so, when do you have the right to use force to stop an anti-abortion protestor?
when they stand in your way - and not before then.
talk is cheap, and the right to expression has to be much, much wider than telford & joly are allowing for.
these are arguably even abuses of power that necessitate some resignations; i haven't looked into it closely enough, but it's certainly straddling a line on acceptable behaviour from a cabinet minister, anyways.
Sunday, July 14, 2019
ok.
still nothing from the oiprd. time's up.
by statute, this should have been done at the end of april by the very latest. by the time i file at the end of the month, it will be three months past any reasonable release point. so, we'll let the judge rip them apart over that.
step one - human rights complaint.
still nothing from the oiprd. time's up.
step one - human rights complaint.
just for the record: i don't think that the federal government should be trying to ban movies, whatever they are, and whether i like them or not.
liberals are supposed to be free speech advocates. what they're doing with this movie - which i have no plans to see - is just another reason to abandon the party, as they are continually taking these directions that are incompatible with the basic concepts of liberalism.
but, i decided a long time ago that i would not be voting liberal in october.
liberals are supposed to be free speech advocates. what they're doing with this movie - which i have no plans to see - is just another reason to abandon the party, as they are continually taking these directions that are incompatible with the basic concepts of liberalism.
but, i decided a long time ago that i would not be voting liberal in october.
and, just for the record.
if you're going to cite him or his work.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216
the way i would put it is that the error that the bourgeois press makes, often on purpose, is that it cites statistics that are true broadly for immigration in the context of debates that are specifically about low wage workers, and even more specifically about low wage workers from south and central america that migrate into the country over the mexican border. in the process of doing this, they skew the data, and often badly, as it simply doesn't make sense to use data about people coming from europe or asia to study in the universities and then apply it to people coming from mexico to farm the fields. if the source that you're reading or citing just talks about "immigration" as a uniform thing, without trying to separate into types of immigration, then it's glossing over data, and probably intentionally.
the issue with wage depression is very specifically applicable to workers in specific sectors, and you need to make sure your sources are being honest about it, if you want to make an honest argument, yourself.
if you're going to cite him or his work.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216
the way i would put it is that the error that the bourgeois press makes, often on purpose, is that it cites statistics that are true broadly for immigration in the context of debates that are specifically about low wage workers, and even more specifically about low wage workers from south and central america that migrate into the country over the mexican border. in the process of doing this, they skew the data, and often badly, as it simply doesn't make sense to use data about people coming from europe or asia to study in the universities and then apply it to people coming from mexico to farm the fields. if the source that you're reading or citing just talks about "immigration" as a uniform thing, without trying to separate into types of immigration, then it's glossing over data, and probably intentionally.
the issue with wage depression is very specifically applicable to workers in specific sectors, and you need to make sure your sources are being honest about it, if you want to make an honest argument, yourself.
i think that one of the best ways to understand the changes that have happened between gen x and gen y is to compare alanis morisette to taylor swift.
this is what alanis was like when she was a little girl, compared to what she was like as a grown-up.
meanwhile, this is what taylor swift was like as a grown-up:
and, this is what she was like as a child:
so, we can see that what we've had happen here is an inversion of adulthood and childhood.
i'll let you decide which is really more grown-up, and which is really more childish.
this is what alanis was like when she was a little girl, compared to what she was like as a grown-up.
meanwhile, this is what taylor swift was like as a grown-up:
and, this is what she was like as a child:
so, we can see that what we've had happen here is an inversion of adulthood and childhood.
i'll let you decide which is really more grown-up, and which is really more childish.
so, to recap. what is the socialist position on ice? not a "progressive" position, and not a liberal or ancap position, but a position that is explicitly socialist?
1) cut funding for ice to zero, and redirect it to the department of labour, so that the state is no longer policing the supply of labour but rather enforcing the labour code. and, i mean this - i want cops out there searching out labour violations. something like 'e-verify' is nowhere near sufficient to properly police employers and ensure they aren't breaking the law.
2) drastically increased penalties for employers that violate the labour code. not fines, not slaps on the wrist, but serious consequences, including losses of license, shutting down businesses and lengthy jail sentences.
3) this crackdown should not be accompanied by attacks on workers. the idea is to ensure that everybody is on a level playing field - that employers are required to provide the same wages, benefits and conditions for immigrant labourers as they are for native-born labourers.
4) tying the minimum wage to inflation.
5) legislation that allows and encourages unionization in industries with large numbers of undocumented workers, and allows those workers to join the unions.
socialists will argue that the issue with ice is not merely a humanitarian issue, but a question of ensuring that migrants, who are workers, are entitled to protections and standards, so they are not exploited for the benefit of the middle class.
1) cut funding for ice to zero, and redirect it to the department of labour, so that the state is no longer policing the supply of labour but rather enforcing the labour code. and, i mean this - i want cops out there searching out labour violations. something like 'e-verify' is nowhere near sufficient to properly police employers and ensure they aren't breaking the law.
2) drastically increased penalties for employers that violate the labour code. not fines, not slaps on the wrist, but serious consequences, including losses of license, shutting down businesses and lengthy jail sentences.
