Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is the self-appointed national immigration czar, largely because Congress is unwilling and unable to fashion a humane immigration policy. One could say that it was up to people like Sheriff Arpaio to fill the vacuum. Unfortunately, he is the wrong person! Finally, the U.S. Justice Dept. is considering a civil rights probe of Mr. Arpaio's official conduct, especially as it affects undocumented Mexican nationals crossing the Arizona portion of the Mexican-U.S. boarder.
Any discussion on U.S. immigration policy must include its impact upon the category of people it intends to oversee and whether they are afforded fairness and respect. The United States has a sorry history of racial exclusion, what has often constituted "cruel and unusual treatment" of people seeking entry. By the way, I have never met an "illegal" human being! The same is true for "alien". Labels such as "immigrant" and "immigration", have become tainted. I prefer to use "migrant" and "migration" in hopes of establishing a neutral framework for discussion.
Humans have populated the planet through migration. It comes with being bipedal. Around the world today, millions are migrants of one form or another. And all the legal prohibitions and walls can not discourage them. Walls as border demarcations, in fact all walls, reveals man's inability to coexist with other human beings. And walls always fail. Consider the Great Wall of China; the Mongols simply skirted it. The Maginot Line of W.W.II was a colossal construction and a complete absurdity ; German troops went around it on their way to Paris. The Berlin Wall was ineffective. The Israeli Wall in the Palestinian West Bank will destroy any possibility for peaceful coexistence. It symbolizes the brutality of Israeli occupation and its crimes against humanity. The Bantus tan boundaries in South Africa failed. The Mexico-U.S. wall belies the founding principles of the American state; and it too will fail in eliminating or reducing migration. Even "electronic walls" and the Internet volunteer posse comitatus, the couch-potato vigilantes, can not prevent or even slow down migration. One would have hoped that U.S. administrations, with their Ivy League educated elites, would have learned from history.
The nemesis of migration is the concept of nation states framed by arbitrary and irrational boundaries. The Mexican-U.S. boarder is one of the World's most problematic barriers, although there are many more.
What is now western continental United States was largely, formerly the possession of Mexico. Mexico had won independence from Spain in 1821 in a revolutionary war. Texas broke off from Mexico in 1836, and became the "Lone Star Republic". The expansionist president James Polk played a major roll in acquiring Mexican territory. U.S. troops marched on Mexico City. Many in Congress wanted to incorporate all of Mexico, but settled on half and paid Mexico $15 million, for reasons, most likely, to deflect international criticism.
Racism raised its head and provided a means whereby Mexicans could be treated as subhumans. Howard Zinn in A Peoples History of the United StatesA(1980), quotes an influential Unitarian minister in the Transcendental era, Theodore Parker, "a wretched people; wretched in their origin, history, and character". He believed that the Mexicans must give way as the indigenous U.S. population had!
History has come full circle in regards to employment opportunities for Mexican migrants,a kind of Reparations, and a repossession of territory of sorts, a Reconquista!
The United States has systematically destroyed the Mexican economy and its politics. The Partio Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) could not have dominated Mexican politics for most of the twentieth century without American oversight and direct interventions of one sort or another. As a rhetorical question to support these allegations-- to which country did former Mexican president Salazar flee to avoid prosecution after the PRI lost power?
Heavily subsidized U.S. corn flooded the Mexican market which drove peasant corn farmers off the land because they could not compete with the artificially cheap U.S. corn. They became migrants! They and many others look to the United States in hopes of bettering economic futures.
The demand for young, strong, entrepreneurial undocumented "essential" workers lures migrants to the U.S. workforce. For reasons of insufficient numbers of U.S.-born workers and their unwillingness to engage in various occupations, Mexicans play a vital roll in the American economy. It could be argued that the so-called immigration problem is largely a "blowback" consequence of Manifest Destiny and itS applications.
Some facts and considerations:
1) About eleven million undocumented Mexican hold out in the States. California has the highest percentage, with Texas and Florida following.
2) Overall, many undocumented residents are not Mexican, but visa overstays from various countries.
3) Undocumented Mexican nationals do not cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. They contribute significant monies to Social Security without the likelihood of ever drawing benefits.
4) Major causes of the immigration dilemma are impracticable quota and labor certification requirements. And these matters are probably rooted in predispositions toward a particular group.
Enter Sheriff Arpaio, with his tablets of commandments. He does not need a mountain upon which to pronounce his divine mandate. Mass media and neon signs will suffice. What is important about Arpaio is that he is the best case for open borders, or, at a minimum, humane immigration reform.
