Reasons for Unity on May Day 2006 – And After

By Midnight Noters and Friends*

We are witnessing an apparently unprecedented moment in the Americas, both North and South. On the one side, millions of undocumented workers--the least visible and most repressed workers--have repeatedly demonstrated in US cities, alongside their many supporting co-workers, against a congressional bill that would criminalize them simply for being in the U.S. without proper papers, and criminalize U.S. citizens who provide them with assistance. On the other, the people of Latin America in election after election are voting into power governments whose platforms, and sometimes their practices, reject the economic policies that the US government, on behalf of global corporations, has been supporting for two decades. These policies (often named "neoliberal") have been the source of the decline of wages and working conditions throughout the Americas, as well as the rest of the planet.

In these surging movements, we are witnessing a rebellion of people throughout the Americas. They are rising up against their fate of being driven from their lands, targeted for repression and even death, forced into sweatshops paying starvation wages or finding no income at all. The millions who have been forced to migrate to the U.S. and other nations face humiliation, repression, discrimination and super exploitation as second-class persons in apartheid systems constructed on immigration status.

This pan-American rebellion may seem surprising, since it comes at a time of the "war on terrorism," an apparently near-endless "war" reminiscent of the Cold War. The political atmosphere that has been generated by this war has made it easy to pass repressive legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act and to demonize migrants as potential terrorists.

However, this non-violent rebellion is not historically unprecedented. It is similar to what took place in the 1950s when the Cold War and the terror inspired by the possibility of nuclear war was unable to contain the rebellion of African-Americans who refused to "wait" until the "threat of communism" was "under control" to bring down the US apartheid based on race. They demanded "Justice Now!" in the face of the congressional commissions that were roaming the country claiming to find Communist spies and traitors in unions, school boards, civil rights groups and universities throughout the country. Through unrelenting struggle during the height of the cold war, the black civil rights movement destroyed established US race apartheid.

But the US movement was not alone. It operated in conjunction with the anti-colonial movements in Africa that at the same time were demanding an end to white imperial control of the African continent by Britain, France and Portugal. The US civil rights movement and the anti-colonial movements gave strength to each other, as the political reverberation between Birmingham and Algiers, between Watts and Nairobi, amplified each others’ demands and echoed arguments from the "center" to the "periphery" of the world.

The new pan-American movement, feeling its growing power, has planned a new kind of May Day for 2006 in the U.S. The movement has called for immigrants and their supporters to stop participating in the US economy, either as (waged or unwaged) workers (including students) or as consumers, for a day. This boycott may even spread to other regions of North and Central America. This one-day equivalent of a national boycott and strike was called to make clear to everyone the importance of immigrants (especially undocumented ones) to the functioning of US society, including everyone’s immediate community.

We write to support common and overlapping demands of movements in the US and Latin America; to explain to others in the US who are documented (citizens and legal residents alike) why we firmly believe that these demands are both just and in all of our interests; to explain why all workers and activists in the US should support the movements in Latin America; and to explain to people in movements that may seen somewhat distant from the immigrant movements, such as the anti-war and anti-globalization movements, the reasons why theirs is a shared struggle with immigrants and the movements of Latin America.

The most immediate demands of the immigrant movement in the US include: (1) the defeat of any legislation that would criminalize undocumented immigrants; and (2) the legalization of undocumented immigrants who now are in the US. The most common demand of the movements across Latin America is an end to neoliberal economic policies and U.S. and transnational corporate domination.

Are these just demands? Why should US citizens and legal residents who are workers support these demands? Will support for both immigrants and for movements in the lands from which the movements come strengthen or undermine the conditions of U.S. citizens and documented migrants? We must ask both questions because US workers have often not supported just policies when they thought these policies were against their interests. The clearest example of this was the support most white workers gave to the US version of race apartheid, "Jim Crow" laws, for the first half of the twentieth century.