3) this crackdown should not be accompanied by attacks on workers. the idea is to ensure that everybody is on a level playing field - that employers are required to provide the same wages, benefits and conditions for immigrant labourers as they are for native-born labourers.
4) tying the minimum wage to inflation.
5) legislation that allows and encourages unionization in industries with large numbers of undocumented workers, and allows those workers to join the unions.
socialists will argue that the issue with ice is not merely a humanitarian issue, but a question of ensuring that migrants, who are workers, are entitled to protections and standards, so they are not exploited for the benefit of the middle class.
and, no, it's not just small businesses.
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/19/big-name-businesses-exploit-immigrant-labor
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/19/big-name-businesses-exploit-immigrant-labor
no.
stop.
it's simple.
migrants are workers. all workers deserve equal treatment. that is the fundamental axiom of socialism. employers that treat some workers differently than others, or prey specifically on those without legal recourse to defend themselves, are enemies of socialism and must be identified and prosecuted as such.
this should have the effect of reducing illegal crossings, as the market for illegal labour dries up. but, the basic issue is one of workers rights.
and, what you will see over and over again if you pay attention is that the democratic party does not care about the rights of the migrants as workers, so much as it seeks to ensure that this system that exploits them is not substantively disturbed.
stop.
it's simple.
migrants are workers. all workers deserve equal treatment. that is the fundamental axiom of socialism. employers that treat some workers differently than others, or prey specifically on those without legal recourse to defend themselves, are enemies of socialism and must be identified and prosecuted as such.
this should have the effect of reducing illegal crossings, as the market for illegal labour dries up. but, the basic issue is one of workers rights.
and, what you will see over and over again if you pay attention is that the democratic party does not care about the rights of the migrants as workers, so much as it seeks to ensure that this system that exploits them is not substantively disturbed.
see, this is the problem, and the thing that needs to change.
"progressives" will focus on trying to make the system more humane, while fundamantally keeping it in tact. but, socialists understand that this is a waste of time, and that the root cause of the problem is a system - as well as a society - that is willing to look the other way in the face of widespread labour abuses.
the socialist position is to redirect resources away from a crackdown on workers and towards a crackdown on employers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/us/illegal-immigration-employers-prosecutions.html
"progressives" will focus on trying to make the system more humane, while fundamantally keeping it in tact. but, socialists understand that this is a waste of time, and that the root cause of the problem is a system - as well as a society - that is willing to look the other way in the face of widespread labour abuses.
the socialist position is to redirect resources away from a crackdown on workers and towards a crackdown on employers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/us/illegal-immigration-employers-prosecutions.html
warren's approach to ice is the perfect example of why she's a textbook "progressive", and not at all a socialist, and why i cannot and will not support her candidacy in good faith.
what she's calling for is a reorganization of the service, which is rooted in the ideological positioning that the problem is not the system itself but the people within it. it's the old "bad apples" argument. so, she wants to reform the system, presumably so that it is better able to carry out it's initial purpose. this is the old "we've lost our way" canard.
ice has not lost it's way, and it's not being tarnished by a couple of bad apples. ice operates as a human resources arm of industry, and is doing exactly what the people that created it intended for it to always do. there is consequently no future in reforming it, unless you're just trying to reduce operating costs.
but, abolishing ice is not even enough, as it will be recreated again if the conditions which have allowed for it's existence - namely the lax enforcement of labour laws - are not addressed. abolition is a first step. but, an actual policy - a plan that is actually worth pursuing - would be centered around ensuring that all workers, everywhere, are entitled to living wages and proper protections, which means converting the immigration police into a labour enforcement unit. if america spent half of what it spends on policing immigration on policing employers, it wouldn't have an immigration problem. that would be actually taking control of the state for the benefit of the people; that would be an actual plan.
you won't get that from a "progressive" that fundamentally wishes to keep the status quo in place; you will need to support the socialist.
what she's calling for is a reorganization of the service, which is rooted in the ideological positioning that the problem is not the system itself but the people within it. it's the old "bad apples" argument. so, she wants to reform the system, presumably so that it is better able to carry out it's initial purpose. this is the old "we've lost our way" canard.
ice has not lost it's way, and it's not being tarnished by a couple of bad apples. ice operates as a human resources arm of industry, and is doing exactly what the people that created it intended for it to always do. there is consequently no future in reforming it, unless you're just trying to reduce operating costs.
but, abolishing ice is not even enough, as it will be recreated again if the conditions which have allowed for it's existence - namely the lax enforcement of labour laws - are not addressed. abolition is a first step. but, an actual policy - a plan that is actually worth pursuing - would be centered around ensuring that all workers, everywhere, are entitled to living wages and proper protections, which means converting the immigration police into a labour enforcement unit. if america spent half of what it spends on policing immigration on policing employers, it wouldn't have an immigration problem. that would be actually taking control of the state for the benefit of the people; that would be an actual plan.
you won't get that from a "progressive" that fundamentally wishes to keep the status quo in place; you will need to support the socialist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)