***
FRIDAY, MAY 05, 2006, 6:39 PM
In this recent commentary piece, Dobbs targets the growing influence of the radical left among the variety of interest group advocates found in the illegal immigration movement. Dobbs argues that the mainstream press has been "coopted" by pro-illegal immigration activists, seen particularly in the neutral nominalism of their reporting on the protests. According to Dobbs: "USA Today headlined today's demonstrations and boycott 'On Immigration's Front Lines.' The New York Times headlines its story 'With Calls for Boycott by Immigrants, Employers Gird for Unknown.' The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times are both calling their coverage 'The Immigration Debate.'"
Dobbs indicates that the front group International ANSWER, a Marxist-Leninist vanguard organization, emerged as a major proponent of a national boycott, and he notes that it was no surprise that the activists had scheduled the protests for May 1st, as that day is the world's recognized annual day of international worker solidarity. Here's a longer passage from the article:
Some illegal immigration and open borders activists in the Hispanic community are deeply concerned about the involvement of the left-wing radical group. But others, like Juan Jose Gutierrez, whom I've interviewed a number of times over the past several months, manages to be both director of Latino Movement USA and a representative of ANSWER.
As Gutierrez told us on my show, "The time has come...where we need to stand up and make a statement. We need to do what the American people did when they pulled away from the British crown. And I am sure that back in those days many people were concerned that was radical action."
Just how significant is the impact of leftists within the illegal immigration movement? It is no accident that they chose May 1 as their day of demonstration and boycott. It is the worldwide day of commemorative demonstrations by various socialist, communist, and even anarchic organizations.
Supporters of the boycott have made no secret of their determination to try to shut down schools, businesses and entire cities. Much of Los Angeles' Seventh Street produce market, which supplies thousands of local restaurants and markets, is closed today. Many meat-packing companies like Cargill and Tyson are also closing many of their plants.
Anyone who has spent any time around a college campus recently knows that the contemporary left is marked by a wide array of radical groups and front coalitions -- from animal rights groups, anti-globalization protesters, environmental activists, and antiwar organizations. The strident anti-Americanism at the heart of the recent illegal imimigration protests was evident early on, and such sentiment is only partially disguised by the more recent attempts to hoist the American flag above the crowded streets of America this past May 1. It's unfortunate that the anti-American message of the radical groups will likely overshadow the more moderate views of some immigration reform advocates, and thereby hinder efforts toward compromise on border security, guest workers, and legalization. - Burkean Reflections: Lou Dobbs on How Leftist Radicals Have Taken Over the Illegal Immigration Movement
For the record, I often agree with Dobbs (and the author, assuming
he's agreeing with Dobbs, which is hard to tell, sometimes) where immigration is concerned. Where I part company with both of them however, is believing that those who take another view on immigration are radicals.
Yes, there are socialist overtones to any worker's movement protesting on May Day, and no, I'm sure that that was no accident. As I've said to this guy many times, a good number of the groups that make up the ANSWER coalition are communist or socialist, and they definitely try to push their own ideas at the protests they organize with speeches and leaflets and yes, by choosing a particular day in which to hold the protest when that is possible. My contention however, is that few of the anti-war or open borders protesters are listening to the talk of voting in the latest Communist Party of America candidate or freeing the Cuban Five, or whatever... They're there to oppose the war or support keeping the borders open, and couldn't care less about the babble that doesn't involve the issue that brought them there.
Political and social causes can make for some uneasy alliances sometimes. If I think American involvement in a war is wrong, I have no issue standing with others who also want to end US involvement in that war, whether they're rightwing spendthrifts who think it's a waste of US capital, libertarians who think we shouldn't be policing other countries, pacifist religious groups who oppose all violence everywhere, or communists who see war as imperialist exercises of bourgeoisie power of the invader over the invaded country's proletariat. It doesn't much matter to me that that rightwing spendthrift opposes my views on just about everything else, that the libertarian also wants to do away with the government education system in the US, that some of those pacifist religious groups also oppose all abortion, or that the communist theory of economics and politics is largely failed bullshit. People work together where they can for the outcome they all seek.
The only line that needs drawing involves methods and tactics, not beliefs. While I support the anti-war cause (depending on the war, anyway), I do not support these black bloc assholes who commit violence and vandalism claiming they're doing so in the name of the peace movement. Just as mainstream anti-abortion groups oppose those radical few who shoot doctors and bomb clinics, mainstream anti-war protesters and groups oppose these few idiots who in my view, are using anti-war and anti-globalization protests as an excuse to smash windows and burn things.
Judging any group based on their worst behaving (or worst thinking, according to Dobbs, and the other guy) individual members is foolish, and is often the way political / social / religious / racial / ??? bigotry gets it's start.
.gif)
