Boycott and work stoppage on May 1st for immigrants rights
Via Yahoo News: Immigrant advocates convene May 1 work stoppage
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. immigrant rights advocates on Thursday called for a nationwide boycott of work, school and commerce on May 1, seeking to capitalize on the momentum of recent mass demonstrations across the country.
I support the action. Let me also take the opportunity to praise how remarkably non-violent the recent mass protests have been overall — particularly when one considers that those protests are in opposition to plans for massive state violence against immigrants (to include kidnapping under the euphemistic label of “deportation”) .
A childhood friend and I are on opposite sides of the issue, and it’s got me in a sort of philosophical mood about the nature of this journey called life that we all go through. On a personal level, he seems just as much of a basically good guy as he’s always been, even though I think a lot of his politics are ugly. He’s a self-described “right authoritarian” and has enthusiastically embraced the label “reactionary” in the past. On the strength of his stands on economic issues, though, he’s been classified as “left authoritarian” by some silly quiz or another. While generally socially conservative, he also has a distaste for the Religious Right which, along with a few other things, makes him difficult to stereotype or pigeonhole beyond the broad label of “authoritarian”. He wants Bush impeached, largely (but not solely) for incompetently failing to wage an adequately bloodthirsty war in Iraq.
Needless to say, we’ve been corresponding via email for years — each with a sort of morbid fascination about the others ideological standpoints that might be compared to staring at a trainwreck. I have no doubt that he thinks I’m insane.
Now, this friend — I’ll call him “Reactionary Bob” — is ardently opposed to illegal immigration. With the onset of the recent mass pro-immigration protests against H.R. 4437 and its provision to treat all illegal immigrants as felons, he predicted massive violence — a prediction that has thankfully proven, so far, inaccurate. News of the planned boycott and work stoppage May 1st has him very upset.
I asked him:
Now, I can understand being opposed to immigration even though I don’t share the view.
But, what’s the big deal about an itty bitty work stoppage? I mean, you want them gone *anyway* — right?
So relax. Just think of it as a free sample of how great things are going to be when they’re all gone.
Well, that didn’t go over so well. According to Reactionary Bob, the immigrants he wants kidnapped and/or unjustly imprisoned, and presumably killed if they attempt to defend themselves against such violent state aggression (as would be their natural right), are being “unpatriotic”. This prompted me to seek clarification:
Let me get this straight…
If the immigrants stay home from work for one day of their own free will, they’re being unpatriotic.
If, however, a political leader advocates forcibly removing them from residency (and therefore, employment) here permanently, that is patriotic?
I’m honestly not trying to be a dick, but I’ve got to tell you that it’s kind of scary that you don’t see any contradiction there.
His response could be summarized as being that immigration is very bad and that the May 1st effort somehow proves that because he’s caught the immigrants red-handed trying to “hurt America”. Additionally, there is no contradiction (although it’s not clear yet on what basis he says that).
What do you think? Post your comments and trackbacks. Sound off, you freaks.
UPDATE: Reactionary Bob says I mischaracterized his position when I said:
His response could be summarized as being that immigration is very bad and that the May 1st effort somehow proves that because he’s caught the immigrants red-handed trying to “hurt America”. Additionally, there is no contradiction (although it’s not clear yet on what basis he says that).
I told him it wasn’t intentional (if I did) and that the above was my honest perception of what he had said in email up until that point early yesterday morning when I wrote it (we had a more extensive exchange last night). I’ve invited him to post comments here. Here’s his original post, and here’s his latest on the immigration topic, in which he concludes:
“Get over it and let’s move on.”
Okay.
Share This
Many people are triggered by the buzz-word “illegal,” especially an authoritarian type, even though the law that made something “illegal” is completely arbitrary, at best, and irrational at its worst.
I blogged something about immigration and the Minutemen Project on my blog (just click my name or visit my forum at libertyfilter forums).
I can see there being no contradiction from his P.O.V. If you’re authoritarian, you believe everybody lives at the whim of the state. So… even if you find a group undesirable, that doesn’t mean you can’t set the rules for how they should act - making their actions a greater or lesser deviation from the national standard of behavior.
Seems like the right-wingers always tend to have a really prescriptive behavioral framework for participation in society. Command and control culture, as it were. Given that, I can see the logic in expecting people in the country who describe themselves as non-criminals to not publicly and proudly stop work in this country.
However, just because I can intellectually understand that doesn’t mean I think it’s a strong argument.
That’s a very good analysis, Jeremy, but my point is that he’s saying that similar effects — absence of immigrants from the workplace — can be either patriotic or unpatriotic depending on who is behind it and their state of mind. The inconsistency is jaw-dropping. I mean — is it good for America or not? What the heck does motive have to do with concrete effects in the real world?
I distinctly remember Rush Limbaugh talking about this very attitude — symbolism over substance — in the early to middle 1990s as an example of how screwy liberals are. I remember others around the same time frame comparing this “left wing” phenomenon to the concept of “thought crime” from Orwell’s 1984. It’s not surprising to also see it from the right, but the irony never goes away…
I recently re-listened to Roderick Long’s talk on the 19th century critique of fascism, and I remember this quote from standing out:
Fascism is about centralized power first and foremost; xenophobia is really just a means to an end. That’s certainly no revelation to you, but it’s difficult to apply that analysis to people whom we respect. I have similar difference with my parents whenever topics like immigration come up. It concretizes the notion that much of our struggle is sociological. Which seems to fit, since I’d argue many of the social ills of our time have their roots in the politically opportunistic exploitation of human frailties.
Right. As anarchists, we’re less political activists, actually, and more like cult deprogrammers. The job is so massive, though, that we can’t help everybody and a lot aren’t interested in being helped.
If you want to be heard and felt, write your congress on May first. Send stamps to school with your kids on Monday and have them write letters instead of walking on freeways. If you really want to make an impression flood their offices with mail!!! As much as possible. Buy as many stamps as you can and be heard after the physical protests end!