Joe Arpaio (b 1932)became Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff in 1992, and has easily won reelections. He has enlarged the posse comitatus both in scoop and numbers. His is an all volunteer posse which performs many tasks that deputized officers do and much they have never done. His modus operandi could qualify as theatrical and ideological. He publishes mugshots of booked inmates; he signs autographs; he believes in harsh punishment of inmates; he feeds them "surplus", outdated food; he provides only two meals a day; he has reduced the per-unit meal cost from 90-cents to 30; He has banned coffee, salt and pepper and all weightlifting equipment. Since 2005, he has mandatory, two-week English classes for non-English-speaking inmates; the in-house radio station plays opera, classical music and Frank Sinatra. More egregiously, soon after assuming office, Arpaio reinstituted chain gangs and expanded the practice to include women and children. To prevent the stealing of white jail underware, he fashioned pink underwear for inmates. Subsequently, the garments were matched with pink handcuffs.
Perhaps his most infamous innovation was the establishment of a "Tent City" jail. Supposedly, it came into being because of an overcrowded county jail. But, in reality, Arpaio does not believe overcrowding inmates in any way violates their human rights. Tents are cheap to install and maintain. With desert all around, his tent cities are forever expandable. For his encampment, he constructed a neon sign that reads, "vacancy". The sight experiences summer temperatures above 110F. Sheriff Arpaio has his own TV show, "Smile! You're Under Arrest!" There is more--the deaths of inmates, the continuing and increasing litigation, charges of racial profiling and, interestingly, Arpaio, because of his concentration on hunting down undocumented Mexicans, has a mammoth back file of unresolved non-immigration criminal cases.
To further highlight the border crisis, consider the appointment of Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security. ("homeland security"was a slogan in Nazi Germany, by the way.)She was former Arizona governor and state attorney general. Like, Apraio, she is of Italian heritage. She appears to have condoned some of Arpaio's anti-immigration conduct while she was governor; but, has distanced herself from him since national media and Washington has focused attention on the Sheriff.
Why would President Obama, an advocate of change, appoint someone from Arizona, with its deplorable record on immigration, to head an agency that oversees such issues? I would prefer Gore Vidal to head the agency. As a compromise, I could go with Chalmers Johnson.
My solution to the manufactured, self-inflicted Mexican-U.S. border crisis is to simply eliminate the boundary as a means of excluding people and adopt an Open Border policy!
My outraged conservative friends(former now!)upon hearing of this suggestion, claim that the U.S. would be flooded with Mexican nationals(they use other labels). I reply that with the U.S. economic depression at hand, many undocumented migrants are considering repatriation. Even before the economic collapse, Mexican migration had leveled off, became static.
As I write, President Obama is considering deploying National Guard troops along the border in response to an escalating Mexican drug war. The Pentagon is ready to "help" Mexico with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance along the border! How the militarization will impact migrant border crossings is unpredictable; but, surely it could increase suffering and death.
One thing is known: it's time for Arpaio and his posse comitatus to ride off into the Arizona sunset.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Obama's Healthcare Change?
Incredulously, President Obama now advocates for an imperfect health care reform within the existing for-profit, private insurance model, although as an Illinois State Senator he supported a universal, single-payer system! Perhaps, as a state senator who did not receive industry campaign contributions, he was free to follow what is an obvious truth--that like all other wealthy nations, the United States must finally adopt a national health care program
That health care in the United States is a business-for-profit venture in unconscionable and is actually degrading to people seeking coverage. That private insurance corporations decide who does and does not get coverage and treatment, reminds me of Mafia protection schemes. It also reminds me of the pre-revolution system in China where a merchandise shipment traveling through various sectors had to pay a passage gratuity. The health insurance industry has positioned itself as middleman and claims about a thirty-percent commission for its bureaucratic inefficiency and lavish executive compensation. It is yet another example of an economic system that exploits basic human needs for the accumulation of wealth and power.
Every person in the United States is entitled to health care. The only way to handle the responsibility is through a single-payer program by either a federal agency, government corporation or utility, financed through tax revenues. Why does it not exist?
I believe the issue of a national health care program surfaced during the Progressive Era? It was suggested in the Truman Administration, but obviously went nowhere! If it is up to President Obama a national program will not materialize in his administration. So much for the Obama chant of "Yes! We can!" The flip-flopper is flopping once again! His "reform" is already a failure--that of nerve and faithfulness to what he earlier declared to be a self-evident truth. Until the insurance industry is excised from medical services, health care will remain unaffordable and millions of people will not have health coverage.
The failure to have a single-payer system rests not entirely on Obama. Congress is a co-conspirator! Until a public campaign contribution system is established, there will be no national health care program. Also, if the "winner-take-all" electoral system continues, any chance of a national system is unlikely. The problem is that Washington can be purchased for what is to corporations, lunch money! Add to these considerations, enduring Cold War ideology against any program that even hints at socialism, and one recognizes the blockages that prevent the enactment of a national health care program. The neo-cons have been hammering away on this theme since the Reagan Administration, with the acquiescence of a supine Democratic Party.
