The Immigration Debate
David Stoll has done us all a ser-
vice by suggesting in his letter
to the editor that we be more
explicit and critical about our
assumptions and agendas regarding
immigration [March/April, 1996].
Many progressives share Stoll’s
concern about the worsening condi-
tions of U.S. workers. His sugges-
tion that high levels of immigration
are a significant cause of these dete-
riorating conditions, however, is not
convincing. Indeed, one might infer
from such an analysis that we would
find the best labor conditions in
regions in the United States that
receive relatively low numbers of
immigrants-like the South.
This is not to suggest that immi-
gration does not have its costs.
Undoubtedly, high levels of immi-
gration-all other factors remaining
constant-worsen labor-market con-
ditions for low-wage workers in this
country. But since all other factors
never remain constant, this is not an
inevitable outcome. We can only
understand the conditions of partic-
ular labor markets within their spe-
cific social, historical and geo-
graphical contexts.
Imposing greater restrictions on
immigration is only one response to
the argument that an increasing pool
of potential employees strengthens
the ability of employers to under-
mine the position of workers. The
response most consistent with leftist
principles is to strengthen organiza-
tional solidarity among workers and
build a movement that includes
recent immigrants. Such a move-
ment would make it difficult for the
powerful to use immigration as a
tool to undercut workers. Vigorous
enforcement of a high minimum
wage, a guaranteed minimum
income, strong health and safety
standards and labor rights would go
a long way towards minimizing the
detrimental effects-real or poten-
tial-of immigration on low-wage
workers in the United States.
In a previous letter to NACLA
[Nov/Dec, 1993], Stoll advocates
“militarizing what has been a
porous border” to protect and
enhance the working conditions of
U.S. farm workers. In fact, while it
is unlikely such efforts will signifi-
cantly help U.S. workers, the border
has been increasingly militarized
over the last two decades. Given the
strength and persistence of the
forces promoting immigration from
Mexico and Central America into
the United States (many driven by
U.S. foreign policy and U.S.-based
multinationals), such militarization
can only lead to tragic results for
migrants forced to take great risks
to cross the border. Last year, some
300 people lost their lives trying to
swim across the Rio Grande.
To the extent that immigration has
detrimental effects in the United
States, our society needs to develop
practices and mechanisms to
address these problems while
simultaneously working to mini-
mize the conditions that are driving
migration in foreign countries.
Rather than jumping on the immi-
gration-restriction bandwagon, pro-
gressives should work for a demili-
tarization of the border, informed by
a vision that moves beyond nation-
alism and border controls. All
human beings have the right to
work and to a life of dignity; migra-
tion is often a necessary part of the
process to realize these goals. In this
regard, freedom of movement and
residence are basic human rights.
As progressives, we need to argue
and fight for practices and mecha-
nisms that are consistent with our
principles. One of the most impor-
tant is solidarity, which knows no
boundaries.
Matthew Jardine
Los Angeles, California
Popular Participation and
Neoliberalism
In his article “Neoliberal Social
Policy: Managing Poverty
(Somehow),” [May/June, 1996]
Carlos Vilas points out that the two
basic functions of neoliberal social
policy are to encourage capital
accumulation and legitimize the
political order. Bolivia’s Popular
Participation Law is increasingly
viewed by its neighbors as a model
to legitimize their neoliberal agenda
and the injustices it engenders.
On paper, the Popular Parti-
cipation Law is redistributive, and it
explicitly encourages the participa-
tion of women and indigenous orga-
nizations while introducing mecha-
nisms for community control over
municipal government. Yet as Vilas
argues, viewed within the global
context of a neoliberal economic
model which promotes poverty, pop-
ular participation alone cannot sig-
nificantly alter the structural inequal-
ities that the neoliberal agenda has
failed to address.
This is especially so in Bolivia’s
rural areas, where newly created
municipalities that are expected to
provide social services and pro-
mote rural development lack finan-
cial resources and institutional and
technical expertise. Each munici-
pality will receive $25 per person
from the national pot-not nearly
enough to resolve health and edu-
cation, let alone production needs.
In rural municipalities, moreover,
those who succeed in getting
access to resources tend to be bet-
ter organized groups, usually mid-
dle-class urbanites. The poorest,
most remote campesino communi-
ties are often excluded from the
limited benefits on offer, reinforc-
ing existing inequalities.
Nevertheless, as Xavier Alb6 sug-
gests in his article, “Bolivia: Making
the Leap from Local Mobilization to
National Politics” [March/April,
1996], investment in the organiza-
tional capacity of campesino,
indigenous and women’s organiza-
tions is beginning to reverse the his-
torical exclusion of Bolivia’s rural
poor. Last December, campesino
and indigenous leaders ran for the
first time as candidates in local elec-
tions, winning 26% of Bolivia’s
municipal council seats. While rec-
ognizing Vilas’ powerful criticism of
the neoliberal model, the introduc-
tion of elements of participatory
democracy, as a means of perfecting
a flawed representational democ-
racy, has opened a small window of
opportunity-one we should begin
to examine more closely.
Simon Ticehurst
La Paz, Bolivia
Menu
