The fight for the rights of immigrants is the fight for Human Rights, which is shown to be irrelevant every day when the interests of the powerful are not served. But immigration is not only a right; it is also the consequence of a global system that violently discriminates between rich and poor, capitalists and workers. This old class struggle is not only made invisible through cultural, ethnic, and sexual wars, as has been the case for centuries with racial and religious struggles but also through the very demonization of the concept of “class struggle” practiced by the rich and powerful and attributed to leftist ideologues as a project of evil. The class struggle, the violent dispossession, and the dictatorship of the ultra-millionaires over the rest of the working classes is a fact observable by any quantitative measurement.
This culture of barbarism and humiliation, of the politics of cruelty and the ethics of selfishness, occurs within every nation and is reproduced on a global scale, from the imperial nations to their servile capitalist colonies and their exceptions: the blockaded and demonized rebellious alternatives.
The illegality of immigration was invented more than a century ago to extend the illegality of imperial invasions to weaker countries. It was invented to prevent the consequences of the plundering of colonies held in servitude through the cannon, of systematic massacres, of the eternal and strategic debts that bleed them dry even today, of the secret agencies that murdered, manipulated the media, destroyed democracies, rebellious dictatorships, plunged half the world into chaos and dehumanized slaves from day one, some of them happy slaves.
Illegal immigration not only punished the disinherited of this historical process but also those persecuted by the multiple and brutal dictatorships that Europe and the United States spread throughout Africa and Latin America, with the various terrorist groups designed in Washington, London and Paris, such as the Contras in Central America, the Death Squads in South America, the extermination plans such as Plan Condor, the Organisation armée secrète in Africa, Islamic terrorists such as Al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, all created by the CIA and its complicit mafias to end independence, secular and socialist projects in Africa and the Middle East… In other words, it is not only colonial capitalism that expels its people but the origin of that brutality: imperial capitalism.
Then, the victims become criminals. As with Haiti’s audacity to declare itself free and independent in 1804, as in other cases of the abolition of slavery, the slave owners demanded compensation from the governments for the loss of their private property of flesh and blood. Not the victims who had built the wealth of the United States, of the banks, of the corporations, not the slaves who built the White House and the Congress building. In the same way, according to Trump and his supremacist horde, the Panama Canal belongs to the invading master and not to the Panamanians and Caribbeans who left their lives by the thousands in its construction.
Immigration, in almost all its forms, from economic to political, is a direct consequence of these historical injustices. The rich do not emigrate; they dominate their countries’ economies and media and then send their «profits» to tax havens or in the form of investments that sustain the global slavery system as if it were a «high-risk» activity.
The rich are assured of their entry into any country. The poor, on the other hand, are suspect from the moment they show up at the embassy of a powerful country. Their applications are usually denied, which is why they often go into debt with loans from coyotes for 15 thousand dollars, only to enter a country that prints a global currency and work for years as slaves while being doubly criminalized. They do not victimize themselves, as some assimilated academics define them. They are real victims. They are wage slaves (often not even that) under permanent psychological terrorism that both they and their children suffer. In the United States, hundreds of thousands of children do not attend school regularly because they work under a regime of slavery, no different from the indentured slaves of centuries past.
Every year, for decades, illegal immigrants have been paying a hundred billion dollars into the Social Security system of complaining voters, money that will not be received by them but by those who spend their days complaining about the jobs that immigrants have stolen from them. As if this scale of injustice were not enough, finally, the most selfless, persecuted, and poor workers are thrown into prison as terrorists and returned to their countries in chains and humiliated, ironically by the mercilessness of rulers convicted of serious crimes by the justice system of the very country they govern, as is the case of the current occupants of the White House. They call this remarkable cowardice courage, just as they call the slavery of others’ freedom and the global bullies’ victims. Added to this is the traditional collaboration of the promoted sepoys, from academics to voters, from journalists to Latin, Indian, or African members of the imperial governments who, as a “solution to the problem of immigration” and the sovereign disobedience of some countries of the South, impose more blockades and sanctions to strangle further their less successful brothers who decided not to emigrate to God’s Land. The pathology is then sold as an example of “success based on merit and hard work.” Because that is the only pleasure of psychopaths who cannot be happy with anything: not their own success, but the defeat and humiliation of all others. One of the characteristics of fascism, apart from resorting to a non-existent past, is to exploit, persecute, demonize, blame, and punish all those who do not have the economic or military power to defend themselves, as is the case of poor immigrants in the imperial centers of the world. We, stripped of the sectarian interests of global power and responding only to a sense of morality and Human Rights, raise our voices to protest against the largest organized crime organization in the world, sure that this perversion of human cruelty will eventually collapse – not by its weight, but by the courage and solidarity of those below.
Jill Stein In conversation at Jacksonville University
Prof. Richard Mullaney: Thank you for coming out for this event, we’re very privileged to have a presidential candidate. The Institute Policy Institute on behalf of Jackson University President Tim Cost, the Board of Trustees, Jackson University and the Stein College of Fine Arts and Humanities want to welcome all of you to this very special conversation and a warm and special welcome to Doctor Stein, who is running for President of the United States as the candidate for the Green Party. By the way, election date is just over 60 days away. A truly historic election.
We’re very pleased to have Dr. Stein on campus. She is a physician. She went to Harvard for undergraduate school, graduating Magna Cumulate. But I would like to mention that cause we believe in great academic standards here at Jackson University too. She went on to Harvard Medical School. She was a practicing physician, and in the 1990s she began to notice that the toxic exposure, the link of toxic exposure, was having a tremendous impact on health, illness and well-being. And she began a career in addition to being a physician and that is as an activist –at the Public Policy Institute, we call this somebody interested in public policy. And she became to advocate and advocate in a number of areas. And I’d like to outline a few of those for you. In the 1990s, she began, and this has continued into this very day, fighting for a healthy environment and the closure of toxic facilities and improving air quality standards for coal plants. That included, by the way, and she was in Massachusetts at the time she helped lead the fight to clean up the filthy five coal plants in Massachusetts. She helped close a toxic medical waste incinerator. In Lawrence, MA, which is one of the poorest communities in New England she saw, by the way, she became a big advocate for campaign finance reform when she saw the effect that lobbyists and campaign contributions were having on health, environmental and worker protection. And she used that, and she worked to help pass the clean election law by voter referendum in Massachusetts. Doctor Stein Co-founded the Massachusetts Coalition for Healthy Communities, a nonprofit organization that fought for health and the well-being of Massachusetts communities, including healthcare, local green economies, Environmental Protection, labor rights, and grassroots democracy. She also helped lead the effort to secure a green future ballot initiative to move subsidies from fossil fuels to renewable energy and to create green jobs. These are just some, and they continued to this day with that passion for what we’d like to call “public policy” and others call “career activism,” no surprise that she would run for elective office. And by the way, she became the green rainbow party candidate and running for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 and 2010. Unsuccessful in those bids, ran as a third party and then as many of you may. She ran for president in 2012. That was year Barack Obama won, getting about half a million votes. She ran again in 2016, the year Donald Trump won, getting about 1.5 million votes and been very successful this year in 2024 and getting on the ballot because remember how this is done? This is done in 50 states. It’s an Electoral College you need to be on the ballot of all 50 states, getting a very favorable ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently, that’s allowing her to stay on the ballot in Wisconsin, a whole separate conversation we can have as to why some parties might spend millions of dollars to keep people off ballots when in fact it’s so hard for third parties to get on ballots. But what’s important for this election and in many elections, the swing states. Is being on the ballot and the Big Blue wall, which is Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, very important areas for the outcome of this election as well as Arizona and Nevada, North Carolina.
I think working towards Georgia, all that’s a long way of saying that doctor Stein could have a very significant impact both in policy and otherwise, and this year’s presidential race, and we are very pleased to have this discussion led as you just heard by Doctor Jorge Majfud, who teaches International Studies here at Jacksonville University. So, I hope all of you will join me in welcoming Dr. Stein and Professor. Food for this great conversation.
Jorge Majfud: Jill, thank you for accepting our invitation to come to Jacksonville University. I didn’t plan this, but we have to start with very bad news. Few minutes ago, we learned that a new shooting in a school in Georgia between Athens and Atlanta, I think it is called Apalachee High School, where four people were killed, two teachers and two students. This is, unfortunately, a never-ending story that is in some way connected to our conversation today, for example, connected to the lobbies problem. Would you like to comment briefly about that tragedy?
Jill Stein: Sure. This news about the school shooting in Georgia is absolutely tragic. Both the loss of life and the fact that it’s a 14-year-old child, apparently now in custody for doing the shooting. So, this is just a tragedy upon. Entity and the fact that this is so commonplace now in the US that we’ve had at this point, I don’t know what the number is, but it’s lots of mass shootings. It’s lots and lots in spite of the strong feelings of the American people who want common sense in gun control. The Second Amendment is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future, but the American people want action, common sense action which has enormous support for things like an assault weapons ban, the ban on further sales, and a voluntary buyback program for waiting periods; for raising the age of purchase, for closing the so-called gun show loopholes, for red flag laws that clarify when gun owners are in a very dangerous position at risk for doing harm to others or to themselves. There are many things that we can do to reduce gun violence within the limits of the law, and unfortunately, we have, you know, we have very powerful interests, in this case the NRA, but there are many other examples of powerful lobbies who basically buy their way into either action or, more commonly, non-action to prevent the passage of laws that are broadly supported by the American people. I would add that it’s not only the power of lobbyists, but it’s the very essence of our political system which is bought and paid for by very big money. And it’s well established that laws that move policies that actually get passed in the US Congress are those that have the support of very powerful financial interests. There was a study done at Northwestern and Princeton maybe 10 years ago, something like this, a definitive study of decades worth of policy which established very clearly that there is a near zero relationship between what the public’s priorities are and what Congress actually passes. So this great tragedy that we’re hearing about today, which is so commonplace, which could be greatly reduced is, unfortunately, the rule and not the exception for how laws either get passed or don’t passed and whose interests are elected officials are serving in the current political climate, and I should just add, you know, that’s part of the reason why the Green Party exists. That’s why people like me run for office outside of the system of big money politics so that we can have policies that actually meet the needs and the really strong, urgent interests of the American people because we don’t take that money. We do not take corporate money. We do not use the loopholes like Super PACs, for example, which allows single donors to pour in millions, actually unlimited amounts of money, so-called dark money. There are many ends runs around the rules of campaign finance, so-called “victory funds”, which began, I think, with the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 that allow a single donor to write one check, for now it’s up to $1,000,000. A single donor can write $1,000,000 check for the presidential campaign and that money basically gets directed to that campaign, even though the laws according to the Federal Election Commission limit donations to $3300 per election cycle. That’s not a small amount of money, but it’s a very small amount of money compared to $1,000,000 and more. If you’re going through super PACs. So again, we have the best democracy money can buy, which is no democracy at all, which accounts for the fact that policies are being sold right out for. Under us, and it’s commonplace for our elected officials to be taking marching orders from their big donors and from the parties that survive on that big donor money rather than meeting the interests of the American people.
Jorge Majfud: You mentioned the Second Amendment. You know, the American Constitution is so old that it’s like a religious text. So, it’s a matter of interpretation. “A well-regulated militia.” What does it mean? In the 30’s, the Supreme Court had a completely different interpretation to the current interpretation of what that line means. And that was basically due to the NRA lobbies that began in the 70s. So it’s basically a matter of interpretation and regulation. You don’t even need to change the constitution, but to regulate it. In an airport, the Second Amendment doesn’t apply. Now, many journalists in different countries asked me a very, very simple question. They ask, how different is the Green Party or this Green Party from the Twin Parties, Democrat and Republican?
Jill Stein: You know, I think the overarching difference between the Green Party and the establishment parties you know, really is the money and who therefore pulls the strings, and you know, that’s kind of like the overarching framework. But what that then results in is the fact that Greens can advocate to meet the really urgent needs. Of regular, everyday people. We’re not out there fighting for what the lobbyists want. We’re out there fighting for what regular people want. So what is that? It’s things like healthcare as a human right for every. One, you know, we have a continuing crisis here in the US in spite of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, healthcare is still not affordable. It’s far from it. Even if you are getting your healthcare through the Affordable Care Act, it’s a very tough road to hoe. And it’s somewhere around the numbers are now somewhere around 60 million Americans who do not have adequate healthcare, who either are uninsured, or they’re not adequately insured yet. We could have a system like expanded improved Medicare for All, which basically covers everyone comprehensively. It covers your mental health, your dental care, your eyeglasses, your hearing, and your chronic care. If your parents were you or a child need chronic care at home that’s actually covered. Under Medicare for All, it’s not covered currently, unless you spend yourself into poverty and then you can get covered under Medicaid. But if you have chronic conditions, it’s very hard right now. For example, if you get a diagnosis of cancer, the answer is the odds are more than 40% that within two years you will have spent down your life savings and may even you know, lose your house on account of just taking care of your cancer. So, the Greens advocate for healthcare for everyone. As a human right and, by the way, through Medicare for All, it actually saves us half a trillion dollars a year because when you have only one insurance provider instead of hundreds of them. You save so much money on the bureaucracy and the red tape right now we need a whole army of bureaucrats just to figure out what insurance company is going to cover you or not cover you for everything that you need? If you go into a hospital and you need an aspirin they ask, does your insurance company cover the aspirin? And how much of the aspirin do they cover? I mean, it’s minutiae like this that we are spending actually one out of every three healthcare dollars. Now for just the bureaucracy in the red tape. Medicare does away with all of that instead of a 30%. Overhead, it has more like a 3% overhead. So, by consolidating those administrative expenses, we can actually expand healthcare to cover everyone and still have half a trillion leftover. That’s one of the main issues for Greens.
Another one, is the endless wars, the endless wars which are actually costing us? Half of our congressional dollars right now are being spent on the endless war machine, so it’s about a trillion dollars a year. We advocate for cutting that at least 50% right now. We’re spending more than the next 10 biggest spenders combined. And what does that get us? It gets us a lot of interventions. We’ve sent the military in 250 times in the last 30 years. That’s according to the Congressional Research Service, you know, and it’s trillions of dollars that we’re spending on major war after major war, which are not making the world a safer place. Don’t make us safer. Get us embroiled in all kinds of conflicts that we should not be involved in so. That’s another place where we differ, we say cut the military budget. Let’s have an actual defense policy rather than an offense policy. And let’s put those dollars into true security here at home, ensuring that we have the healthcare, the quality schools, the education.
I should mention we also call for a public higher education. As a human right covering that for free, which was done in my day in my higher education, was a public higher education either free or just about free. We call for bailing out the students who are locked into virtually unpayable student debt. We call for paying that off as a major public investment to unleash incredible, you know, productivity. In our economy, we know from the GI Bill, every dollar that we spend on higher education is returned sevenfold back into the economy, from what we get out of that investment.
And I’ll just mention one other thing about Greens aside from our, you know, environmental policies and all that, which maybe I’ll go into later, but we also call for addressing the housing emergency. We have an absolute housing crisis in this country right now, where half of all renters are spending 30 to 50% of their income, which is almost impossible. People are severely financially stressed trying to keep a roof over their heads. We call for rent control and on a federal basis right now to stabilize rents. We call for ending the power of private equity to buy up housing right now and basically just hanging on to it in order to drive the cost up and lower the supply of housing. We also call for a tenant Bill of Rights so that you cannot be evicted simply because your landlord wants to upgrade and drive the rent up and gentrify the neighborhood. And we also call for so-called social housing back in the Clinton administration, Bill Clinton passed a bill called the Faircloth amendment, that ended public dollars for public housing. It basically ended the institution of public housing and allowed it to basically degrade over, you know, the coming decades, so that there’s very little public housing and the quality has been just really devastated over the years. We call for investing again in public housing. And as a social good, we call for housing as a human. And right in the same way that healthcare should also be a human right, these should not be allowed to be profiteered into absolute unaffordability and create the crisis that we have for a reasonable investment we can create. We actually call for 15,000,000 units of. Affordable public housing, which is high quality, which is built according to integrated green principles. Meaning, they’re very energy efficient. They are provided with public transportation so that they don’t add to, you know, the problems of sprawl and pollution and traffic congestion and all that protects green space through concentrated housing and include. Green space as an essential component of healthy communities and healthy housing. People are much healthier if we have access to green space and recreational space.
Jorge Majfud: We are going to go back to the plutocracy problem, but we still have a structural problem with the electoral system.
The current electoral system is very indirect and rooted in the legacy of slavery. States like California, Texas, and New York require twice as many votes as Alaska or Mississippi for each elector, undermining the democratic principle of “one person, one vote.” Additionally, every state, regardless of population, elects two senators so sparsely populated states like Alaska (with less than one million people) have the same Senate representation as populous states like California ―with 40 million people.
Currently, the real third party in the U.S. is the Abstention Party, with about 80 million eligible voters not participating in the 2020 election. Biden received 81 million votes. Many feel their vote doesn’t matter in solid red and blue states. For instance, in California, Biden got 11 million votes to Trump’s 6 million. Even if 3 to 5 million people voted for a third party, it wouldn’t change the elector distribution due to the winner-takes-all system.
Jill Stein: A great point. You know, the question is really, how do we create a real system of democracy when there are so many things in our system right now which are quite anti-democratic and you know, that includes not only the Electoral College. It includes the first past the post system, which gives all the Electoral College votes to whatever candidate gets the largest chunk, and it may not even be a major purity. It is the ballot access laws that make it very hard by design, for other choices to appear on the ballot. And we know that the American people are really hungry for more choices. We see this in poll after poll. There’s a poll that’s run by Gallup every year that asks people you know, are they satisfied with the two-party system? Or do they see the need for another option? And that number keeps going up and up. It’s now at a record 63% of Americans who say yes, we really need another major political party because the two that we have are doing such a bad job of responding to the public interest. So, you know, there are there many things that contribute.
This crisis of democracy is the difficulty, even getting on the ballot to be a choice for the American people who are saying yes, we need more choices. That is part of the crisis you may have seen some coverage in the news recently about the challenges. To our ballot lines, we are fighting to provide another choice in this election, a choice which is Antiwar, Anti Genocide, pro workers. Addressing the climate emergency, things that are not actually dealt with at all by the other campaigns, and we’re fighting to get into the public discussion, because if you just leave it to the two major players, they’re not going to mention.
You know these issues about the genocide, about the endless war machine that’s robbing us blind about the climate crisis. You’re not hearing them talk about that, not at all. And the Democrats in particular claim to have solved the problem, but they’re not solving the problem in the least. Maybe we’ll get to that later. But they, you know, they provide lip service without actually solving the problem.
We know, for example, that both Joe Biden and Barack Obama broke all records for fossil fuel emissions and for exports and made the US the leading producer of fossil fuels at the same time. That they’re claiming to be the friends of the climate well. No, it doesn’t work that way. The climate actually doesn’t care about renewable energy. People do, but the climate doesn’t. The climate really cares about fossil fuel production, and the Democrats have been every bit as bad as the Republicans. In fact, have exceeded Republicans, both in extraction on public land and the sales of public land for the purpose of fossil fuel extraction, and also for actually the emissions, so this problem is not getting solved at all and that’s why you know fundamentally we are fighting to be on the ballot so that we can offer a choice. We also address the, you know, the the crisis of democracy. In our system, one of the things I didn’t mention was the role of money in politics, which has totally gone off the charts. You may have seen at the Democratic National Convention. Currently coverage by actually it was Chris Cuomo on News Nation if you saw…
Jorge Majfud: Yes, I did. Chris Cuomo mentioned the suites that were in the upper ring of the Chicago Bulls stadium, which cost between $500,000 and $5 million each.
Jill Stein: Each!
Jorge Majfud: Those are the donors to the Democratic and Republican parties. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris was talking about regulating the rich and taxing their earnings. I guess they were laughing…
Today the New York Times published a report that shows that in local elections in the US, they mentioned 27,400 local elections, and out of those, 14,400 cases had only one candidate on the ballot. That is a single party candidate, mostly Republican. The report mentioned Missouri, for example, but that is also connected with plutocracy, something we can call, instead of democracy, demo-crazy.
The post-Civil War mega-corporations continued the legacy of the slave corporations. 1888 President Rutherford Hayes complained: “The real difficulty is with the vast wealth and power in the hands of the few… Hundreds of laws of Congress and the state legislatures are in the interest of these men and against the interests of workingmen… This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations.”
In 2010, the Supreme Court held that corporate funding to parties cannot be limited under the First Amendment and that these limitless donations can sometimes be kept secret.
According to a 2016 USA Today investigation, thousands of laws passed by state legislatures were “copy and paste” of texts that congressmen received from big corporations. Another proof of legalized corruption, which may explain why, from 1975 through 2018, 90 percent of Americans transferred the equivalent of two USA economies to the top one percent.
It looks like a Political Democracy trapped in an economic dictatorship. How could ordinary people or a Third Party change that long and powerful tradition of legal corruption?
Jill Stein: Great. I mean, that’s kind of the $24,000 question. How do we ever change this, when the system is so locked down? And I want to come back to that in just a second. But, as evidence of how hard it is to change is the fact that, you know, the Democratic Party announced back in March that they had hired an army of lawyers to throw competitors like myself off the ballot. And Robert Kennedy Jr., and Cornell West. You know, they’re trying to throw their competitors off the ballot by hiring lawyers to basically conduct law fair, which is essentially looking for little technical gotchas, violating the spirit of the law and finding little ways to block their competition, which is extremely anti-democratic from the get-go. They didn’t stop there though, and they’ve challenged us in three states so far we’ve prevailed. We’ve been able to fight them in court and to win and secure our ballot status. So far in these three states. One more challenge to go right now, but they also started advertising for infiltrators and spies, and we actually have that job posting to manage infiltrators and spies in order to wreck our, you know, our ballot access drives. And they also hijacked our public funding. There’s just a little bit of public funding right now that was part of this system to create an alternative to corporate funding. So, candidates wouldn’t have to sell their souls.
That program still exists. We are one of the few candidates and parties that actually use it. They were to have provided us with about $300,000 almost two months ago for part of our ballot access drives and they refused to provide that money. They found a technical excuse basically to hang on to it. We may be getting it in coming weeks, but they. Blocked it also to make it even harder to get on the ballot, you know, so and this is the Democratic Party.
Let me just describe one other thing that they did. This was in 2020-22 where they impersonated the Green Party and they called up people who had signed the petition of one of our candidates running for Senate in North Carolina in 2022, running at the federal level for Senate, and they called people who had signed his petition and told them that they were the green. Party. They weren’t the Green Party. These were people being managed by the Democratic National Committee. The DNC [Democratic National Committee] hired people to basically fraudulently misrepresent themselves as saying that they were the Green Party and they wanted names taken off the position because they decided they didn’t want this guy running for office anymore, but they happened to call the Co-chair of the Green Party. And tell him that they were the Green Party and would he please take his name off the off the ballot petition and he had the presence of mind to record the conversation, which was then brought to court and the Democrats were convicted and found guilty of so-called operating with dirty hands. I don’t know why they don’t call that fraud and election interference. I mean, we talk about election interference from foreign power. Is based on tweets. How is it not election interference when you’re fraudulently misrepresenting yourselves in order to get candidates taken off the ballot, so you know the bottom line here. Is that people always talk about the Republicans and how they interfere with democracy after the election? Well, the Democrats also do it in advance of the election. They do it. Honestly, and you know, it’s not like we have to wait for Donald Trump for fascism to get here. We have fascism, authoritarianism, wherever you want to draw the line. But this is completely anti-democratic. And you know that is being done.
So back to your question, on how do we ever solve this problem? They’re in charge and they have control over the airwaves. They have control over mainstream, you know, but they don’t have perfect control. Put it that way. And they especially don’t have control over social media. In the year 2020, as you pointed out, it was one out of every three eligible voters who did not vote because they didn’t buy what was being rammed down their throats the candidates. Back in 2016, the numbers were even higher. It was more like 40, 42 percent of eligible voters, something like that. It was a higher percentage that was not voting. So, the American people are not happy and they are looking for other options, and the question is, when is that tipping point going to be hit? Because right now people are struggling. Against incredible economic and racial disparities. A younger generation has basically been locked out of survival. Polls of young people now under age 25, half of young people, say that they are hopeless about the future, and 1/4 of young people are actually saying that they’ve contemplated harming themselves within two weeks of the poll.
Things are that bad and not going well when you have two major parties who are bought. Paid for by the war machine by Wall Street, by the health insurance and Big Pharma. When they’re running the show, it’s not working for ordinary people, and ordinary people have really reached the end of their rope. Over 60 per cent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and are not happy about it. So, the question is, when will we break through in this race? You know, because the genocide is a red line for many voters who are saying they’re not going to hold their nose and vote for genocide, not with either party.
We’re seeing a whole lot of interest and organized power coming into our campaign and into the Green Party now, which suggests that maybe we’re getting to a tipping point. Because the genocide doesn’t stand alone. It’s part of this very overblown military industrial complex which is robbing us blind and depriving us of the things that we really urgently need right now. It’s anybody’s guess what will happen in this election.
A poll was just released (I think three days ago) of Muslim American voters showing that I am tied with Kamala Harris now. Basically, the vote is divided between the two of us. This is absolutely unprecedented and represents a huge drop-in support for the Democrats. Arab Americans and Muslim Americans are taking the genocide very seriously because they are up close and personal to what’s going on. Americans in general are personally impacted by the squandering of our tax dollars on the endless war machine and the failure to actually provide health care and housing and quality education, things that. Countries far poorer than us, you know, have a better shot at than we do here in this country.
I just want to make the point that this is a moving target right now and to quote Frederick Douglass, “Power concedes nothing without a demand, it never has, and it never will.” So that’s number one. If we don’t stand up for what we want, we’re never going to get it and people are forever being intimidated out of voting for what they want, whether it’s peace in Palestine and Israel, whether it is cutting the war budget and putting that money into education here, people are forever being told “No, don’t vote for what you need. Vote for whatever the power that be tell you to do.”
The question when are we gonna break away from that? Well, the companion to the Frederick Douglass quote is Alice Walker saying, “The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.” If you add up the number of people who want to end the genocide right now, the number of people who are locked into student debt, that’s 44 million. The number of people who are struggling with their healthcare, and that’s about 60 million. Right now, you have more than the numbers needed to win a three-way presidential race, so you know, in my mind the answer to that question about how do we break through the most critical thing is for us to exercise the courage of our convictions and to flick the switch in our own minds. From being powerless, which is what we’re told all the time to being powerful to actually having the power to cast our votes and stand up, whether it’s five percent or whether it’s 51 percent, you have to start from where you are and build from there and not be intimidated out of your power. Power in democracy is our votes. If we’re not using our votes, we’re basically contributing to the shutdown of our democracy.
Jorge Majfud: Some of us are waiting for a new 60s in the next decade that maybe more or less what you are suggesting. You know, civil rights movements, etcetera. However, in the last 20 years, we have been moving towards the Middle Ages and now in a more conscious way. Some people, particularly in the Republican Party are more in favor of a Dark Illustration. That is a reversal of the equality principle of democracy and certain ideals of the Illustration. That brings me to another topic, which is freedom of speech and education. That’s very important, particularly here in Florida.
In June 2021, General Mark Milley responded in Congress about the Critical Race Theory and the accusation of being “woke”: He said: “I’ve read Mao Zedong. I’ve read Karl Marx. I’ve read Lenin. That doesn’t make me a communist.”
In 2021-22, just 11 people were responsible for filing 60 percent of thousands of book challenges. Thousands of books were removed from schools and libraries. Even topics or words like gay or slavery have been limited when not directly silenced. For freedom, the most devastating effect is not only censorship but self-censorship.
On August 2, Rey Rodrigues (Chancellor of the Board of Governors of the State University System of Florida) emailed every Florida public university and college to “review relevant course resources such as textbooks … for either antisemitic material and/or anti-Israeli bias.” Gonsales wrote: “Any course that contains the following keywords: Israel, Israeli, Palestine, Palestinian, Middle East, Zionism, Zionist, Judaism, Jewish, or Jews will be flagged for review.”
Some people and parties win elections by repeating freedom, freedom, and freedom ―but once in power, they practice ban, ban, and bang.
Why this open attack on academic freedom? Are we finally moving from making free speech irrelevant (like during Slavery) to censoring it directly, in the name of freedom?
Jill Stein: That’s a great question. Why this attack on academic freedom, you know, in the form of banning books and banning ideas… The statistic you pointed out is really incredible, that just 11 people were responsible basically for banning 60 percent of the books that were banned. I mean, it’s still just shocking. That tells you how incredibly, you know, anti Democratic this whole regime is.
Jorge Majfud: Florida is epicenter, and Texas as well.
Jill Stein: I want to connect the dots here because it’s not just books that are being banned and ideas that are being banned. You know, we saw with the assault on Julian Assange that went on for about 14 years, an absolute assault on freedom of the press. We’re looking at an assault on freedom of speech. And the right to protest, which is also under fire, both on campuses as well as you know out there in the world. We’re looking at a ban on basically on political discourse as well. Just yesterday, we were in Tampa, where the so-called Uhuru movement, which is basically a left African American group, is being charged essentially as a “foreign agent,” that to criticize US foreign policy is being a foreign agent. No, I don’t think so.
These are like, lifelong, deeply held beliefs of these activists who are now being threatened with 15 years in jail, for participating in elections and running on their beliefs. I had the same challenge thrown at me in 2016 for basically standing up on the issues. You know, for being an anti-war candidate for being an anti-nuclear candidate on a pro-peace candidate I was accused of being a Russian. Is that mainly because that was politically convenient? It was a politically convenient charge that was essentially issued by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, who were trying to marginalize me by trying to brand me as a Russian asset. I was investigated for three years by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Because of that and essentially, you know, eventually I proved my innocence, which is ridiculous to have to prove your innocence. You’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. But the tide is turned when you have a political accusation.
Jorge Majfud: Sounds like McCarthyism.
Jill Stein: McCarthyism, exactly. This is a new kind of McCarthyism, which is very full blown. And that’s what’s happening on campus. This is what’s happening politically. This is part of the effort of the Democratic Party now to shut down its political opposition. This is not what democracy looks like. This is the opposite of democracy. This is why, in my view, we don’t have to wait for Donald Trump to see fascism growing in this country when we have the Israeli Defense forces training our local police all across the country in these very vicious and horrific abusive tactics for policing. This is going on not only at the cop’s city in Atlanta, but there are also about 80 such cop cities. That are under construction now across the whole country. Unbeknownst to many people, the draft is also back. It’s not been activated, but the database is up to date and if you have kids between what 18 and 25, they are registered in that database and Uncle Sam’s knows where you are. We are being essentially railroaded into this very militarized economy. A very militarized society. And the price we pay is our democracy and our right to free speech, the right to protest. The reason Julian Assange was targeted is because he exposed war crimes, torture, abuse and corruption. This is the role of journalism. That’s what the press is supposed to do. They’re not supposed to be lap dogs to power. They’re supposed to be watchdogs to power. But we’re in a situation right now where we’re seeing incredible abuses of power, and that includes this assault on our First Amendment. Our 4th Amendment rights and our right to privacy and our basic constitutional protections are under assault. The American people do not like this. Do not want this. Want this to be debated.
This is another reason why we are fighting to be on the ballot and to be in the debates and in the discussion and covered by the media. Because the basics of our democracy, our economy, our environment are being sold out from under us to the highest bidder. This is a very dangerous situation for all of us, and what’s going on with the banning of books, unfortunately, is just one detail in this larger situation. If democracy prevails, we will roll all that back. Because it does not have public support, but in the same way you made the point that we’re, I think you said, a plutocracy, we are ruled by the very few and the very rich because our political system is bought and paid for. This is a crisis, as money has been more and more concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, to wear the richest three people in the US now have as much money as 50 percent of the population. So, wealth and power are very concentrated and in the words of the famous Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, “we can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we can’t have both.” Unfortunately, in this country we have chosen vast concentrations of wealth. When wealth is concentrated into very few hands, it finds ways to buy power and to basically. Through legalized forms of corruption, and sometimes not so legalized to buy its way to ever greater power, we are in the crisis of that moment right now, and it’s absolutely unsustainable and unsurvivable now to the majority of the American public. And the question is when are we going to have a real debate? About this and set it right that. What happened? The minute our democracy is unleashed, that’s not going to happen from the two political parties that are now running the show, we need to open up our democracy and have more voices and more choices so that the American people can actually have a fighting chance.
Jorge Majfud: After the U.S. took over more than half of Mexico’s territory―from Texas to California―to expand slavery where it was previously illegal, expansion halted at the Rio Grande. This was to avoid incorporating areas heavily populated by what congressmen of the time considered «inferior races.» Instead, the U.S. established protectorates and military bases in Latin America.
In the 19th century, Washington conducted thousands of military interventions in Latin America to teach the N-people to govern themselves. This continued into the 20th century. During the Great Depression, the U.S. withdrew marines from some “banana republics” but left behind its local psychopaths in their governments, dictatorships that lasted for many generations.
During World War II, Washington neglected Latin America, which is why that region recovered a dozen democracies. But, just born, the CIA replaced the N-word with communists in every speech. Once again, Washington sent tsunamis of dollars to finance Latin American armies and coups.
In 1959, Senator John F. Kennedy said in Congress: “I don’t think giving this aid to South America is to strengthen them against the Soviet Union… (This money) is down the drain in a military sense, but in the political sense we hope they make effective use of it.”
President Nixon confirmed that idea in 1970; “I will never agree with the policy of downgrading the military in Latin America. They are power centers subject to our influence. The others (the intellectuals) are not subject to our influence.”
By the 1970s, a dozen democracies in Latin America had been lost, transformed into bloody military dictatorships (when not “obedient democracies”), guardians of American corporations’ “freedom of enterprise” and their accomplices, the Latin American oligarchy.
This story never ended; today, it is practiced in other ways.
What would be a Green Party Foreign Policy?
Jill Stein: The Green Party foreign policy would be very different. Just to add to what you were describing about what US foreign policy looks like actually. Since the Second World War, there have been approximately 70, 75 regimes change operations covert conducted largely by the CIA and by the US regime change operations like overthrowing the democratically elected government of Guatemala in order to prevent a land reform, which the United Fruit Company did not want. They did not want to be land reformed out of their monopoly over the land, which was basically starving the peasants. So, you know, the CIA came into the rescue and overthrew that government and installed one of their own. Same thing in Iran around the same time in the in the early 1950s, where the democratically elected government of Iran was going to nationalize the oil and use the oil supply of Iran for the Iranian people and the US and the UK came in and overthrew Mosaddeq and installed the Shah, a brutal dictator who was there for basically generations, a cruel and vicious dictator who was there essentially until the Islamic revolution overthrew him. The point here is that when the US has come into mess with, other sovereign nations, we create an incredible mess that lasts for a long time, and this blows back at us as well through global instability through failed states, like in Libya, where there are open air slave markets after US and NATO intervention. Arter overthrow Gaddafi in Libya, you have mass migrations as people flee the desperate conditions of their countries and continuing terrorist threats, it resolves nothing to basically overthrow governments and install violent dictatorships.
It’s a disaster. So, the Green Party would have none of that. We would move from a foreign policy based on currently on military might and economic domination and neocolonialism. We would move from that to a foreign policy based on international law, human rights and diplomacy, and use that as our guide and. Not use raw militarism instead of enforcing. This current concept of a monopolar world, a world dominated by the US empire. Instead, we would join with the Community of nations to be a multipolar world living according to the laws of nations, because it will either be the laws of nations or the laws of the jungle.
The US is no longer the dominant economic power, so we are not going nor are we now the dominant military power. So, we need to get with the program and start operating like a mature adult member of the Community, not like the bully in the schoolyard so that we can have a sustainable, peaceful world that will work for all of us.
Because this monopolar, imperial dominated world is actually not working for anyone and is extremely unstable. We have at least three areas now of very serious conflict. Two of them are hot wars, obviously around Ukraine and in Israel Gaza that’s they’re both enlarging hot wars. And then there’s a Cold War that could easily turn hot right now around China and all of these could go nuclear. Not hard to imagine how that could happen. So, we are on a very dangerous trajectory on this imperial notion of US domination. We would leave that behind us and get with the program of a foreign policy based on International Law, Human Rights and diplomacy that we can all live with.
Jorge Majfud: Let’s move quickly to Immigration. Illegal immigrants have much lower criminal rates than US citizens despite having a disproportionate number of young males. Still, every time some of them commit a crime, he immediately makes the headlines, and politicians escalate the criminalization of a vast group that cannot vote and has no lobby.
They don’t know the language or the laws, but they still manage to find jobs, which are crucial for our society. Unlike outsourcing, they produce and consume here and are ready to work from the first day without the usual government investment of 12 or 20 years of education and health care.
We are against illegal immigration but also against the criminalization of a very vulnerable group. Usually, poor, desperate people take Coyote’s 10- or 15-thousand-dollar loans to come here illegally. Why? Because the US immigration laws hate poor workers. In a US embassy, it is better to say you are a lazy, sluggish person with an exciting bank account than a hard worker if you don’t want to be denied a visa.
Besides all that, in proportion, the US is one of the least compassionate countries in the World receiving refugees.
What would be the Immigration policy of the Green Party?
Jill Stein: That the most important thing we can do to fix the immigration crisis is to stop causing it in the first place through regime change operations which need to come to an end, we need to respect the sovereignty of other nations. We need to end the war on drugs by treating. Drug use as a public health issue, not as a criminal issue. And the minute we do that, we pull the rug out from under the drug cartels and their violence, which is also forcing many people to leave their homes. We, on day one, would legalize marijuana and we would begin a program to decriminalize other drugs as well, in order to basically end the power of the drug cartels. We would also address, you know, the economic exploitation; to look at Haiti, for example, where we overthrew the Aristide Government twice, we could then suppress the minimum wage laws which had raised the minimum wage from something like $0.30 an hour up to $0.60 an hour. That was the minimum wage law, which had been passed. We were able to suppress that minimum wage law and push it back down, in order to protect the profits of basically the clothing industry that was making out like bandits with cheap labor in Haiti. These are the kinds of policies that created the instability which is driving people here. You know, if you look at the countries and also, we would end the economic sanctions, for example against Cuba and Venezuela and Nicaragua, economic sanctions that are actually illegal (in violation of international law) and drive incredible instability and drive people to force, you know, forcing them to flee for their survival here…
So number one, we would stop causing the migration crisis in the first place, and greatly decompress the numbers of people who are having to flee here. We would also address the climate crisis, by the way, through a green New Deal here, but also assisting other countries in their efforts to green their economies and cope with the climate crisis because it is drought. That have put millions of farmers out of work that is also driving much of the migration coming here, so we would address.
These drivers, some of them are, can be addressed more quickly than others, like the drug cartels that can be addressed fairly quickly, but not the other issues that will take some time. We want to decompress what’s forcing people to flee their homes, and in addition, instead of spending billions of dollars on a wall, which is completely ineffective. All it does is kill people and kill wildlife and destroy ecosystems. Instead of spending money on the wall, we will spend the money on the immigration attorneys on the civil society supports so that people can be quickly process [they request and] can get their background checks. We can ensure that they’re not allowing people with a history of violent criminal records into the country. We can do those checks expeditiously, give people their papers and then allow them in with papers, so they can go to work.
Because when migrants are actually working, they more than pay their own way in their taxes and, contrary to the mythology that’s being peddled now (particularly by Republicans, but increasingly Democrats as well) migrants are peaceful. They actually make our communities more peaceful and secure. They are not bringing the drugs. The drugs are crossing the border in portals of entry carried largely by Americans, not by migrants.
Also, migrants are our hard working and represent, basically, a huge economic resource. A recent study showed that over the next decade, migrants are worth basically about $7 trillion worth of economic development for the country. So, we can do the right thing by way of, you know, human rights, asylum laws, but the right thing for this country as well, by offloading the drivers that are causing the crisis and by expeditiously processing migrants so that they can go to work and become contributing, vibrant members of our communities.
Jorge Majfud: My last question. Very recently, Mr. Trump have said: “if you want to eliminate Israel, then we don’t want you in our country.” On August 14, you published an open letter stating: “The only way to end this madness is to break free from the twin parties of war and Wall Street and vote Green… to end this genocide and forge a new path rooted in justice for Palestine.” On August 15, Trump blamed “our left-wing media institutions” for the rise of antisemitism.
It looks like we cannot discuss moral values and Human Rights outside the ideological box. Antisemitism, historically associated with extreme right-wing groups, has been on the rise due to a neo-Nazi revival in both the USA and Europe, even before the recent conflict in Gaza. But Mr. Trump blamed “a certain candidate for the president of the United States, which is hard to believe in our colleges and universities…” I think he was talking about you. Who else? Not Ms. Harris, for sure.
How do you respond to these very easy and common accusations? How do you respond to this? Very easy common trap of identifying Zionism. It is Judaism and the antisemitism with anti-Semitism for example. What is going on in Gaza and Palestine?
Jill Stein: Yeah. Yeah. So that’s a common mistake. Take to think that, Zionism and Judaism are the same thing. They are not the same thing. Zionism was actually regarded with a lot of skepticism within the Jewish religion for a long time. It’s only recently that there’s been such a strong focus on Zionism. But Zionism is a political ideology. It is not a religion, and we have a duty, in this country, to look carefully at our wars and the wars that we are sponsoring.
You know, I grew up in the Jewish community, attending a Reform synagogue right after the Holocaust, after the Second World War. And I, my community was coming to terms with the Holocaust, and we came to terms with that genocide by vowing that it would not happen again, not to anyone. In the community as I grew up, it’s not just the perpetrators of genocide that we held accountable. We held accountable the bystanders to genocide, the people who just looked the other way and let it happen, and we vowed that we would never do that.
So, you know, to my mind that’s why I am active in fighting against this genocide in Gaza because it is a crime against humanity. It is a crime against all of us. This is not a religious conflict. Jews, Christians and Muslims. Lived in peace for millennia in Palestine, in Jerusalem. It was only with the arrival of the Zionists that conflict erupted, and that conflict was not just the Zionists against the Palestinians. It was also the Zionists against the Jews and the Zionists against the Christians as well.
There’s a lot of just basic education that needs to take place. Right now, the National Archives of Israel only became available for public inspection and for historians to look at in the 1990s. Starting in the 1990s, there was a whole lot more awareness of what kind of happened, even before Israel was founded. The issue was essentially that Zionists were intent on claiming this land, which did not belong to them. There were other occupants there and having been the victims of a genocide doesn’t make it OK for you then to conduct a genocide yourself. So, this is a readily solved problem. It’s solved by international law and the International Court of Justice has had several rulings on this has, as has the United Nations. Over and over again, the genocide needs to, and the occupation needs to end. Israel needs to withdraw from Gaza and from the West Bank, which they’re also in the process of trying to appropriate now. And the apartheid government of Israel also needs to end, and the ethnic cleansing.
This did not begin on October 7th. This has been the story since before the founding of the State of Israel. This began somewhere around 75 or 77 years ago. This is solved by international law and human rights to look the other way is to basically give a thumbs up to the torture and murder of children on an industrial scale. The issue is not, you know, of people like myself and most Americans, I must say 68 percent of Americans, according to a Reuters poll, who want an immediate end to the genocide. That is not anti-Semitic. To say that it’s antisemitic to object to genocide is like saying that Jews approve of genocide, and to my mind that is the most antisemitic thing that anyone could say.
I feel like it’s being faithful to the highest principles not only of Judaism but of Islam, Christianity, and just plain Humanity to say that we cannot allow this absolutely senseless slaughter for no justification whatsoever to continue. It needs to be stopped and the rules of international law need to be abided by.
We can make this happen with a simple. One call, Ronald Reagan did that when Israel had entered Lebanon pursuing the PLO, which was basically the Hamas of its day. It was the resistance force of its day, and thousands of people were being massacred in Lebanon, and Ronald Reagan picked up the phone and he told Menachem Begin, the current Prime Minister at that time to Israel that hat had to stop, that Israel had to withdraw its troops and had to end the missile strikes and the bombing. It was over that day. Dwight Eisenhower did the same thing. When Israel went into Egypt. We need to do the same thing right now. It’s as simple as a phone call. And if Israel and Netanyahu, who is a war criminal, will not comply, then the weapons are cut off.
It’s actually against U.S. law right now to be providing weapons to countries that are violating human rights, that are interfering with the delivery of humanitarian aid and which are out of compliance with nuclear weapons treaties, which Israel is by having nuclear weapons in defiance of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
So based on three laws, it’s actually illegal for the United States to be providing military assistance to Israel right now. In fact it is illegal for us not to be doing that right now and on day one, our administration would do that immediately and ensure that this is a disaster not just for Gaza and Palestine. This is also a disaster for Israel, and Israel is mobilizing its neighbors against. People are leaving Israel by the droves. Its economy is a mess. Having a fascist state is not compatible with survival really for any country in this day and age.
Israel needs to begin complying with international law. We can make that happen. We have the power to do that in the blink of an eye. Otherwise, we are normalizing the torture and murder of children on an industrial scale. We are making mincemeat of international law. We are not going to be top dog around the world for very much longer, so we ourselves need international law here in the US to ensure that we have, you know, we have a world that is. Survivable for all of us because, given the weapons that we have. Right now, not just us, but Russia and China and probably Iran too. There’s a lot of weapons out there that can transcend boundaries readily. We cannot feel that just because it’s over there, we’re safe. We are all in the target hairs. We are all being impoverished by this endless war machine, and we are all endangered by it as well. So, we need to step up to the plate and get with the program, start supporting international law instead of tearing it down. And that begins by ending the genocide in Gaza now.
Kensington, Pennsylvania. May 6, 1844—In retaliation for the demonstrations against him in the Irish district of Kensington, Lewis Levin organizes a protest of three thousand followers who kill dozens of Irish and burn dozens of houses, in addition to the Catholic churches of St. Michael and Saint Augustine. None of these crimes will be tried and Levin will be elected Representative for Pennsylvania, a position he will take office on March 4, 1845, from where he will continue his fight against immigrants (unwanted immigrants), responsible for the decline of America.
Christmas, the Roman festival in honor of the goddess of the Sun, resisted for a thousand years by Christians of all kinds, had landed in the new promised land and has now become the symbol of Christianity. Protestants in the United States get used to the idea, but they still refuse to accept this horrible custom of getting drunk and giving things away in honor of Jesus. This year, for Valentine’s Day, the custom of buying and selling on religious occasions has also reached unruly proportions.
For decades, the biggest controversy in the United States was not the issue of slavery but of the invasion of non-Protestant European immigrants and a rather strange and suspicious target. Immigrants and children of English and German immigrants do not want Irish. They are Catholics and represent an impure variation of the white race. In Europe, England has stripped the poorest Irish of their lands and the political protection of their church, which has caused one million to die from hunger and another million to emigrate to America via the shortest route across the Atlantic. In America they are not and will not be welcome for at least a century. Some are killed working on railroad tracks to prevent the spread of cholera and other contagious diseases. Others cannot enter restaurants that, with signs on their doors and windows, clarify: “Dogs and Irish are not accepted.” Not infrequently they are warned not to appear for job calls. In different jobs that require brute force and wage slaves, they are eliminated. The Irish who conspire for the independence of Ireland will be considered terrorists, as the Indians were before, as the German workers will be at the end of the 19th century and the Italians a few generations later. During the 20th century, when fear, hatred and racial paranoia are transferred again to the blacks and mixed-race people of the Southern Border, the Irish will assimilate into the dominant ethnic group, becoming white and even have a president who, for other reasons, he will be killed with a shot to the head.
