Obama’s Unconstitutional Amnesty Speech to be Ignored by MSM – Spanish Language TV Will Show It Though

by Scott Creighton

Now that the midterm “elections” are officially over, the real work of neo-liberalizing this country begins with a vengeance. We saw that two days ago when they tried to pass the Keystone Pipeline bill and the new CISPA, the USA “Freedom” Act.

This evening, Barack Obama is going to give a speech in which he will lay out his end-around plan to side-step congress in order to implement much of the George W. Bush Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 that failed back when he was in office.

It is expected to give amnesty to 5 million or so illegal immigrants.

Obama is going to explain why it is he has the authority to do an end-around the congressional process which, back in the day, would have inspired massive protests from the left. All we hear these days from that sector are crickets and petty bourgeoisie house-wives fingering themselves while moaning his name.

Don’t expect to see it on the MSM though. They decided they would keep this particular bit of inflammatory rhetoric out of the spotlight while Latino TV will actually break into their coverage of their Grammy Award show to broadcast it.

ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX have all indicated they won’t break their planned programming to cover Obama’s 8 p.m. ET speech. CNN’s Brian Stelter first reported that ABC, NBC and CBS were opting out, and an official with FOX confirmed the same with The Hill

But the networks that cater to an audience who will be very interested in what the president has to say cleared the time for the address, CNN reported. The vice president of Univision, the nation’s leading Spanish-language network, announced plans to interrupt its airing of the Latin Grammy Awards for the president’s address. Telemundo, the other big Spanish-language network in the U.S. will also show the speech live. And the White House is expected to stream the event online. Huffington Post

How about that? Designer news for various racially selected audiences.

See what they did there? Let me repeat it:

“But the networks that cater to an audience who will be very interested in what the president has to say cleared the time for the address”

Do you really think the majority of working class Americans have no interest in this subject? Do you really think it has no effect on their lives at all? You should think again.

MK: You detail how the guest worker program, now known as visas H2A and H2B (to continue in the proposed immigration “reform” in another guise – formerly the large-scale bracero program) exploits basic human rights and formalizes the use of sub-livable wage workers from Mexico. I knew this continued feature of “immigration reform” was bad when George W. Bush fully supported it. Talk a little about the injustices of the various guest worker programs over time and who they have benefited.

DB (David Bacon): There are today work visa programs for agricultural workers (H2A), lower-skilled non-agricultural workers (H2B) and higher-skilled workers like nurses, teachers and high-tech workers (H1B). All of these visas require someone to work in order to stay, so losing a job means having to leave the country. And they all are based on employers recruiting workers in other countries.

Employers like these programs because they all allow them to hire workers at low wages, lower than what they’d have to pay if they hired people already living in the US, whether citizens or immigrants. And by paying low wages and keeping those workers insecure, they also put them into competition with workers already here. For the guest workers, there is a long history of employer abuse, including cheating on the terms they promise workers when they’re hired, and not paying legal wages or providing the legally required conditions. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls them close to slavery. Truthout

Obama is doing this for the major corporations that want it. It will save them billions per year in labor costs and set the stage for continued incremental amnesty programs in the future. It won’t do any good for the workers. In fact, once they are “on the books” and on the grid, they will be locked into what amounts to indentured servitude to those companies.

They wont face the threat of random deportation like they do now, kind of. They will face the threat that is even worse: piss off the boss, get sent back.

Now, they can come and go with various companies depending on how they feel they are treated. Once this goes into effect these 5 million suddenly half-legal illegals will be locked into contracts with one company and if they leave they’ll be blacklisted and deported when they try to go somewhere else.

Essentially, they’ll be slaves, forced to put up with even worse conditions than they have now.

That’s too say nothing of what this decree from Emperor Obama is going to do to the wage structure of America. Middle class and working class citizens will see their wage structure fall each and every time a new version of Bush’s 2007 bill is forced through by unconstitutional presidential dictate.

You know that. I know that. Saying it’s the case isn’t racist as my detractors will certainly claim. Hell, even Obama knew that:

“[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before,” then-Senator Obama wrote in his 2006 autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.”

”Not all these fears are irrational,” he wrote.

“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” Obama noted. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.Daily Caller

Displaced workers, creating displaced workers and then exploiting them for cheap labor, is a major component of neoliberalism.

When Big Agriculture is brought into a country, the subsidized cheaper food from outside the country destroys the agricultural base and drives local farmers off their land, they end up having to migrate into cities where they live in shantee towns and serve as labor fodder for Big Manufacturing in sweatshops for subsistence wages.

This is not a controversial statement. Bill Clinton recently apologized to the people of Haiti for doing just that when he was the God King in D.C. for a while. Of course he said that while he was setting up round two after the recent earthquake and typhoon that decimated the country.

