From Liberation News:
The La Riva/Puryear 2016 Presidential Campaign stands for the full equality and complete legalization of all immigrants in the United States. We oppose border militarization, as well as the racist criminalization and scapegoating of one of the most vulnerable sectors of the working class.
With respect to the current refugee crisis, we would vastly increase the number of refugees admitted from Syria and other war-torn areas into the United States. That number is shamefully low, given the special responsibility the U.S. government has for instigating the crisis, and the current process is far too slow (requiring approximately 18 months of vetting). In reality, the refugees should be given flights to countries of their choosing rather than forced to make perilous journeys with smugglers and in overcrowded rafts.
We demand aid be vastly increased to the refugees and to the countries who have received them. This is not just humanitarianism—as if the U.S. were a neutral and benevolent actor—but should be the first step in a comprehensive reparations program to the countries that have been exploited, pillaged and invaded over more than a century of U.S. imperialism.
But the number one way to resolve the refugee crisis in Syria is to end the regime change efforts and respect Syrian self-determination.
Our campaign condemns the overt and covert war against the Syrian government, which has devastated a nation that used to take in millions of refugees from around the region.
We call for the end of all the ongoing U.S. wars and interventions and the closure of U.S. military bases around the world. We demand that all the troops be brought home and the $1 trillion military budget be used to provide for people’s needs here and around the world.
Capitalist hypocrisy on borders
Today, the ruling classes of Europe and the United States a rewhipping up anti-immigrant sentiment, combined with repressive policies and blatant discrimination. The EU, which for decades bragged of its open movement, is now throwing up border fences. Democratic and Republican leaders say they will further militarize the U.S.-Mexico border, potentially building a wall.
Using virulent racism, far-right politicians worldwide are warning of the collapse of their national identity, if not “Western civilization” as a whole. They are preying on the economic and social insecurities that their global economic system has produced.
While the capitalists tighten borders when it comes to human beings, they pass “free trade” agreements that allow their banks and corporations to freely cross in pursuit of profit. They have privatized and destabilized existing economic structures, stripping untold numbers of their livelihoods.
The U.S. and leading EU militaries routinely cross borders to bomb and attack sovereign countries throughout Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
When we demand full rights for all immigrants, and allowing in refugees, we are accused of being unrealistic, of wanting “open borders.” In reality, the corporations have already created open borders for themselves. They criminalize human beings who cross borders, fleeing the very conditions capitalism has created.
There are 60 million displaced people in the world, forced to leave their homelands for fear of violence. This is in addition to the 232 million migrants worldwide. The vast majority of immigrants to the United States and Europe arrive from formerly colonized nations. Their experience, too, is largely one of “forced migration,” of an economic type, a choice made from the absence of choices. Most immigrants, like refugees, want nothing more than to be back home.
Working-class internationalism is key
The poor and oppressed people who are forced to migrate—for whatever reason—did not create this world of violence, oppression and exploitation. They are its victims, who are doing what anyone would do when facing a dangerous or insecure future for their families. They are our brothers and sisters.
The Communist Manifesto’s slogan of “Workers of the world, unite!” was not just stated as a lofty idea. It was raised because at the time of its writing workers of different nations of Europe were being taught to think of each other as enemies and then sent to kill each other in wars that only benefited their ruling classes. Working-class internationalism offered a vision and a program to end the nationalist hatred and the constant bloodshed.
We stand in solidarity with the refugees and the millions who are greeting them in train stations and in the streets of Europe with banners saying “Refugees welcome!” In the best traditions of international solidarity, they are rejecting the anti-immigrant tide and opening up their homes, schools and communities to the new arrivals—with or without government support.
The truth is poor and working people have far more in common with each other than we do with the capitalist rulers of our own countries.
We reject the false argument that refugees and migrants threaten the living standards of the countries to which they arrive. The banks and corporations have reaped billions from our collective labor and the super-exploitation of Asia, Africa and Latin America. A revolutionary struggle for power can redirect this wealth to the benefit of all. There are more than enough resources to go around, to provide every human being with food, clean water, clothing, shelter, education and health care.
That’s why I’m a No Limit Soldier 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1-kVDJOr50
UGHH!! nana nana….
No limit!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5ZvzIOO6aU
While that would be security theater (24 hours is not nearly enough time to thoroughly test for diseases or fully check anyone’s background) and thus a waste of money, I would be OK with it as a compromise if it makes most people feel safe enough to accept such a compromise.
I do have a proposal short of completely open borders though…..
You arrive at a point of entry. The US Government has 24 hours to prove that you are a threat, otherwise you are granted entry. You get nothing special from the government other than entry into the USA.
Obviously, that would require a definition of threat, and mine would be pretty tight. Something like very deadly communicable disease, or extremely high likelihood of violent crime.