The lawyer Lewis Charles Levin, who in a few months will become the first Jewish congressman in the history of his country, in the summer of 1843 had founded the American Republican Party (later known as the American Nativist Party and, above all, recognized as the Know Nothing Party by its own members). Like the future nativist parties that will be refounded again and again until the 21st century, the Know Nothing Party is openly xenophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, and against taverns and alcohol. Levin, the teetotal son of immigrants who in 1833 had married Ann Christian Hays, a relative of President James Polk, would have a long political career and would die in an asylum for the mentally ill. His contributions that will long outlive him include ending civilized coexistence between Catholics and Protestants in Pennsylvania, identifying a certain group of European immigrants as natives of the American continent, and demonstrating that xenophobic rhetoric is a powerful political weapon to unite a society divided by the fanaticism of its colors and its social classes.
Visiting scholar, Dr. Jorge Majfud, will discuss different topics: immigration, race, the role of the humanities and intellectuals in the public sphere, etc. Dr. Majfud is Associate Professor of Spanish, Latin American Literature & International Studies at Jacksonville University, Florida.
Q&A to follow the event
Hosts: Department of World Languages; LatinXProgram; Humanities Initiative; Campus Theme: Defining America
WCU welcomes Uruguayan-American scholar and author Jorge Majfud.
In the first event, Dr. Majfud will join Dr. Benjamin Francis-Fallon (WCU History) in a panel about Immigration and the evolution of the Latino Voting Bloc in the US.
Join us also the following day, when Dr. Majfud will engage in a dialogue with Dr. Alberto Centeno-Pulido (WCU World Languages) about immigration, racism, and the role of intellectuals in the public sphere as explorers of the human experience.
En mis clases siempre intento dejar claro qué es una opinión y qué un hecho, como regla elemental, como un ejercicio intelectual muy simple que nos debemos en la era post Ilustración. Comencé a obsesionarme con estas obviedades cuando en el 2005 descubrí que algunos estudiantes argumentaban que algo “es verdad porque yo lo creo” y no lo decían en broma. Desde entonces, sospeché que este entrenamiento intelectual, esta confusión de la física con la metafísica (aclarada por Averroes hace ya casi mil años) que cada año se hacía más dominante (la fe como valor supremo, aun contradiciendo todas las evidencias) provenía de las majestuosas iglesias del sur de Estados Unidos.
Pero el pensamiento crítico es mucho más complejo que distinguir hechos de opiniones. Bastaría con intentar definir un hecho. La misma idea de objetividad, paradójicamente, procede de la visión desde un punto, desde un objetivo, y cualquiera sabe que con el objetivo de una cámara fotográfica o de una filmadora se obtiene sólo una parte de a realidad que, con mucha frecuencia, es subjetiva o se usa para distorsionar la realidad bajo la pretensión de objetividad.
Por alguna razón, los estudiantes suelen estar más interesados en las opiniones que en los hechos. Tal vez por la superstición de que una opinión informada es una síntesis de miles de hechos. Esta idea es muy peligrosa, pero no podemos escapar al compromiso de dar nuestra opinión cuando se requiere. Sólo podemos, y debemos, advertir que una opinión informada sigue siendo una opinión que debe ser probada o desafiada.
La semana pasada los estudiantes discutían sobre la caravana de centroamericanos que se dirige a la frontera de Estados Unidos. Como uno de ellos insistió en saber mi opinión, comencé por el lado más controvertido: este país, Estados Unidos, está fundado en el miedo de una invasión y sólo unos pocos han sabido siempre cómo explotar esa debilidad, con consecuencias trágicas. Tal vez esta paranoia surgió con la invasión inglesa en 1812, pero si algo nos dice la historia es que prácticamente nunca ha sufrido una invasión a su territorio (si excluimos el ataque del 2001, el de Pearl Harbor, una base militar en territorio extranjero y, antes, la breve incursión de un mexicano montado a caballo, llamado Pancho Villa) y sí se ha especializado en invadir decenas de otros países desde su fundación (territorios indios) en el nombre de la defensa y la seguridad. Siempre con consecuencias trágicas.
Por lo tanto, la idea de que unos pocos miles de pobres de a pie van a invadir el país más poderoso del mundo es simplemente una broma de mal gusto. Como de mal gusto es que algunos mexicanos del otro lado adopten este discurso xenófobo que ellos mismos sufren, consolidando la ley del gallinero.
En la conversación mencioné, al pasar, que aparte de la paranoia infundada había un componente recial en la discusión.
“You don’t need to be a racist to defend the borders”, dijo un estudiante.
Cierto, observé. Uno no necesita ser racista para defender las fronteras o las leyes. En una lectura inicial, la frase es irrefutable. Sin embargo, si tomamos en consideración la historia y un contexto presente más amplio, enseguida salta un patrón abiertamente racista.
El novelista francés Anatole France, a finales del siglo XIX, había escrito: “La Ley, en su magnífica ecuanimidad, prohíbe, tanto al rico como al pobre, dormir bajo los puentes, mendigar por las calles y robar pan”. Uno no necesita ser clasista para apoyar una cultura clasista. Uno no necesita ser machista para reproducir el machismo más rampante. Con frecuencia, basta con reproducir, de forma acrítica, una cultura y defender alguna que otra ley.
Dibujé una figura geométrica en la pizarra y les pregunté qué veían allí. Todos dijeron un cubo, una caja. Las variaciones más creativas no salían de una idea tridimensional, cuando en realidad lo dibujado no era más que tres rombos formando un hexágono. Algunas tribus en Australia no ven 3D sino 2D en la misma imagen. Vemos lo que pensamos y a eso le llamamos objetividad.
Cuando Lincoln venció en la guerra civil, puso fin a una dictadura de cien años que hasta hoy todos llaman “democracia”. Por el siglo XVIII, los negros esclavos llegaban a ser más del cincuenta por ciento en estados como Carolina del Sur, pero no eran siquiera ciudadanos estadounidenses ni eran seres humanos con derechos mínimos. Desde mucho antes de Lincoln, racistas y anti racistas propusieron solucionar el “problema de los negros” enviándolos “de regreso” a Haití o a África, donde muchos de ellos terminaron fundado Liberia (la familia de Adja, una de mis estudiantes de este semestre, procede de ese país africano). Lo mismo hicieron los ingleses para limpiar de negros Inglaterra. Pero con Lincoln los negros se convirtieron en ciudadanos, y una forma de reducirlos a una minoría no fue solo poniéndoles trabas para votar (como el pago de una cuota) sino abriendo las fronteras a la inmigración.
La estatua de la Libertad, donada por los franceses, todavía reza: “dame los pobres del mundo, los desamparados…” Así, Estados Unidos recibió oleadas de inmigrantes pobres. Claro, pobres blancos en su abrumadora mayoría. Muchos resistieron a los italianos y a los irlandeses porque eran pelirrojos católicos. Pero, en cualquier caso, eran mejor que los negros. Los negros no podían inmigrar de África, no solo porque estaban mucho más lejos que los europeos sino porque eran mucho más pobres y casi no había rutas marítimas que los conectara con Nueva York. Los chinos tenían más posibilidades de alcanzar la costa oeste, y tal vez por eso mismo se aprobó una ley prohibiéndoles la entrada por el solo hecho de ser chinos.
Esta, entiendo, fue una forma muy sutil y poderosa de romper las proporciones demográficas, es decir, políticas, sociales y raciales de los Estados Unidos. El nerviosismo actual de un cambio de esas proporciones es sólo la continuación de la misma lógica. Si no, ¿qué podría tener de malo pertenecer a una minoría, de ser especial?
Claro, si uno es un hombre de bien y está a favor de hacer cumplir las leyes como corresponde, no por ello es racista. Uno no necesita ser racista cuando las leyes y la cultura ya lo son. En Estados Unidos nadie protesta por los inmigrantes canadienses o europeos. Lo mismo en Europa y hasta en el Cono Sur. Pero todos están preocupados por los negros y los mestizos híbridos del sur. Porque no son blancos, buenos, y porque son pobres, malos. Actualmente, casi medio millón de inmigrantes europeos viven ilegalmente en Estados Unidos. Nadie habla de ellos, como nadie habla de que en México vive un millón de estadounidenses, muchos de ellos de forma ilegal.
Terminada la excusa del comunismo (ninguno de esos crónicos Estados fallidos es comunista sino más capitalistas que Estados Unidos), volvemos a las excusas raciales y culturales del siglo anterior a la Guerra Fría. En cada trabajador de piel oscura se ve un criminal, no una oportunidad de desarrollo mutuo. Las mismas leyes de inmigración tienen pánico de los trabajadores pobres.
Es verdad, uno no necesita ser racista para apoyar las leyes y unas fronteras más seguras. Tampoco necesita ser racista para reproducir y consolidar un antiguo patrón racista y de clase, mientras nos llenamos la boca con eso de la compasión y la lucha por la libertad y la dignidad humana.
In 1758, the Governor of South Carolina, James Glen, acknowledged in a letter to his successor: “It has always been the policy of this government to create an aversion in them to Indians to Negroes.”
In previous generations, racism had not reached a sufficient level of hatred to prevent Indians, blacks, and poor whites from joining together for work, intimacy and, above all, to rebel against the power of the powerful.
The fault of violence was of the poor.
Today, two of the world’s most lucrative businesses are drug trafficking and arms sales.
Because drug production is in poor countries and consumption in rich countries, the blame for violence is on the producers, that is, on the poor.
Because the production of weapons is in rich countries and consumption in poor countries, the fault of the violence is on consumers, that is, the poor.
When the economy in rich countries thrives, the poor are the only ones to blame for their own poverty, as if the world were flat and everyone had the same opportunities.
When the economy in rich countries stagnates or recedes, then the poor are to blame for the fact that others do not have jobs. Especially if they are poor immigrants.
The fault is always of the poor.
The Statue of Liberty of New York received millions of immigrants (Europeans), without visas or passports, with the verses:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me”
However, now, according to the laws in rich countries, if someone is rich, a visa or a permanent residence is almost guaranteed. If someone is poor and his flag is work, he or she will be automatically blocked from entering rich countries.
In fact, the single word “working” at any consulate in the world is the first key that turns on all the alarms and closes the doors to an honest worker.
Because a world obsessed with growth, where capital produces more capital, does not believe that labor can produce more labor.
Because money is freer than human beings and a human being without money is not free but a slave.
To justify this global apartheid, we no longer resort to the concept of race but that of nations, and we confuse legality with legitimacy, as if the laws were not the expression of the conveniences of the power of the day, as if the laws were not often elegant ways to legalize the corruption of power.
Even the best laws are often unfair, especially with those who are not in power. As an example, the French novelist Anatole France made a remark a hundred years ago: “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.”
Dans la plupart des pays et à travers différentes époques, les classes les plus conservatrices se sont toujours situées aux extrémités de la pyramide sociale. Aux USA la rhétorique conservatrice s’est employée à capter une partie des couches les plus basses de la société, non pas en diminuant les impôts des riches (pour cela, il y a l’idéologie du «trickle down»*) mais en créant le démon de l’immigrant illégal. Rien de plus efficace pour canaliser les frustrations des populations défavorisées, que de fabriquer des ennemis tribaux au sein même de leur classe sociale.
Ainsi, en Arizona et en Géorgie, des lois ont été votées qui criminalisent «les sans-papiers», incitant de nombreux travailleurs «illégaux» à fuir d’un État à l’autre. Cela a entraîné chez les petits et moyens entrepreneurs une pénurie de main d’œuvre, notamment dans les secteurs de la construction et surtout de l’agriculture où l’on manque de bras pour les récoltes. Sur la seule côte ouest, plus de cent mille emplois de travailleurs agricoles saisonniers pour les récoltes n’ont pas trouvé preneurs. Bien sûr, il faut travailler sans climatisation !
De nombreuses études (ex. Damian Stanley et Peter Sokol-Hessner, NYU; Mahzarin Banaji, Harvard Univ., etc..) ont démontré que la peur de l’autre est préhistorique et que la présentation d’images de différents faciès provoque des réactions négatives, même chez l’individu le plus pacifique.
Cependant, ceux d’entre nous qui croient en l’existence d’une certaine évolution chez l’être humain, ne se feront pas les chantres d’un comportement millénaire au seul prétexte qu’il est millénaire. Nous concevons que l’amour, la haine, la peur ou la solidarité sont des émotions irréductibles, non quantifiables par principe ou définition et vraisemblablement immanentes à tous les êtres humains au cours de l’histoire. Mais cette persistance ne devrait en principe pas se retrouver dans les formes sous lesquelles les individus et les sociétés établissent des relations pour se développer et évoluer.
Si la notion de progrès historique n’est pas forcément intrinsèque à chacun de nous (un Tibétain du Ve siècle pouvait être socialement et moralement plus évolué que certains individus vivant aujourd’hui à Río ou à Philadelphie), nous pouvons en revanche espérer que ce progrès existe dans une société qui se donne la capacité de mettre à profit sa propre expérience historique et celle acquise hors de sa structure sociale. Si le mensonge, l’exploitation, les hiérarchies sociales et politiques se retrouvent chez les primates (Frans de Waal, etc..), ce n’est pas l’indice que ces structures (culturelles) ne peuvent pas être dépassées, mais exactement le contraire, si l’on s’attache à distinguer ce qui différencie les hommes de l’orang-outang.
Dans la problématique de l’immigration, ces éléments primitifs jouent inévitablement, bien que maquillés par des rhétoriques chargées de préceptes idéologiques dépourvus de la moindre rationalité. Par conséquent ce sont des mythes, des croyances indiscutables (donc, des réalités), qui dans des groupes déterminés, font l’objet de réitérations, surtout médiatiques.
Mythe I : Les immigrés font monter la criminalité
Faux. Diverses études de différentes universités (Robert Sampson, Harvard University; Daniel Mears, Floride State University; ; Public Policy Institute of California , PPIC, etc..) ont clairement démontré qu’une augmentation de l’immigration est suivie d’une baisse de la criminalité. On a également observé que la première génération d’immigrés est moins encline à la violence que la troisième et ce malgré les grandes difficultés économiques auxquelles cette première génération a généralement été exposée. Concernant l’immigration latine, il peut sembler paradoxal que son niveau de violence soit inversement proportionnel à la violence brutale rencontrée dans les sociétés dont sont originaires ces immigrants. Mais cette contradiction apparente est évidemment très facilement explicable.
Mythe II: Les immigrés prennent le travail des nationaux
Faux. Dans tous les pays du monde on a toujours eu recours à une minorité fragilisée pour évacuer toutes les frustrations engendrées par les crises. Aux USA certains chômeurs peuvent accuser les immigrants illégaux de prendre leur travail; ce comportement démontre une faible capacité d’analyse, si ce n’est de la mauvaise foi : il est en effet préférable de rester chez soi ou d’aller dans un restaurant avec l’argent de l’État, plutôt que de travailler à des tâches ingrates, que seuls les pauvres (les riches n’émigrent pas) immigrants acceptent d’effectuer.
Les immigrés les plus pauvres ne parlent pas anglais (parfois, les Mexicains et les habitants de l’Amérique centrale ne parlent même pas espagnol), ne connaissent pas les lois, n’ont pas de papiers pour travailler, ils sont poursuivis ou vivent en se cachant et malgré cela, ils obtiennent du travail au détriment des «pauvres américains». Comment font-ils ?
Des études sérieuses démontrent a contrario que l’immigration aide à créer de nouveaux emplois (Gianmarco Ottaviano, Università Bocconi, Italie; Giovanni Peri, University of California). Selon une étude du Pew Research Center, l’immigration illégale latino-américaine aux USA a chuté de 22 pour cent dans les trois dernières années, sans que cela entraîne une baisse du taux de chômage. En réalité, les immigrés sans papiers représentent annuellement à eux seuls plus d’un demi-million de consommateurs.
Mythe III. Les immigrants illégaux sont une charge car ils utilisent des services publics qu’ils ne payent pas
Faux. Tout citoyen au chômage ou gagnant moins de 18.000 dollars par an, bénéficie d’un accès gratuit à l’ensemble des services médicaux et à de nombreux autres services publics ou privés, comme le logement et les retraites. Les travailleurs sans papiers ne se présentent dans un service de santé qu’en dernière instance (The American Journal of Public Health) et souvent ils paient pour les consultations et les traitements. Nombreux sont ceux qui ne dénoncent même pas les vols et les abus dont ils sont victimes.
Aucun camionneur ne prétendrait réaliser des bénéfices avec son véhicule sans le faire réviser de temps à autre, mais beaucoup de citoyens utilisant les services de travailleurs sans papiers, espèrent que ceux-ci n’auront jamais recours à l’hôpital, alors qu’ils leur confient habituellement les travaux les plus dangereux et insalubres.
Selon l’Académie nationale des sciences des USA, les chiffres montrent que ces immigrants apportent à l’économie nationale plus qu’ils ne lui prennent. D’après l’économiste Benjamin Powell, ces travailleurs rapporteraient 22 milliards de dollars par an et leur légalisation augmenterait facilement ce chiffre.
Le principal facteur donnant l’avantage aux USA sur les autres économies développées (y compris la Chine émergente) réside dans son potentiel toujours important de jeunes travailleurs, lequel se maintient en grande partie grâce au taux élevé de natalité dans la population hispanophone et dans les populations immigrées en général, sans lesquelles des programmes comme le Social Securityseraient insoutenables dans un proche avenir.
Mythe IV. Les sans-papiers ne payent pas d’impôts
Faux. Les sans-papiers paient des impôts directs ou indirects, sous diverses formes. Selon les calculs effectués sur les dernières années, chaque immigrant illégal paie des milliers de dollars en impôts, beaucoup plus que nombre de citoyens inactifs. Au total, la Social Security reçoit plus de 9 milliards de dollars par an de ces contribuables, qui ne réclameront probablement jamais de remboursement sous forme de retraites ou autres avantages. Actuellement, des centaines de milliards de dollars sont fournis par des travailleurs fantômes (Eduardo Porter, New York Times; William Ford, Middle Tennessee State University; Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, New York University).
Mythe V. Les immigrants illégaux peuvent exercer un pouvoir réel en tant que groupe
Faux. Les immigrants non naturalisés, surtout les illégaux, ne votent dans aucune élection. Dans beaucoup de cas ils ne peuvent même pas voter dans les élections de leurs pays d’origine, bien que les millions représentés par leurs transferts d’argent n’aient jamais été rejetés, ni méprisés.
Le slogan «latinos unidos» est une bonne affaire pour les grandes chaînes de médias hispanophones aux USA, mais cette union est très relative. Bien que les «non hispaniques», puissent avoir le sentiment de l’existence d’une «hispanité», il ne fait aucun doute que les rivalités, les rancœurs et le chauvinisme sournois resurgissent dès que l’autre «non-hispanique», disparaît de l’horizon tribal. De même, dans certains cas, les statuts légaux et idéologiques sont radicalement inconciliables. Il suffit de constater la différence de statut entre un travailleur mexicain illégal et un balsero (boat people) cubain en protégé par loi.
Note
La théorie du ruissellement (traduction de l’anglais «trickle down theory») est une théorie économique d’inspiration libérale selon laquelle, sauf destruction ou thésaurisation (accumulation de monnaie), les revenus des individus les plus riches sont in fine réinjectés dans l’économie, soit par le biais de leur consommation, soit par celui de l’investissement (notamment via l’épargne), contribuant ainsi, directement ou indirectement, à l’activité économique générale et à l’emploi dans le reste de la société. Cette théorie est notamment avancée pour défendre l’idée que les réduction d’impôt y compris pour les hauts revenus ont un effet bénéfique pour l’économie globale. L’image utilisée est celle des cours d’eau qui ne s’accumulent pas au sommet d’une montagne mais ruissellent vers la base.(wikipedia)
En casi todos los países y a lo largo de diferentes épocas, las clases más conservadoras han estado siempre en los extremos de la pirámide social. En Estados Unidos la retórica conservadora ha logrado captar parte de los sectores de los extractos más bajos de la sociedad, no recurriendo a liberar a los ricos de impuestos (para esto está la ideología del “trickle down”) sino creando el demonio del inmigrante ilegal. No hay nada mejor para canalizar las frustraciones de las clases más bajas que crear enemigos tribales dentro de la misma clase.
Así se han aprobando leyes como en Arizona y en Georgia, que criminalizan a “los sin papeles”, lo que ha provocado la fuga de muchos trabajadores indocumentados de un estado a otro. Como resultado, los pequeños y medianos empresarios del área de la construcción y sobre todo de la actividad agrícola se quejan que no hay brazos para levantar las cosechas. Solo en la costa oeste los puestos de recolectores sin ocupar superan los cientos de miles. Claro, hay que trabajar sin aire acondicionado.
Innumerables estudios (ej. Damian Stanley y Peter Sokol-Hessner, NYU; Mahzarin Banaji, Harvard Univ., etc.) han demostrado que el miedo al otro es prehistórico y provoca reacciones negativas hasta en la persona más pacífica cuando se le presentan diferentes imágenes de diferentes rostros. No obstante, aquellos que entendemos que existe cierto grado de evolución humana, no defendemos un rasgo milenario por el sólo hecho de ser milenario. Podemos asumir que el amor y el odio, el temor y la solidaridad, como lo sugieren las mayores obras de arte, son emociones irreductibles, no cuantificables por principio y definición, y seguramente inmanentes a todos los seres humanos a lo largo de la historia. Pero no las formas en que los individuos y las sociedades se relacionan para desarrollarse y evolucionar. Si no hay progreso histórico en cada individuo (cualquier tibetano del siglo V puede ser social y moralmente superior a un habitante contemporáneo de Rio o Filadelfia), en cambio podemos esperar que sí lo haya en una sociedad dada que es capaz de aprovechar la experiencia histórica, propia y ajena. Si en los primates existe la mentira, la explotación y las jerarquías sociales y políticas (Frans de Waal, etc.), ello no es un indicio de que estas estructuras (culturales) sean insuperables sino, a juzgar por las diferencias entre algunos hombres y un orangután, todo lo contrario. Al menos que los conservadores propongan a los monos como pruebas, no de una posible evolución sino de la imposibilidad de evolucionar.
En la problemática de la inmigración inevitablemente juegan estos elementos primitivos, aunque maquillados con retóricas cargadas de preceptos ideológicos sin una racionalidad mínima. Por lo tanto son mitos, creencias indiscutibles (es decir, realidades) para determinados grupos, producto de repeticiones, sobre todo mediáticas.
Más allá de que nunca apoyamos ni apoyaremos la opción de una inmigración ilegal, el punto central aquí es analizar la realidad instaurada.
Mito I: Con los inmigrantes aumenta la criminalidad
Falso. Diferentes estudios de diferentes universidades (Robert Sampson, Harvard University; Daniel Mears, Florida State University; Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC, etc.) han demostrado claramente que a un incremento de la inmigración sigue un descenso de la criminalidad. También se ha observado que sobre todo la primera generación de inmigrantes es menos propensa a la violencia que la tercera, muy a pesar de las mayores necesidades económica que suele sufrir la primera generación. La relación inversa entre violencia e inmigración latina, puede resultar paradójica, considerando la violencia brutal que existe en las sociedades de las que proceden estos inmigrantes. Paradoja que, como toda paradoja, es apenas una contradicción aparente con una lógica interna; obviamente, muy fácil de explicar.
Mito II: Los inmigrantes le quitan los trabajos a los nacionales
Falso. En todos los países del mundo siempre se ha buscado a alguna minoría débil para descargar todas las frustraciones de cada crisis. En Estados Unidos algunos desempleados se quejan de que los inmigrantes ilegales les quitan los trabajos, lo cual resulta una muestra de época inteligencia y probablemente de mala fe: es mejor quedare en casa o salir a comer a un restaurante con el dinero del Estado que ir a hacer trabajos duros que sólo aquellos inmigrantes pobres (los ricos no emigran) son capaces de hacer.
Los inmigrantes más pobres no hablan inglés (en ocasiones, los mexicanos y centroamericanos ni siquiera hablan español), no conocen las leyes, no tienen papeles para trabajar, son perseguidos o viven escondiéndose y aún así consiguen trabajos que los “pobres americanos” no pueden conseguir. ¿Cómo hacen?
Por el contrario, estudios serios demuestran que la inmigración ayuda a crear nuevos puestos de trabajo (Gianmarco Ottaviano, Università Bocconi, Italia; Giovanni Peri, University of California). Según un estudio de Pew Research Center, en los tres últimos años la inmigración ilegal latinoamericana a Estados Unidos ha caído 22 por ciento, sin que esto haya significado un descenso de la tasa de desempleo. De hecho, sólo los inmigrantes indocumentados aportan más de medio millón de consumidores al año.
Mito IV. Los inmigrantes ilegales son una carga porque usan servicios públicos que no pagan.
Falso. Cualquier ciudadano desocupado o que gane menos de 18.000 dólares anuales hace uso gratuito de cualquier servicio médico y de muchos otros servicios públicos y privados, como vivienda y pensiones. Los trabajadores sin papeles acuden a un servicio sanitario en última instancia (The American Journal of Public Health) y en muchos casos pagan por consultas y tratamientos. Muchos ni siquiera denuncian robos y abusos. Ningún camionero pretendería lucrar con su máquina sin llevarla alguna vez al mecánico, pero muchos ciudadanos que se benefician de los trabajadores indocumentados esperan que éstos nunca acudan a un hospital, a pesar de que los trabajos que hacen suelen ser los más peligrosos e insalubres.
Según la National Academy of the Sciences de Estados Unidos, los números muestran que estos inmigrantes aportan más de lo que toman de la economía nacional. Según el economista Benjamin Powell, estos trabajadores aportan 22 billones de dólares anuales y su legalización fácilmente aumentaría esa cifra.
En términos globales, el principal factor que pone en ventaja a Estados Unidos con respecto a las demás economías desarrolladas (incluida la emergente China) radica en su todavía alta tasa de trabajadores jóvenes, en gran medida debido a la alta tasa de natalidad entre la población hispana y a la inmigración misma, sin la cual programas como el Social Security serían insostenibles en un futuro cercano.
Mito V. Los indocumentados no pagan impuestos.
Falso. Los indocumentados pagan impuestos de muchas formas, directas o indirectas. Según cálculos de los últimos años, cada inmigrante ilegal paga miles de dólares en impuestos, mucho más que muchos ciudadanos inactivos. En total, el Social Security recibe más de 9 billones de dólares anuales de estos contribuyentes que probablemente nunca reclamarán ninguna devolución en forma de pensiones o beneficios. Actualmente hay cientos de billones de dólares aportados por trabajadores fantasmas (Eduardo Porter, New York Times; William Ford, Middle Tennessee State University; Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, New York University).
Mito VI: Los inmigrantes ilegales tienen poder corporativo.
Falso. Los inmigrantes no nacionalizados, sobre todo los ilegales, no votan en ninguna elección. En muchos casos ni siquiera pueden votar en las elecciones de sus países de origen, aunque sus millonarias remesas nunca han sido rechazadas ni despreciadas.
El slogan de “latinos unidos” es un buen negocio para las grandes cadenas de medios hispanos en Estados Unidos, pero esta unión es muy relativa. Aunque hay un sentimiento de “hispanidad” dentro de cualquier mundo “no hispano”, lo cierto es que las rivalidades, rencores y chauvinismos solapados surgen apenas “el otro no hispano” desaparece del horizonte tribal. También los estatus legales e ideológicos son, en casos, radicalmente inconciliables. Basta con considerar un trabajador mexicano ilegal y un balsero cubano, protegido por ley.
Professor Ian Goldin and Geoffrey Cameron argue in their recent book, “Exceptional People: How Immigration Shaped Our World and Will Define Our Future”, that in a more interconnected world than ever before, the number of people with the means and motivation to migrate will only increase. Here they set out some of the advantages that such dynamics will have for both receiving and sending countries and why the world should embrace migration.
1. Migrants are good for economies.
Migrants have been the engine of human progress throughout history. The movement of people has sparked innovation, spread ideas, relieved poverty and laid the foundations for all major civilizations and the global economy.
Globalization has increased the tendency for people to seek their fortunes outside their country of birth and the 21st century will give more people the means and reasons to move.
We should embrace this future because of the benefits it promises for sending countries, receiving countries and for migrants themselves.
The movement of people has fuelled the development of modern economies. Migrants promote innovation, connect markets, fill labor gaps, reduce poverty and enrich social diversity.
2. But what about the downside?
I am not blind to the significant costs and risks of greater migration, but in “Exceptional People” we show that societies have been too focused on the downsides of migration rather than the underestimated benefits.
We recognize that particular communities and groups of workers may be disadvantaged and justified in what they perceive as excessive migration and a threat to their employment and cultures.
Political leaders should confront this challenge by adopting a range of burden-sharing measures which seek to reduce the impact on any one community.
For example, migrants should be distributed across the European Union and the people of Malta and the Italian island of Lampedusa should not be made to absorb migrants simply arising from their proximity to North Africa.
Similarly, the local authority of Slough in the U.K. which happens to be near London’s Heathrow Airport, should be given extra resources to cope with an unusually high burden which migrants place on it.
A better understanding of the benefits and costs is required. While the benefits are typically greater than the costs, they are often diffuse and appear in the medium term, while the costs may be local and immediate. These must be acknowledged and addressed in order to convince the affected communities that more migration is in their interests.
Governments should focus their efforts on burden sharing and support for pressured local services, as well as ensuring that all migrants are legal, and have the associated rights and responsibilities.
Simply limiting numbers undermines short-term competitiveness and long-term growth and dynamism, and tends to result in a growing number of undocumented migrants, making everyone worse off in the longer term.
3. What are the economic benefits?
We show in “Exceptional People” that even modest increases in the levels of migration would produce significant gains for the global economy. Developing countries would benefit the most.
The World Bank estimates that increasing migration equal to 3% of the workforce in developed countries between 2005 and 2025 would generate global gains of $356 billion.
Completely opening borders, economists Kym Anderson and Bjorn Lomborg estimate, would produce gains as high as $39 trillion for the world economy over 25 years. These numbers compare with the $70 billion that is currently spent every year in overseas development assistance and the estimated gains of $104 billion from fully liberalizing international trade.
Two reliable ways to generate ideas and innovation in an economy are to increase the number of highly educated workers and to introduce diversity into the workplace. Both of these objectives are advanced through immigration, and the experience of countries like the U.S. bears out the bold propositions of this “new growth theory”.
According to Robert Putnam, immigrants have made up more than three times as many Nobel Laureates, National Academy of Science members and Academy Award film directors as have native-born Americans.
Migrants have been founders of firms like Google, Intel, PayPal, eBay, and Yahoo. More than a quarter of all global patent applications from the United States are filed by migrants, although they are only about 12% of the population.
By 2000, migrants accounted for 47% of the U.S. workforce with a science or an engineering doctorate, and they constituted 67% of the growth in the U.S. science and engineering workforce between 1995 and 2006.
In 2005, a migrant was at the helm of 52% of Silicon Valley start-ups, and a quarter of all U.S. technology and engineering firms founded between 1995 and 2005 had a migrant founder. In 2006, foreign nationals living in the United States were inventors or coinventors in 40% of all international patent applications filed by the U.S. government.
Migrants file the majority of patents by leading science firms: 72% of the total at Qualcomm, 65% at Merck, 64% at General Electric, and 60% at Cisco.
4. Migration does not lead to job losses.
While skilled migrants are a source of dynamism, low-skilled foreign workers often take jobs that are considered less desirable by natives or they provide services—such as home care or child care—that release skilled workers into the labor market.
Highly skilled migrants typically work in growing sectors of the economy, or in areas such as health care, education and information technology that are short of native workers. Giovanni Peri of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that, “immigrants expand the economy’s productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization…This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker.”
Macroeconomic studies of developed countries with significant foreign-born populations have consistently found that migration boosts and sustains growth. A study of OECD countries found that increased immigration is accompanied by commensurate increases in total employment and GDP growth. A government-sponsored study in the UK found that migrants contributed about £6 billion to the national economy in 2006.
George Borjas estimates that migrants make a net contribution of $10 billion a year to the U.S. economy, a figure that other economists have suggested is at the low end of the range.
Between 1995 and 2005, 16 million jobs were created in the U.S. and 9 million of them were filled by foreigners. During the same period, academics Stephen Castles and Mark Miller estimate migrants made up as many as two-thirds of new employees in Western and Southern European countries.
5. We’re going to need migrants more than ever before.
Over the next fifty years, demographic changes in many developed countries will make expanding migration an increasingly attractive policy option.
Medical and public health advances mean that people are living longer, while persistently low fertility levels and the end of the post-World War Two baby-boom mean that the number of native-born workers in developed countries will fall in the coming years.
The fiscal burden of this aging population will be borne by an ever-smaller number of workers and will also generate an unprecedented demand for low-skilled health and home care services.
The effects of a shrinking labor force will be compounded by the fact that as educational attainment rises in developed countries, fewer people are interested in taking on low-skilled service jobs or in working in the trades and construction sectors.
Between 2005 and 2025, the OECD estimates its member countries are expected to see a 35% increase in the percentage of their workforces with tertiary education. As education levels rise, so do expectations about work.
Working-age populations are already growing rapidly in some developing countries due to late demographic transitions. While many countries in East Asia are beyond the phase of their demographic transition when population growth peaks, the most dramatic effects will appear in sub-Saharan Africa, where the population will grow by a billion people between 2005 and 2050.
The economically active population between ages 15 and 64 will also grow steadily among developing countries in South-Central Asia—which include countries from Iran across to India and Nepal—in the next half-century. Countries in the Middle East and North Africa will also grow at a similar rate, although not reaching the magnitude of these regions.
Despite increasing controls, we are entering a period of intensifying migration, a product of a greater supply of potential migrants from developing countries and a burgeoning demand for both low- and high-skilled workers in the UK and other developed countries.
Over the last 25 years the total number of migrants internationally doubled.
It is likely to double again in the coming decades. Governments and society need urgently to develop a much better understanding of the costs and benefits of different policy options.
Short-term protectionist measures, as is the case in trade, are counterproductive. It is vital that evidence based and longer term perspectives are introduced to provide clarity which goes beyond the currently muddled discussions on migration policy.
First-generation immigrants are more likely to be law-abiding than third-generation Americans of similar socioeconomic status, reports Robert Sampson, Ford professor of the social sciences. These new findings run counter to conventional wisdom, which holds that immigration creates chaos. The prevailing “social disorganization theory” first gained traction in the 1920s and ’30s, after the last big wave of European immigrants poured into the United States. Scholars have maintained that the resulting heterogeneity harmed society. “They weren’t saying that this was caused by any trait of a particular group,” Sampson explains. “Rather, they were saying that lots of mixing would make communication accross groups difficult, make it hard to achieve consensus, and create more crime.”
Yet in Sampson’s recent study, first-generation Latino immigrants offer a particularly vivid counterexample to this common assumption. “They come into the country with low resources and high poverty, so you would expect a high propensity to violence,” Sampson says. But Latinos were less prone to such actions than either blacks or whites—providing the latest evidence that Latinos do better on a range of social indicators, a phenomenon sociologists call the “Latino paradox.”
With colleagues Jeffrey Morenoff of the University of Michigan and Stephen Raudenbush, now of the University of Chicago, Sampson followed 3,000 young people in 180 Chicago neighborhoods from 1995 to 2002. They ranged in age from eight to 25, and came from a full range of income levels and from neighborhoods with varying degrees of integration. Chicago was a deliberate choice: “We felt it was representative of where the country was going,” Sampson explains. The number of Mexican immigrants in the city skyrocketed in the 1990s, and immigration from Poland and Russia also increased, creating an almost equal three-way split in Chicago’s general population among whites, blacks, and Latinos.
During the course of their study, Sampson and his colleagues periodically interviewed the young people on a range of subjects, including asking whether they had been involved in such violent acts as fighting or robbery. The researchers supplemented this data with census, crime, and poverty statistics, and with a separate survey that asked 9,000 Chicago adults about the strength of social networks in their neighborhoods. The investigators then developed mathematical models to determine the probability that a given child would engage in a violent act, and to understand which factors raised or lowered his or her likelihood of violence.