Justice

We claim the immigrants’ movements are just because the primary reasons for migration to the US are political and military repression, intense economic exploitation, and the ensuing social crises, all fostered by the US government. Approximately 80% of the undocument migrants to the US were born in countries south of the Rio Bravo/Grande. The other 20% mostly come from other regions of the world also facing devastation, upheaval and economic crisis.

The US government and corporations have backed repressive regimes and have pushed these regimes to impose laws that have made it easy to exploit their people. The latest version of these policies, "neoliberalism," requires cutting state assistance to workers and opening the economy to the free entry and exit of foreign capital. Since the consequences of neoliberalism include destruction of communities, privatization of common lands, and reduction of income for the bottom half of the population, neoliberalism requires repression to succeed, especially in countries whose working class is already impoverished. Together, repression and neoliberalism produce community disintegration, economic and environmental devastation, and fear. Many are forced to flee to save themselves and their families from annihilation.

It is very easy to prove that the US government has been responsible for military repression in Latin America: The dozens of US invasions of Latin American and Caribbean countries in the last century, the sordid history of the US military's "School of the Americas," the US support for coups against democratically elected leaders—from Guatemala in the 1950s and Brazil in the 1960s, to Chile and Argentina in the 1970s, down to the failed coup attempt against Hugo Chavez in 2002 and the successful coups against Aristide in 1991 and 2004--are ample testimonies to the fact that US government has been directly or indirectly responsible for the repression in Latin America that has forced many to flee their homes with justifiable fear for their lives.

The consequences of neoliberalism are equally evident. We need merely look at Mexico, the primary source of US undocumented migrants, and NAFTA, a classic neoliberal agreement, to see that the results have been devastating. President Salinas relied on US support to steal his election victory. He then implemented neoliberal policies carried on by his successors, Zedillo and Fox, and approved NAFTA.

In two decades, the value of the Mexican minimum wage has declined more than 80 percent. In twelve years of NAFTA, there has been a sharp drop in the average wage and a dramatic increase in poverty. While the "economy" grows, the people increasingly starve. One major consequence is migration to the US – though Pres. Clinton sold NAFTA to the US on the grounds that it would reduce Mexican immigration into the US. The same catastrophes can be tied to neoliberal economic policies as they have been applied throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. They have created a continent that has allowed capital to flow freely but left the majority of the people in deepening poverty and unable to legally follow the money toward possible jobs and survival.

So long as the US government supports with its economic and military might the neoliberal policies and the repression of the struggles against them, the people who are displaced economically and politically should be welcomed here. This is based on a premise of justice: When one is even partially responsible for the destruction of the livelihood and homes of people, then one must do what one can to compensate for this destruction. If we US workers cannot stop our government's behavior that causes demonstrable harm to other workers, then it is only just that we support the most basic demands of workers who have been displaced. If your child intentionally burned down your neighbors' houses, then it is incumbent on you to at least welcome them into your home, if they wish to come.

Surely, the long-term "solution" is to end the US government's past, present and, unfortunately, near-term future actions that have kept millions of Latin Americans and others around the globe repressed and poor. But until we win this solution, we should fight to prevent the policies that further repress and immiserate the immigrants who live here in North America because of these policies.

Interests

What is just is one thing, but is this just behavior suicidal for US citizen and legal resident workers? Won't increased immigration lead to lower wages for us here? Doesn't the "iron law of wages" state that more workers competing for the same number of jobs lead to lower wages and worse working conditions? And as it is also just for people to defend themselves, should we not approve of policies that intensify US border controls to keep out terrorists? In other words, even if we agree that US workers have some responsibility to their fellow workers in Latin America and other parts of the world, is just thing to do under the circumstances so much against our real interests that it is politically pointless to insist on it? This has been the main political problem that has surrounded the immigration issue for many years.

