finalizing police state arrangements.
(Voice of Revolution)
President George W. Bush presented proposals concerning border “security” and immigration in a televised speech May 15. Notable in the speech was the plan to send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico and the stepped up use of “state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions.”
Bush also elaborated the plan for a biometric identification card for workers, using digital fingerprints. The card would serve to verify “work eligibility.” Bush is calling for “every legal foreign worker,” to have one. However, given that employers will be doing the verifying, it is likely that the cards will be required, as Bush indicates, for “work eligibility” for all workers. His speech on immigration April 24 put it this way, “You got to have the card to get work.”
The speech again put forward a “guest worker program,” that would force many immigrant workers into indentured servitude, much like the Irish and Italian immigrants before them. The government would act as a “hiring hall” for the monopolies. Immigrants would be forced to sign individual contracts with employers for a set period of time, would only be allowed into the country if the employer says so and deported if the employer fires them or lays them off. When the set time period is completed, they would be deported. The plan is much like the old WWII bracero program, notorious for imposing slave-like conditions of work and deporting workers without paying them, or based on their resistance. It should also be noted that if, over time, all workers are required to have the identification card, it is quite possible that all workers would also be subject to signing individual contracts with employers for set periods of time in order to work.
Bush also repeated that being a citizen means submitting to what the government decides are “American values.” These requirements are listed on the White House webpage on immigration as acceptance of “liberty and civic responsibility, equality under God, tolerance for others, and the English language.” In his speech Bush stated it in a similar manner, saying anyone who wants to be a citizen must recognize that “Americans are bound by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly and an ability to speak and write the English language.” He concluded the speech by giving an example of who qualifies for citizenship — an immigrant from Mexico who joined the Army and was wounded in Iraq.
Arrangements of Annexation and Police State
Bush’s emphasis on “a system that is secure, orderly and fair,” together with the specific proposals, shows that the main significance of the May 15 speech is the effort by the Office of the President to more fully put in place arrangements of annexation externally and a police state internally. This is evident in the proposal to place 6,000 National Guard troops along the border with Mexico, the increased use of local and state police agencies in federal law enforcement, the ID requirements for “work eligibility,” and imposing the concept that only those who agree with the government can be citizens. Or, as Bush put it in his April 24 speech, “I believe that a person should never be granted automatic citizenship.” While the context in which he was speaking was for existing immigrants, the statement is consistent with the general direction of government to strip people of their rights, as can be seen with Katrina survivors, with those forced to show proof of citizenship to receive health benefits, and so forth.
Bush’s speech followed massive demonstrations of millions of workers, in the U.S., Mexico and Canada as well as worldwide, marching for rights on May Day. Millions also demonstrated in the U.S. in March and April. It also comes on the heels of the summit between the U.S., Mexico and Canada, where “law and order” and a single border perimeter, embracing all three countries and controlled by the U.S. and its military, were discussed.
The proposals serve the government’s need to pit workers against each other, in the U.S. and North America as a whole, and to secure a single border perimeter. The documents from the summit, for example, speak to “a single integrated North American trusted traveler program and swift law enforcement responses to threats posed by criminals or terrorists.” In his speech Bush added, “We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime, and to reduce illegal immigration.”
A main aim then of troops on the border, as distinct from Border Patrol and local law enforcement, is to have a force that can “work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border.” Migrants trying to come into the country to work will be used as an excuse for U.S. troops to go into Mexico, either in “hot pursuit,” or as a “pre-emptive” measure. One can readily imagine the troops being used to go after vehicles branded as those of “human smugglers,” and to do so “on both sides of the border.”
The positioning of the Guard on the border then has far more to do with U.S. efforts to increase its presence inside Mexico as part of annexationist efforts, than it does with immigration. This is further evidenced by the known failure of similar measures for border “security,” already implemented in Arizona.
Consistent with striving to secure arrangements for U.S. military control in Mexico are the arrangements inside the country to unify U.S. military and police agencies. One of the difficulties facing any police state is centralized federal control of the military and policing agencies. This is particularly difficult in the U.S., where there are so many different agencies at various levels, all of them armed to the teeth and highly “turf” conscious.
The governor of each state controls the National Guard and the president must request that they be federalized. In calling for National Guard troops, Bush is forcing the governors of the southern border states (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas) to agree to have their troops federalized and controlled by the president. Once this action is taken, the governors will have little ability to reverse the decision, as can already be seen with Bush forcing Guard deployment to Iraq. Thus the Office of the President is acting to have control of the National Guard for internal and external use, particularly for the border states, and absent any national emergency or “civil unrest.”
Additionally, the call for “state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions,” is a mechanism to assert federal control over state and local authorities. At present, state and local authorities are not permitted to enforce federal immigration laws and there has been broad resistance to such a role by local governments and police forces (see L.A. City Council for example). It is recognized that such enforcement would require racial profiling and force officials who are neither equipped nor trained to verify a person’s immigration status. One main result of local enforcement is increased racist harassment and brutality against immigrants, with and without documents, in the name of “border security.” It also creates a situation where everyone will need to carry the special identification at all times and accept being stopped, harassed and detained for no reason.
These measures will do nothing to solve the problems of immigration and poverty, a main source for immigration. Taken together, including the requirement that everyone submit to the government’s “values” of racism, war and aggression, these are measures for finalizing police state arrangements.
(Voice of Revolution)
Libellés : États-Unis
posted by Franc-Parler at 5:52 p.m.
0 Comments:
Publier un commentaire
<< Home