Whites are free to accrue the benefits of being white, and have no motivation to help other groups reach parity. It cuts in all directions. Businesses dominated by ethnic groups can lock out other ethnic groups.
On an individual basis, a person in the majority can harass or intimidate the "outsider" if they are hired into a company. Or, even before, when they try to get the jobs. These terrorist tactics have been effective in the past, and are probably employed today.
>The thrust of anti-globalization in the labor movement
>is not to argue against immigration, as recent events
>have shown. I've been telling people here for months
>that the most dynamic sector of the labor movement is
>immigrant-driven. Labor cannot be chanvinist. What
>you will see is an allied understanding that globalization
>is about reducing labor standards, and that when the
>manufacturing sector suffers, the service sector will
>suffer as well.
>
>mbs
It might appear this way, however, because of the participation of unions, who, in the 80's, were not pro-immigrant. (Not all immigrants are recent immigrants. People remember.) AFAIK, the big unions aren't out there trying to help get their members citizenship or providing services targeting immigrant union members in any coordinated fashion. I don't believe they've been much help in dealing with the de-industrialization of the inner cities, nor have they confronted the issues of business moving to the suburbs.
Personally, I'm very excited about A16 and the DNC, but there's more than globalization to get riled up over.