But is it true that the just thing to do (support immigrant workers) is at odds with the interest of US documented workers, especially those at the bottom of the wage hierarchy? First, we should remember that the work that immigrant workers largely do is the dirtiest, the most difficult work. It is essential, and there is a lot of it. For the average immigrant worker, coming to the US to escape repression and economic misery is hardly a picnic. The idea that immigrants come to the US to take advantage of "welfare" is a myth that has been debunked many times over. It is now in the category of the claim that African slaves in the US plantations were happy because they had such secure jobs. In fact, undocumented immigrant workers work very hard at jobs with a very low wage that makes large profits for their employers and billions of extra dollars for Social Security and Medicare systems.

When undocumented immigrants come to the US, they face slave-like working conditions that are backed up by the repressive apparatus directed by the US government (especially the agents of the Department of Homeland Security, but increasingly local and state police). This repressive apparatus and lack of rights as workers and humans force undocumented workers to accept lower wages, substandard working conditions and humiliation. These workers often fear standing up for their rights, never mind demanding more, since their employers or even other workers might turn them into the immigration agents or police.

What is the source of these low wages? Is it the quantity of workers or their status? Is there such a large competition for these jobs that leads to the reduction of wages, or is it the very undocumented status of the immigrants that is the source of this reduction? We argue that the latter is a more important element. If it were dealt with, it would lead to higher wages for both immigrant and US citizen and legal resident workers.

Our argument is that a neoliberal situation is the worst possible world for wages and working conditions across the board. That situation arises when capital can flow across borders freely while workers cannot. In that case, employers threaten citizen workers whenever they demand more wages, by pointing to the fact that unless the workers accept lower wages, they will easily take their production abroad. Employers threaten the undocumented workers with deportation if they are involved in labor struggles. In either case, workers are intimidated and fear to struggle for their interests. It even appears as though it is in their interests to oppose each other. The situation we are describing is exactly the one that prevails in the US.

In addition, the slave-like situation of undocumented workers creates the conditions for lowering the wage floor in the US, especially affecting those workers competing for low-wage jobs. This is a far more significant cause for the erosion of wages in the U.S. than is the number of job competitors, for if the floor is slavery and bare subsistence, the rights and incomes of all workers accordingly decline.

Therefore, the end of neoliberalism--either cross border capital flows are restricted, or workers are allowed to move across borders freely, or both--will lead to an increase in wages for all. It is in the nterest of both US citizen workers and undocumented immigrant workers in the US to oppose neoliberalism and not to oppose each other.
    
But in addition to employers using the immigrant apartheid to super exploit these workers, other racist and xenophobic elements use it to take advantage, humiliate and mistreat undocumented workers and their families. The economic conditions and the social antagonisms lead to divisions among workers that make it harder for working people to organize together for better wages and working conditions.

This being the case, only coming together to eliminate the immigrant apartheid can establish a basis on which to battle for better conditions and wages and against neoliberalism. Thus, it is apparent to us that support for immigrant workers is not only just, it is also in the self-interest of most US citizens and documented immigrants.

But what about support for movements in other nations? Why should documented US workers care about them? Justice is again one reason, as the horrendous conditions against which people rebel are conditions created in large part by the US government. Self-interest is another: if living conditions were better in Latin America and the Caribbean, people would not be compelled to move to the US. If corporations could not undermine US wages by employing lower-waged workers in Latin America, then US workers have a better chance of stopping their decline in living. And if worker people are to establish a world of shared well-being instead of exploitation, it will require unity across national borders.

Across Latin America and in the Caribbean, a variety of movements and struggles are gaining strength. One form of the struggles has been the election of new governments. Some that are supposed to represent and be responsive to working/low-income/indigenous people appear not to be so (e.g., Lula in Brazil); some seem now to be (Chavez in Venezuela); while in other cases it is too early to tell (Evo Morales in Bolivia; Preval in Haiti).