Without adequate media coverage, the public is confused over the meaning of single-payer national health care--what is it? The first point to clarify is that it is a financing arrangement, not a care delivery system. It would be like Medicare, but for everyone. So, it is a public or quasi-public agency that uses tax revenues to pay all necessary medical services: doctor, hospital, long-term care, dental, vision, mental health, prescription drug and medical supply costs--for everyone.
A single-payer program would actually provide free choice of doctors and hospitals, which is not available under the existing private insurance system. Delivery of medical care itself would remain largely private. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.
A single-payer program would eliminate private insurers and recapture their annual $400 billion administrative waste, on useless paperwork--not to mention the time and frustrations involved with it. There would be a small increase in taxes, but relative to existing premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business, it is inconsequential! Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.
Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or non-profit HMO/group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Regional health planning boards would manage health facilities and expensive equipment purchases. (From: Physicians for a National Health Program.)
"Everyone", to this writer, ideally, includes U.S. citizens and green card and work visa holders, anyone with a Social Security Number, anyone filing a federal tax return. Be that as it may, the moment is right for a mass movement to force Obama and the Congress to enact a single-payer program. With unemployment rising dramatically and the loss of health insurance that follows, with the total failure of the existing private health insurance system, the stage is set for action! Some commentators believe that if the change is not made now, it never will be. In this regard, Obama's position and the lies that used to justify it, will cloud his legacy. He is at the height of his popularity. Congress is under Democratic control, at least theoretically. If single-payer does not come to pass now, it will be for reason of Obama's failure of nerve and will put the lie to "Yes! We can".
That health care in the United States is a business-for-profit venture in unconscionable and is actually degrading to people seeking coverage. That private insurance corporations decide who does and does not get coverage and treatment, reminds me of Mafia protection schemes. It also reminds me of the pre-revolution system in China where a merchandise shipment traveling through various sectors had to pay a passage gratuity. The health insurance industry has positioned itself as middleman and claims about a thirty-percent commission for its bureaucratic inefficiency and lavish executive compensation. It is yet another example of an economic system that exploits basic human needs for the accumulation of wealth and power.
Every person in the United States is entitled to health care. The only way to handle the responsibility is through a single-payer program by either a federal agency, government corporation or utility, financed through tax revenues. Why does it not exist?
I believe the issue of a national health care program surfaced during the Progressive Era? It was suggested in the Truman Administration, but obviously went nowhere! If it is up to President Obama a national program will not materialize in his administration. So much for the Obama chant of "Yes! We can!" The flip-flopper is flopping once again! His "reform" is already a failure--that of nerve and faithfulness to what he earlier declared to be a self-evident truth. Until the insurance industry is excised from medical services, health care will remain unaffordable and millions of people will not have health coverage.
The failure to have a single-payer system rests not entirely on Obama. Congress is a co-conspirator! Until a public campaign contribution system is established, there will be no national health care program. Also, if the "winner-take-all" electoral system continues, any chance of a national system is unlikely. The problem is that Washington can be purchased for what is to corporations, lunch money! Add to these considerations, enduring Cold War ideology against any program that even hints at socialism, and one recognizes the blockages that prevent the enactment of a national health care program. The neo-cons have been hammering away on this theme since the Reagan Administration, with the acquiescence of a supine Democratic Party.
Without adequate media coverage, the public is confused over the meaning of single-payer national health care--what is it? The first point to clarify is that it is a financing arrangement, not a care delivery system. It would be like Medicare, but for everyone. So, it is a public or quasi-public agency that uses tax revenues to pay all necessary medical services: doctor, hospital, long-term care, dental, vision, mental health, prescription drug and medical supply costs--for everyone.
A single-payer program would actually provide free choice of doctors and hospitals, which is not available under the existing private insurance system. Delivery of medical care itself would remain largely private. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.
A single-payer program would eliminate private insurers and recapture their annual $400 billion administrative waste, on useless paperwork--not to mention the time and frustrations involved with it. There would be a small increase in taxes, but relative to existing premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business, it is inconsequential! Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.
Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or non-profit HMO/group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Regional health planning boards would manage health facilities and expensive equipment purchases. (From: Physicians for a National Health Program.)
"Everyone", to this writer, ideally, includes U.S. citizens and green card and work visa holders, anyone with a Social Security Number, anyone filing a federal tax return. Be that as it may, the moment is right for a mass movement to force Obama and the Congress to enact a single-payer program. With unemployment rising dramatically and the loss of health insurance that follows, with the total failure of the existing private health insurance system, the stage is set for action! Some commentators believe that if the change is not made now, it never will be. In this regard, Obama's position and the lies that used to justify it, will cloud his legacy. He is at the height of his popularity. Congress is under Democratic control, at least theoretically. If single-payer does not come to pass now, it will be for reason of Obama's failure of nerve and will put the lie to "Yes! We can".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)