Sampson was surprised to discover that a person’s immigrant status emerged as a stronger indicator of a dispropensity to violence than any other factor, including poverty, ethnic background, and IQ. “It’s just a whopping effect,” he says. Of people born in other countries, he notes, “First-generation immigrants are 45 percent less likely to commit violence than third-generation immigrants, and second-generation immigrants are about 22 percent less likely [to do so] than the third generation.” Mexican Americans were the least violent among those studied, in large part because they were the most likely to be first-generation immigrants, Sampson adds. The study also revealed that neighborhoods matter. “Kids living in neighborhoods with a high concentration of first-generation immigrants have lower rates of violence,” he explains, “even if they aren’t immigrants themselves.”
One of the typical – correction: stereotypical – images of a Mexican has been, for more than a century, a short, drunk, trouble-maker of a man who, when not appearing with guitar in hand singing a corrido, was portrayed seated in the street taking a siesta under an enormous sombrero. This image of the perfect idler, of the irrational embodiment of vice, can be traced from old 19th century illustrations to the souvenirs that Mexicans themselves produce to satisfy the tourist industry, passing through, along the way, the comic books and cartoons of Walt Disney and Warner Bros. in the 20th century. We know that nothing is accidental; even the defenders of “innocence” in the arts, of the harmless entertainment value of film, of music and of literature, cannot keep us from pointing out the ethical significance and ideological function of the most infantile characters and the most “neutral” storylines. Of course, art is much more than a mere ideological instrument; but that does not save it from manipulation by one human group for its own benefit and to the detriment of others. Let’s at least not refer to as “art” that kind of garbage.
Ironies of history: few human groups, like the Mexicans who today live in the U.S. – and, by extension, all the other Hispanic groups, – can say that they best represent the spirit of work and sacrifice of this country. Few (North) Americans could compete with those millions of self-abnegating workers who we can see everywhere, sweating beneath the sun on the most suffocating summer days, in the cities and in the fields, pouring hot asphalt or shoveling snow off the roads, risking their lives on towering buildings under construction or while washing the windows of important offices that decide the fate of the millions of people who, in the language of postmodernity, are known as “consumers.” Not to mention their female counterparts who do the rest of the hard work – since all the work is equally “dirty” – occupying positions in which we rarely see citizens with full rights. None of which justifies the racist speech that Mexico’s president, Vicente Fox, gave recently, declaring that Mexicans in the U.S. do work that “not even black Americans want to do.” The Fox administration never retracted the statement, never recognized this “error” but rather, on the contrary, accused the rest of humanity of having “misinterpreted” his words. He then proceeded to invite a couple of “African-American” leaders (some day someone will explain to me in what sense these Americans are African), employing an old tactic: the rebel, the dissident, is neutralized with flowers, the savage beast with music, and the wage slaves with movie theaters and brothels. Certainly, it would have sufficed to avoid the adjective “black” and used “poor” instead. In truth, this semantic cosmetics would have been more intelligent but not completely free of suspicion. Capitalist ethics condemns racism, since its productive logic is indifferent to the races and, as the 19th century shows, slave trafficking was always against the interests of industrial production. Hence, anti-racist humanism has a well-established place in the hearts of nations and it is no longer so easy to eradicate it except through practices that hide behind elaborate and persuasive social discourses. Nevertheless, the same capitalist ethics approves the existence of the “poor,” and thus nobody would have been scandalized if instead of “blacks,” the Mexican president had said “poor Americans.” All of this demonstrates, meanwhile, that not only those in the economic North live off of the unhappy immigrants who risk their lives crossing the border, but also the politicians and ruling class of the economic South, who obtain, through millions of remittances, the second most important source of revenue after petroleum, by way of Western Union to the “madre pobre,” from the blood and sweat of those expelled by a system that then takes pride in them, and rewards them with such brilliant discourses that serve only to add yet another problem to their desperate lives of fugitive production.
Violence is not only physical; it is also moral. After contributing an invaluable part of the economy of this country and of the countries from which they come – and of those countries from which they were expelled by hunger, unemployment and the disfavor of corruption – the nameless men, the unidentified, must return to their overcrowded rooms for fear of being discovered as illegals. When they become sick, they simply work on, until they are at death’s door and go to a hospital where they receive aid and understanding from one morally conscious part of the population while another tries to deny it to them. This latter part includes the various anti-immigrant organizations that, with the pretext of protecting the national borders or defending the rule of law, have promoted hostile laws and attitudes which increasingly deny the human right to health or tranquility to those workers who have fallen into illegality by force of necessity, through the empire of logic of the same system that will not recognize them, a system which translates its contradictions into the dead and destroyed. Of course we can not and should not be in favor of any kind of illegality. A democracy is that system where the rules are changed, not broken. But laws are a product of a reality and of a people, they are changed or maintained according to the interests of those who have power to do so, and at times these interests can by-pass the most fundamental Human Rights. Undocumented workers will never have even the most minimal right to participate in any electoral simulacrum, neither here nor on the other side of the border: they have been born out of time and out of place, with the sole function of leaving their blood in the production process, in the maintenance of an order of privilege that repeatedly excludes them and at the same time makes use of them. Everyone knows they exist, everyone knows where they are, everyone knows where they come from and where they’re going; but nobody wants to see them. Perhaps their children will cease to be ill-born wage slaves, but by then the slaves will have died. And if there is no heaven, they will have been screwed once and forever. And if there is one and they didn’t have time to repeat one hundred times the correct words, they will be worse off still, because they will go to Hell, posthumous recognition instead of attaining the peace and oblivion so desired.
As long as the citizens, those with “true human” status, can enjoy the benefits of having servants in exchange for a minimum wage and practically no rights, threatened day and night by all kinds of haunts, they will see no need to change the laws in order to recognize a reality installed a posteriori. This seems almost logical. Nonetheless, what ceases to be “logical” – if we discard the racist ideology – are the arguments of those who accuse immigrant workers of damaging the country’s economy by making use of services like hospitalization. Naturally, these anti-immigrant groups ignore the fact that Social Security takes in the not insignificant sum of seven billion dollars a year from contributions made by illegal immigrants who, if they die before attaining legal status, will never receive a penny of the benefit. Which means fewer guests at the banquet. Nor, apparently, are they able to understand that if a businessman has a fleet of trucks he must set aside a percentage of his profits to repair the wear and tear, malfunctions and accidents arising from their use. It would be strange reasoning, above all for a capitalist businessman, to not send those trucks in for servicing in order to save on maintenance costs; or to send them in and then blame the mechanic for taking advantage of his business. Nevertheless, this is the kind and character of arguments that one reads in the newspapers and hears on television, almost daily, made by these groups of inflamed “patriots” who, despite their claims, don’t represent a public that is much more heterogeneous than it appears from the outside – millions of men and women, overlooked by simplistic anti-American rhetoric, feel and act differently, in a more humane way.
Of course, it’s not just logical thinking that fails them. They also suffer from memory loss. They have forgotten, all of a sudden, where their grandparents came from. Except, that is, for that extremely reduced ethnic group of American-Americans – I refer to the indigenous peoples who came prior to Columbus and the Mayflower, and who are the only ones never seen in the anti-immigrant groups, since among the xenophobes there is an abundance of Hispanics, not coincidentally recently “naturalized” citizens. The rest of the residents of this country have come from some part of the world other than where they now stand with their dogs, their flags, their jaws outthrust and their hunter’s binoculars, safeguarding the borders from the malodorous poor who would do them harm by attacking the purity of their national identity. Suddenly, they forget where a large part of their food and raw materials come from and under what conditions they are produced. Suddenly they forget that they are not alone in this world and that this world does not owe them more than what they owe the world.
Elsewhere I have mentioned the unknown slaves of Africa, who if indeed are poor on their own are no less unhappy for fault of others; the slaves who provide the world with the finest of chocolates and the most expensive wood without the minimal recompense that the proud market claims as Sacred Law, strategic fantasy this, that merely serves to mask the one true Law that rules the world: the law of power and interests hidden beneath the robes of morality, liberty and right. I have in my memory, etched with fire, those village youths, broken and sickly, from a remote corner of Mozambique who carried tons of tree trunks for nothing more than a pack of cigarettes. Cargo worth millions that would later appear in the ports to enrich a few white businessmen who came from abroad, while in the forests a few dead were left behind, unimportant, crushed by the trunks and ignored by the law of their own country.
Suddenly they forget or refuse to remember. Let’s not ask of them more than what they are capable of. Let’s recall briefly, for ourselves, the effect of immigration on history. From pre-history, at each step we will find movements of human beings, not from one valley to another but crossing oceans and entire continents. The “pure race” proclaimed by Hitler had not emerged through spontaneous generation or from some seed planted in the mud of the Black Forest but instead had crossed half of Asia and was surely the result of innumerable crossbreedings and of an inconvenient and denied evolution (uniting blonds with blacks) that lightened originally dark faces and put gold in their hair and emerald in their eyes. After the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, in 1453, the wave of Greeks moving into Italy initiated a great part of that economic and spiritual movement we would later know as the Rennaissance. Although generally forgotten, the immigration of Arabs and Jews would also provoke, in the sleepy Europe of the Middle Ages, different social, economic and cultural movements that the immobility of “purity” had prevented for centuries. In fact, the vocation of “purity” – racial, religious and cultural – that sunk the Spanish Empire and led it to bankrupcy several times, despite all of the gold of the Americas, was responsible for the persecution and expulsion of the (Spanish) Jews in 1492 and of the (Spanish) Arabs a century later. An expulsion which, paradoxically, benefited the Netherlands and England in a progressive process that would culminate in the Industrial Revolution. And we can say the same for our Latin American countries. If I were to limit myself to just my own country, Uruguay, I could recall the “golden years” – if there were ever years of such color – of its economic and cultural development, coinciding, not by accident, with a boom in immigration that took effect from the end of the 19th until the middle of the 20th century. Our country not only developed one of the most advanced and democratic educational systems of the period, but also, comparatively, had no cause to envy the progress of the most developed countries of the world, even though its population lacked, due to its scale, the geopolitical weight enjoyed by other countries at the time. At present, cultural immobility has precipitated an inverted migration, from the country of the children and grandchildren of immigrants to the country of the grandparents. The difference is rooted in the fact that the Europeans who fled from hunger and violence found in the Río de la Plata (and in so many other ports of Latin America) the doors wide open; their descendants, or the children and grandchildren of those who opened the doors to them, now enter Europe through the back door, although they appear to fall from the sky. And if indeed it is necessary to remember that a large part of the European population receives them happily, at a personal level, neither the laws nor general practice correspond to this good will. They aren’t even third class citizens; they are nothing and the management reserves the right to deny admission, which may mean a kick in the pants and deportation as criminals.
In order to obscure the old and irreplaceable Law of interests, it is argued – as Orian Fallaci has done so unjustly – that these are not the times of the First or Second World War and, therefore, one immigration cannot be compared to another. In fact, we know that one period can never be reduced to another, but they can indeed be compared. Or else history and memory serve no purpose. If tomorrow in Europe the same conditions of economic necessity that caused its citizens to emigrate before were to be repeated, they would quickly forget the argument that our times are not comparable to other historical periods and, hence, it’s reasonable to forget.
I understand that in a society, unlike a controlled laboratory experiment, every cause is an effect and viceversa – a cause cannot modify a social order without becoming the effect of itself or of something else. For the same reason, I understand that culture (the world of customs and ideas) influences a given economic and material order as much as the other way around. The idea of the determining infrastructure is the base of the Marxist analytical code, while the inverse (culture as a determinant of socio-economic reality) is basic for those who reacted to the fame of materialism. For the reasons mentioned above, I understand that the problem here lies in the idea of “determinism,” in either of the two senses. For its part, every culture promotes an interpretive code according to its own Interests and, in fact, does so to the measure of its own Power. A synthesis of the two approaches is also necessary for our problem. If the poverty of Mexico, for example, were only the result of a cultural “deformity” – as currently proposed by the theorists and specialists of Latin American Idiocy – the new economic necessities of Mexican immigrants to the United States would not produce workers who are more stoic and long-suffering than any others in the host country: the result would simply be “immigrant idlers.” And reality seems to show us otherwise. Certainly, as Jesus said, “there is none more blind than he who will not see.”
Escritos Críticos 
Debe estar conectado para enviar un comentario.