No limits for me.
Our system now is broken, no question. My ideal solution would probably be setting up checkpoints and running brief (well as brief as could be; they would still probably take at least a few days with bureaucracy dictating everything ) background checks on potential immigrants. I’d be fine with letting pretty much anyone in so long as they were not politically extreme( as in directly calling for violence against anyone) have like the plague or something, and don’t have a rape or murder conviction within the last X amount of years. Ideally I’d also probably offer them resources on finding employment, getting settled in, and free education classes to learn English and better adapt to the broader community.
Though yes, I don’t think you can really prevent the wrong sorts from getting in. Well maybe you could, but I think the solutions in those cases would be worse than the problem. You’d probably have to mine the entire border or build a huge guard wall, which would not only cost a great deal but also be inhumane.
Thanks for your answer. I’m not sure I agree with the concept of fully open borders but I can understand how it may be viewed as the least obtrusive and “bad” option.
I understand your concern here, but how effective do you think you could really be at stopping people from forging documents, concealing identities, sneaking across borders, etc? Not only would you have to constantly patrol thousands of miles of land and sea borders, but you would have to hold up every person getting off every plane, train, ship, truck and car and even walking into the US literally for weeks to fully check them for diseases, search their fingerprints against databases from around the world, etc. You would also have to likewise hold up every last bit of cargo arriving through all the airports, roads and seaports since diseases and even people could come in that way. Trade and tourism would grind to a halt. How much would all this cost? Anything short of this would just be security theater that may make you feel safer but would not actually make you any safer at all.
And would you be equally concerned with borders between states, cities and counties?
@paulie, October 4, 2015 at 1:51 pm
” The US government thinking it can fix the middle east’s problems is kind of like letting a monkey on meth perform brain surgery with a chainsaw.”
I really like this statement . . . hilarious imagery.
I’m more concerned with communicable diseases myself.
My question to no limits advocates is do you believe in any sort of background checks on potential migrants? Like if it was found out someone attempting to immigrate to the country had starred in an Islamic extremist video and preached violence against Americans, would that qualify as a reason to exclude them from the country? What about someone who was carrying a very contagious disease?
I’m not asking these as gotcha questions. These are the areas I’m not convinced a policy of letting everyone in works out favorably. I should stress I’m not a Libertarian so I doubt I’d agree with your conclusions, but I am curious to learn how your hypothetical America would handle those sort of cases.
Unintended consequences abound. The US government thinking it can fix the middle east’s problems is kind of like letting a monkey on meth perform brain surgery with a chainsaw.
I guess we’re too busy bombing hospitals in Afghanistan to worry about anyplace else.
This makes me ashamed of the third-world country we’ve become.
Still none of the US government’s business, period.
No he didn’t. He should keep his rhetoric, our money, and our kids’ lives entirely out of that sand.
Every time the US and Western nations try to “solve” the middle east’s problems they only make them worse. Overthrow or prop one dictator and create the support for the next group of nutballs to rise up; send Americans in and create blowback and worse. It’s a no win game and it’s long since time to stop playing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkEXGgdqMz8
BTW, who did the gassing is in dispute, not that it should be considered a justification for foreign government intervention in any case.
Paulie: “Self determination” for Syrian citizens would be good, except that they already have an illegitimate government, which is now propped up by the Russians, and which Obama is too wimpy to effectively oppose. What now?
Obama spoke a good line with his “red line in the sand” speech; the main problem is that he was LYING.
“Dunno about Matt but I’m a No Limits kind of guy.”
Ditto.
The people who live there, as opposed to people who live in other parts of the world and continuously fuck things up by intervening in mideast affairs.
Dunno about Matt but I’m a No Limits kind of guy.
Matt cholko: do you have a limit in mind?
I can get behind a couple of things here – freedom to move should be a thing. And, by extension, any refugess that want to come here should be allowed to do so.
This article foolishly said:
“But the number one way to resolve the refugee crisis in Syria is to end the regime change efforts and respect Syrian self-determination.”
When they use the phrase, “self-determination”, first they need to define what “self” really means. Do they mean by “self”, the actual Syrian population as a whole, or individual Syrians, or groups of Syrians? Or do they mean by “self” Bashar Assad?
Remember, French King Louis XIV said, “L’etat c’est moi”, or “I am the state”.
“Our campaign condemns the overt and covert war against the Syrian government,…”
Given that “the Syrian Government” has repeatedly gassed its own citizens, I’d say that it would be plausible to condemn the LACK of a real “overt and covert war against the Syrian government,…”.
“…which has devastated a nation that used to take in millions of refugees from around the region.”
I certainly don’t agree that the (virtually non-existent) “overt and covert war against the Syrian government,…” was the thing that “devastated” Syria. And I wonder about this claim, too.