> Why folks seek to read every progressive labor statement in the worst
> light possible, I still have no idea. It's reasonable to suggest
> improvements, but the substance of these statements are very progressive.
uh-huh. this must be why i wrote "all of that, however, is still to note that there is some excellent work being done" in the exact same post you now get huffy about. and why, for the last week in fact, i've been suggesting that there are reasons to be optimistic. you confuse criticism with reading in 'the worst possible light' -- a phrase which is becoming something of a refrain it seems, but neither original nor persuasive.
what is clear is that the AFL-CIO have at least acknowledged that the only way that organisation is going to make it into the 21st century as a growing concern is if it embraces migrant workers. what's still unclear is the extent to which this has any impact on the politics of the AFL-CIO itself, especially as it relates to the supposedly non-migration issues like 'globalisation'.
moreover, in mid-october, there were moves to get the AFL-CIO to support the declaration of an amnesty and to reverse many of the sanctions relating to undocumented workers. no mention of this at all in the final policy. fine, so many things were won. but it remains the case that when it came to issues such as these, the AFL-CIO pulled back. and, the '96 legislation deserves much more than a call to "look forward" to the reinstatement of welfare, vital though this is. the '96 legislation is what made it possible to except migrants from basic legal rights. according to the Fix '96 Campaign, migrants "face deportation on the basis of evidence kept secret from them and are unable to appeal arbitrary, capricious and illegal actions against them by immigration officials because the courts have been stripped of jurisdiction to hear their claims." the '96 legislation was the sop to the racists upset with NAFTA: it specifically enabled the targetting of mexicans for deportation. Operation Gatekeeper has resulted in over 500 deaths as those who look to get across the border are forced into mountains and desert.
all of that suggests that the AFL-CIO's formulation of "we support legal migration" is insufficient and deserves criticism.
> And I wonder why you are so quick to argue that the AFL-CIO unions have
> no conception of bottom-up solidarity?
all of what you mention is indeed excellent work, and i already noted that there are unions for whom the limitations of AFL-CIO policy are not realities on the ground. but credit should go to the unions doing this work, and not the catch-all formulation "AFL-CIO unions". the AFL-CIO has yet to catch up to the good work being done by some of its affiliates; and that difference matters and deserves comment.
> Of course, unions can improve these grassroots ties, but it is just
> inaccurate to argue union leadership does not recognize the need for
> grassroots strategies for immigrant worker solidarity.
and, the problem i noted was not a lack of recognition of grassroots strategies for _immigrant solidarity_; but quite explicitly, the failure of the AFL-CIO to consider the possibility that migrants could form the concrete basis for an internationalist unionism that is grassrooots. it's the difference between those two that is not at all apparent to the AFL-CIO as well.
max wrote:
> Why folks seek to read every progressive labor statement in the worst
light
> possible, I still have no idea. . . .
>
> Because it validates their abstentionism.
is this the standard thing for social democrats, to assert an equation between their particular strategies and 'participation', as if criticising them amounts to abstention from union organising per se? crikey, such blinkers.
Angela _________