These governments deserve explicit support to the degree they practically oppose neoliberalism and are responsive to and even supportive of the movements. While the positioning of these governments depends on many factors, the power of the movements to ensure the governments do their bidding is among the most important.

That power of the movements in turn significantly depends on whether the U.S. will be able to organize their destruction via economic or military means. Here, the willingness and ability of US workers to support them is essential.

Opposition by US workers to U.S.-initiated or backed coups should be a matter of basic principle. Sadly, some activists violated this principle when they excused the coup in Haiti against Aristide by pointing to Aristide’s purported flaws. Similarly, the US state has been demonizing Chavez. The point is not the perfection of Aristide or Chavez, or even whether they reasonably (in the current world context) support movements; it is whether the most egregious exploiter, the US, should be free to promote coups. In any event, it is more likely that governments will actually be responsive to and supportive of movements if they do not face US intervention. It is the power and growth of the movements that is most essential, and those movements should not have to fight US coups or military intervention.

To the extent the movements’ power produces improved conditions for the people, those people will be less compelled to flee to another nation and less vulnerable to super-exploitation in their home nations. Both results are beneficial to the workers, documented and undocumented, in the US.

In addition, it is essential to oppose initiatives such as the Free Trade Act of the Americas (FTAA) and to oppose U.S. military involvement (advisors in Colombia; the School of the Americas military training program). These are tasks of the movements in both Latin America and in the US. Stopping such initiatives increases the likelihood of movement success and of not allowing governments to betray them.

But based on historical experience and current facts, the US government will not peacefully allow the movements to eliminate neoliberalism and establish new economic and social relations. The US anti-war movement must develop now the capacity to resolutely oppose covert and overt US operations in Latin America.

But the US anti-war movement has lacked power and a successful strategy. Bush simply ignored massive demonstrations, while voters in 2004 had the choice of two pro-war candidates. The rising power of the immigrant movements, expressed in the strikes and boycotts of MayDay as well as the student walkouts, demonstrations and boycotts of the previous month, may signal the capacity of movements in the US to take far more powerful actions than has been possible for many years.

The repressive laws ostensibly designed to combat "terrorism" will be used against those in the US who support the movements in Latin America, as well as the immigrant movements within the US. Thus, all those who oppose the PATRIOT act and similar laws and who support civil liberties should support the immigrant movement and the movements in Latin America, for the power of those movements will make it harder for repression in the name of "anti-terrorism" to succeed. On the other hand, the power of the immigrant movements and the movements in Latin America strengthen the capacity to retract repressive legislation.

Thus, the anti-war and anti-globalization movements must be pro-immigrant in the U.S. as well as against economic and military imperialism in Latin America and the Caribbean. They must support the movements of workers across the continents, indeed across the world, for real peace and prosperity. Only then will forced migration end.

Conclusion

The rebellion of Latin American workers in Latin America and immigrants in the US is radically challenging neoliberalism's pillars (regardless of the often soft and even pro-US rhetoric of some components of that movement). The question is whether we "American" workers in the US of America will join them. If we do, then we will begin to liberate ourselves from the demoralization of living in the worst of all possible worlds for workers. If we do not, then we will lose the opportunity to do justice and act in our own interest. This is a rare historical moment. To fail and be stuck in this worst of all possible positions will prove to be a hell on earth for us here in the US. So on May Day and after, let us join together, documented and undocumented, stop our work and our buying, go into the streets and escape our earthly damnation. Let us also join together with the anti-war movement this May Day and after to stop US aggression throughout the world, a major source of planetary forced migration. Let us unite, because that truly is both just and in the self-interest of all working people.

BASTA YA...Si Se PUEDE...

* This was written by some members and friends of Midnight Notes (www.midnightnotes.org). We have written it for MayDay 2006 but for after that day as well. It is a statement that comes at the start of our investigations of these multiple movements, and early in the unfolding of these struggles, and represents therefore simply a partial first draft. We welcome comments sent to midnotes@aol.com.