Same holds true when nations are neoliberalized and have to move outside the country for meaningful work, the ability to provide for their families. They become a tool once again to help Big Business decimate the wage structure of neighboring nations, thus the virus of neoliberal economics spreads like Ebola (only, neoliberalism actually does spread)

MK: Beginning with corrupt Mexican President Carlos Salinas during the George Herbert Walker Bush presidency, just prior to the ratification of NAFTA under Clinton, Mexico started to move toward becoming part of the neoliberal global juggernaut. I define neoliberalism as creating a world consisting of four groups of people: consumers, low-wage workers, the ultra wealthy and the dispensables. The people profiled in your book appear to fall into the second and fourth categories.  Is that right?

DB: The people are displaced in Mexico, and the book describes this process, then become migrants. Their need to work and the poverty of their families forces them to accept low wages, both in Mexico and in the US. The book then describes the way US immigration law is used against them.  In many cases, like the union drive at Smithfield Foods in Tarheel, North Carolina, when the immigrants make common cause with workers here and try to organize unions or protest bad wages and conditions, employers then fired them with the cooperation, and sometimes at the orders of, the US government.  So in that sense they become dispensable, at least to their employers. Truthout

So this evening our president is going to announce his plans to force a neoliberal agenda down the throats of the people of this country without bothering with the constitutional process of going through “the people’s house” and the corporate media doesn’t feel it’s of enough interest to “we the people” to break into their pathetic shows to cover it. I guess you have to be brown to give a shit about such things.

At least, that racist drivel is their story… and they’re sticking with it.

———-

Please… if you can.. help support this site

Independent journalism depends on viewer support.

You can click on the nifty gif thingy for PayPal or contact me via email (rscdesigns@tampabay.rr.com) for my home address.

Thank you very much.

output_95f0q7

Advertisements

7 Responses

  1. It’s an honorable trade, but it’s illegal. Black marketing, they call it. A bag, box, crate of something ‘breaks’ open. Some desperate soul happens to be around, hates the idea of anything going to waste, picks up whatever spilled out, takes it to someone who knows where it’s needed, gets a little something in return.

    In what we’re facing, can’t help but happen. They’ll need to build more prisons to stop it. Maybe they’ll build them cheap

  2. What do you suggest be done about immigration? The GOP won’t let any reform happen through Congressional means. The U.S. created most of the problems in Latin America (financing death squads to oust leftist leaders, war on drugs, etc.) that cause so many to flee to the United States. If the current illegals are given citizenship won’t that prevent them from being exploited as they are now? How do you figure they’ll be worse off? They would have legal recourse if they are being underpaid and would be protected as any other worker would be from wrongful termination.

    To me the best idea would be to stop exploiting these nations through globalization/neoliberal trade deals and end the war on drugs. We both know that’s never going to happen in our lifetime. So what actions does the U.S. take to mitigate the damage caused? I don’t know the ins and outs of Obama’s plan, but it doesn’t seem like some purposeful destruction of our way of life. If it was, the Republicans wouldn’t be fighting it tooth and nail. These immigrants are going to come regardless of what Obama does. He’s attempting to grant amnesty, not open the borders (he’s deported more immigrants than any other President).

    There is no perfect solution, and sure, some Americans will be affected negatively from this. Then again, there are Americans who are being negatively affected by this already. Without a doubt the undocumented living in the country at the moment are negatively affected by the current system. So…

    • “What do you suggest be done about immigration?”

      Do what the Mexican activist association suggests in the article I linked to… end NAFTA and neoliberal policies in Mexico.

      “The U.S. created most of the problems in Latin America (financing death squads to oust leftist leaders, war on drugs, etc.) that cause so many to flee to the United States.”

      That’s true but only part of the picture. The real problem is neoliberal economic globalization that was imposed on the people of Mexico decades ago. That’s what’s destroyed their economy and FORCED many to flee the country looking for opportunity elsewhere.

      “If the current illegals are given citizenship won’t that prevent them from being exploited as they are now?”

      Absolutely not. They will second tier citizens, with their status dependent on their contracts with various companies. That will not make them full citizens with green cards and the ability to go and do as they please. Effectively they will be on the same level as foreign workers in places like UAE or Qatar.

      “They would have legal recourse if they are being underpaid and would be protected as any other worker would be from wrongful termination.”

      Are you kidding? First of all, do YOU have any real recourse anymore against actions like these? Do Walmart employees? They wont be any better off than other US employees and even worse off because, like I said, they will be considered property of the companies that bring them in. This is already well established fact. Look up the foreign employees and their struggle against Nestle and see what I’m talking about.

      “To me the best idea would be to stop exploiting these nations through globalization/neoliberal trade deals and end the war on drugs. We both know that’s never going to happen in our lifetime.”

      Yeah, that’s what I am talking about. And no, that’s not true that it wont happen in our lifetime. You have to remember, Obama got into office on a “CHANGE” platform and one of the things he lied about was …. ending NAFTA…. remember?

      It’s pretty easy to understand this is not a fringe cause. It’s mainstream or at least it was and it can be again. If we don’t give up.

      You keep talking about this in terms of republican vs dems. You forget, comprehensive immigration reform was a George W. Bush agenda and it was BIG on his TO DO list while in office. It’s also backed by the likes of Milton Friedman and the others I mentioned in the article. It’s not a real division.

      “The administration and supporters of executive action have stressed that numerous presidents — including Republicans Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — have taken executive action on immigration. Obama noted the presidential precedent in his speech and added, for good measure, a quote from President George W. Bush in support for comprehensive reform.” HuffPuff

      The republicans are simply opposed to it so that Obama CAN use executive action to bring it about. It is extremely unpopular and much better for all politicians with a future who are involved if they don’t have to vote for it. But they all want it because it helps their real constituents, Big Business.

      • I agree with many of your points. The Walmart comparison isn’t totally justified. Yes, they’re being exploited at bare minimum wage, receive shit benefits, and have very LITTLE recourse to improve their conditions, but if you’re an undocumented worker you get paid way below minimum wage, receive no benefits, and are treated as subhuman by many employers (not in he hyperbolic sense as with Walmart workers). So they will still be exploited, but not to such an extreme extent. Then other low-wage workers won’t get undercut by the immigrants and lose their jobs. It would be a level playing field. Well, at least closer to one, and beneficial to both sides to varying degrees.

        I haven’t come across anything stating that their citizenship would be dependent on remaining with a particular employer. Do you have a link to that info? If true, I see your point.

        What I heard from Obama last night was nothing groundbreaking. He didn’t grant amnesty to anyone. For all we know, this can just be used to find out who’s here illegally and deport them after the three years of TEMPORARY amnesty. Of course it’s more likely this will just be a way to usher in full amnesty for them.

        Your last paragraph raises an interesting notion. I agree both parties are scum that bow down to Big Business. I guess it all comes down to your assertion that these immigrants’ amnesty will be dependent on never severing ties with the employer that takes them on.

        At least we agree on the overall solution. Since I’m sure you’ll still disagree with me: What do we do in the meantime?

        Lastly, would you care to share your position on the Keystone XL pipeline?

        • “Eminent domain, scheminent domain. If a foreign privately owned for-profit company wants your land in America, by GOD! our progressive president will give it to them. If this sounds to you like a bit of foreshadowing of the latest Obama administration NAFTA Agreement Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, you’re not alone…

          … Obama is selling out faster than a $5 whore during Fleet Week. His recent trade agreement that is basically a quasi legal presidential acquiescence to international corporate dictatorship, spells it out quite clearly. According to this investigator, only two of 26 chapters of his new Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (the Godfather of all globalist NAFTA plans) deal with trade. It’s supposed to be a trade agreement but what it does is basically hand over the sovereignty of the United States to multinational corporations.” Scott Creighton, July 2012

          I haven’t written much about it since then or at least if I have I left it “uncatagorized”

          • Ah, okay. I got worried you were for the pipeline when you listed it in another article but didn’t explain your position.

            I still haven’t come across anything saying their reprieve (because that’s all it really is) from deportation is dependent upon staying with a particular employer. That is the crux of your argument, to me at least.

            If I was here illegally I wouldn’t trust this plan at all. What happens after three years? The next President can overturn this whole thing. Hell, even Obama can if he changes his mind! This is a fantastic way to gather up names for later deportation.

            To go to your idea of this all being political theatre: What if you’re incorrect that Republicans want Obama to grant amnesty without accepting any backlash? What if Obama (already deporting more immigrants than any other President) wants to appease his voter base knowing damn well that if it doesn’t help the next Democrat get in office, the GOP, if they in fact secure the Presidency in 2016, will just reverse his decision? It grants him something for his “legacy” (Lol!) and returns the immigrants to their illegal status down the line, ready for prompt deportation. That is how they can truly be exploited since Big Business can continue to pay them well below minimum wage and all the other reasons I listed previously. If these businesses have to offer them the same wages as everyone else since they’re now allowed to come out in the open, there’s no reason to fire a current U.S. citizen since they would earn the same pay. So again, unless I see proof about these immigrants’ amnesty being dependent upon staying with a certain company, I don’t see the nightmare scenario you described. Especially since, again, they would have to be paid the same as any other employee.

            I doubt we’ll see eye to eye on this but it’s good to explore all the angles with any issue. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: