[Marxism] x versus x

[Andrew Pollack <acpollack2@xxxxxxxxx>]

(no names in subject lines :)
  No harm, no foul, Greg.
  I thought at first also that you had missed the irony, but in reading  the 
rest of what you posted decided you either hadn't missed it or it  didn't 
matter. Because you made some great, insightful points.
  The AFL's statement IS narrowly focused on harm to "legals." There is  
tactical advantage in this, just as there is in pointing out how new  
documentation requirements for Medicare have screwed many citizens. But  it 
must be coupled with defense of the undocumented.
  The AFL HAS in the last couple years issued statements which defend all  
workers more broadly, including mentioning the undocumented  specifically, 
especially when they've complained about how "guest  worker" programs are 
virtual slavery and inevitably and inherently  flawed.
  There is no doubt in my mind that part of the reason the AFL can take a  more 
progressive stand on flawed immigration proposals than Change to  Win is the 
desire of the building trades to limit immigration. But  that's not the only 
reason, and the building trades must occasionally  grit their teeth at the 
support expressed by the Federation for even  the undocumented.
  Anyway, sounds like you're doing great organizing work Greg, keep it up.
  
       
---------------------------------
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism