Pepsi asked to stop funding anti heterosexual, anti ex-gay group

Pepsi Shareholders Asked to Stop Funding Hate

5.7.09 / PRNewswire

PLANO, Texas, May 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Speaking at the PepsiCo annual shareholders meeting yesterday, Greg Quinlan of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) asked PepsiCo to stop using shareholder profits to fund anti-heterosexual groups. PepsiCo produces Frito-Lay snacks, Pepsi-Cola and Gatorade drinks, Tropicana juices, and Quaker foods.

Citing his experience as a former homosexual, Quinlan asked PepsiCo stockholders to stop donating money to groups that aim to discredit the ex-gay community:

“Last year PepsiCo gave away half a million dollars to PFLAG, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. PFLAG is a gay organization that supports tolerance for gays but does not believe in tolerance for ex-gays and other heterosexuals. When Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s church sponsored an ex-gay conference last year, PFLAG issued press releases against Sarah Palin and organized protests at her church. This same church was later anonymously vandalized by fire, reminiscent of the burning of black churches in the South during the civil rights movement. Churches should welcome former homosexuals like me, and PepsiCo should not fund organizations like PFLAG that do not welcome diversity, but promote hatred.

I have been shouted and heckled by PFLAG members because I am out and open in society as a former homosexual. Why does PepsiCo fund groups like PFLAG that hate people who are different from them? This is not tolerance or inclusion by any definition.

By funding PFLAG, PepsiCo promotes fear and hostility against the ex-gay community and our supporters, and spreads lies about ex-gay organizations. Diversity does not mean funding one organization so that it can attack another.

Currently, there is a boycott of PepsiCo by AFA, the American Family Association. AFA is a grassroots organization of concerned families across the country that successfully boycotted Ford Motor products for donating money to gay activist organizations. Now they’re boycotting Pepsi products. Their boycott petition already has over 300,000 signatures at www.boycottpepsico.com.

The PepsiCo Board of Directors approved a $13 million total compensation package for the CEO, Indra Nooyi, in addition to her free personal use of the PepsiCo company plane, and a car and chauffer for commuting. So PepsiCo can afford to issue a shareholders report revealing how your money is being spent on dubious charities that support hate against ex-gays like me.”

Visit http://pfox.org/about_us.html for information about the ex-gay community.

US citizens being deported, blocked from returning at border

US citizens locked up as illegal immigrants

4.12.09 / Suzanne Gamboa / AP


This undated photo released by the ACLU shows Pedro Guzman. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/ACLU

WASHINGTON – Pedro Guzman has been an American citizen all his life. Yet in 2007, the 31-year-old Los Angeles native – in jail for a misdemeanor, mentally ill and never able to read or write – signed a waiver agreeing to leave the country without a hearing and was deported to Mexico as an illegal immigrant.

For almost three months, Guzman slept in the streets, bathed in filthy rivers and ate out of trash cans while his mother scoured the city of Tijuana, its hospitals and morgues, clutching his photo in her hand. He was finally found trying to cross the border at Calexico, 100 miles (161 kilometers) away.

These days, back home in California, “He just changes from one second to another. His brain jumps back to when he was missing,” said his brother, Michael Guzman. “We just talk to him and reassure him that everything is fine and nobody is going to hurt him.”

In a drive to crack down on illegal immigrants, the United States has locked up or thrown out dozens, probably many more, of its own citizens over the past eight years. A monthslong AP investigation has documented 55 such cases, on the basis of interviews, lawsuits and documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. These citizens are detained for anything from a day to five years. Immigration lawyers say there are actually hundreds of such cases.

It is illegal to deport U.S. citizens or detain them for immigration violations. Yet citizens still end up in detention because the system is overwhelmed, acknowledged Victor Cerda, who left Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2005 after overseeing the system. The number of detentions overall is expected to rise by about 17 per cent this year to more than 400,000, putting a severe strain on the enforcement network and legal system.

The result is the detention of citizens with the fewest resources: the mentally ill, minorities, the poor, children and those with outstanding criminal warrants, ranging from unpaid traffic tickets to failure to show up for probation hearings. Most at risk are Hispanics, who made up the majority of the cases the AP found.

“The more the system becomes confused, the more U.S. citizens will be wrongfully detained and wrongfully removed,” said Bruce Einhorn, a retired immigration judge who now teaches at Pepperdine Law School. “They are the symptom of a larger problem in the detention system. … Nothing could be more regrettable than the removal of our fellow citizens.”

Jim Hayes, ICE director of detention and removal, said he is aware of only 10 cases of U.S. citizens detained over the past five years. Even if combined with the cases found by the AP, “that’s not an epidemic,” Hayes said. He refused to identify any cases, citing privacy laws.

He added that agents investigate any claims to U.S. citizenship, but they often turn out to be false. He said U.S. citizens sometimes claim to be foreign-born, and that immigration officials never knowingly hold someone they can “definitively” determine is a citizen.

It’s impossible to know exactly how many citizens have been detained or deported because nobody keeps track. Kara Hartzler, an attorney at the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project in Arizona, testified at a U.S. House hearing last year that her group alone sees 40 to 50 jailings a month of people with potentially valid claims to citizenship.

“These cases are surprisingly, painfully common,” she said.

The nonprofit Vera Institute for Justice found 322 people with citizenship claims in 13 immigration prisons in 2007, up from 129 the year before. That number does not include possible citizens in the nation’s more than 300 other immigration prisons.

What is clear is that immigration detentions – including those of citizens – have soared in recent years. One reason is a heightened concern for security that arose out of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Another is a political climate that encouraged a tough stance on illegal immigration, especially after Congress failed to pass immigration reform legislation almost three years ago.

After 2003, the nation launched several programs to detain more immigrants, including one that called on local police and sheriffs for help. Before 2007, just seven state and local law enforcement agencies worked with immigration. By last November, more than 950 officers from 23 states had attended a four-week program on how to root out and jail suspected illegal immigrants.

A Government Accountability Office investigation has since found that ICE did not ensure local officials properly used their authority and failed to collect data to assess the program. As a result, ICE is rewriting agreements with 67 agencies.

The program came under fire partly because it gives local officers so much leeway to decide who to stop. Almost one in 10 Hispanic adults born in the U.S. report that police or other authorities stopped them and asked about their immigration status in 2007, according to a Pew Hispanic Center survey of more than 2,000 people.

-

It was a local sheriff’s office that sent Guzman out of the country.

He was picked up near his home in Lancaster, California, on March 31, 2007, by Los Angeles County sheriff’s department officers on a misdemeanor trespassing charge. He had tried three times to board a private plane, showing lottery tickets for passage on one attempt, officers said in a report. He had also stolen a car and told officers his mother’s car was broken.

A judge gave him three years’ probation and three months in jail for vandalism.

At the jail, Guzman told officers he was born in California, a response noted in official records. But a sheriff’s employee still got Guzman to sign an agreement to leave the country without a hearing.

On the day he arrived in Mexico, Guzman called a relative to say he didn’t know where he was, and asked a passer-by. The answer: Tijuana. Then the phone cut off.

Guzman was finally returned to California legally in August 2007.

Now he can no longer stand the sun because it reminds him of Mexico. His family will not let him talk about the ordeal because it upsets him. He has frequent counseling sessions, but he is shaky, stutters and seems to hear voices, according to his brother.

“He is our brother, somebody’s son, that they deported,” said Michael Guzman. “California is like the main capital of Latin Americans. It doesn’t matter whether you are a citizen or not. If you look Hispanic, they can question you. Deportation can happen to anybody.”

Neither the sheriff’s office nor immigration officials would discuss the case, citing pending litigation. The family has sued Los Angeles County and the federal government.

“When the whole story is told, people will see and understand what has occurred,” said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office.

In the meantime, Guzman’s mother, Maria Carbajal, often works the graveyard shift at a Jack in the Box because she is afraid to leave him alone during the day.

-

American citizens also have been caught in the net of increased workplace arrests and jail sweeps.

Workplace arrests rose from 517 in fiscal year 2003 to 6,274 in 2008. Julie Myers, former Homeland Security assistant secretary overseeing ICE, said agents quickly sort out which workers are citizens during raids. She added that federal law, court decisions and search warrants give immigration agents the authority to enter workplaces to question everyone inside, including citizens.

But the raids have already led to several lawsuits.

In 2007, 114 U.S. citizens and permanent residents sued after a raid on Micro Solutions Enterprises, a computer printer equipment recycler in Van Nuys, California. They alleged illegal detention and sought $5,000 damage each.

In 2008, the union representing workers at six Swift & Co. meatpacking plants sued on behalf of eight citizens and legal residents caught up in raids.

In one case, three citizens and nine others, all Hispanic, sued after ICE agents raided their New Jersey homes as part of what was dubbed Operation Return To Sender. The lawsuit alleges that an immigration agent pulled a gun on one of the citizens, a 9-year-old boy.

A program to sweep jails and deport immigrants who have committed crimes is more popular. But critics fear the temptation is to deport anyone for anything because they are seen as bad seeds, even if they are American citizens.

-

Rennison Castillo arrived early at the Seattle immigration office on Oct. 28, 1998, to take his citizenship oath. He was dressed in a freshly starched Army uniform and was eager to grab a good seat. He sat in the second row.

Born in Belize, Castillo had lived in the U.S. since he was 7 and had served two years in the Army. But his superiors told him he could not stay in the Army without citizenship. So he took the citizenship test and passed easily, missing only one question, on the name of a locally elected official.

“I felt pretty good. I felt I definitely accomplished something, because having a citizenship to the United States was something that I felt proud of,” Castillo said.

Seven years later, the U.S. government locked Castillo in a Tacoma, Washington, immigration jail. He had been picked up at the Pierce County jail, where he had spent eight months for violating a restraining order and for residential burglary.

At the holding cell, an officer asked if he wanted to go home. He thought she meant his home in Lakewood, Washington “Yes,” he answered. “I’d love to go home.”

She chained him up and told him he would be deported.

Over and over, Castillo said, he told officers he was a citizen. He pleaded with them to check their computer files.

But officials said nothing in their records confirmed his citizenship or his military service. One officer actually recognized Castillo from their Army days at Fort Lewis, Washington, and mentioned their battalion, but told Castillo he couldn’t help.

Then Castillo saw a number posted on the wall for the Northwest Immigration Rights Project. On the group’s advice, he contacted a friend who pulled his military document from the trunk of his car.

Nearly eight months after he was transferred to ICE custody, Castillo was released. He discovered that immigration officials had two files on him, with different numbers, and has since filed a lawsuit. ICE declined to comment because the lawsuit is pending.

“I understand that nothing is perfect, nothing will be perfect, but I don’t understand how they could make a grave mistake like that,” he said. “Because if this happened to me, I’m quite sure it’s happened to somebody else. What’s going to happen to the next person it happens to?”

-

For Ricardo Martinez, born in McAllen, Texas, it was not being able to get back into his own country.

Even though he was a U.S. citizen, Martinez lived in Mexico between the ages of 5 and 17.

Like many border residents with family on the other side, he made frequent trips to Mexico. When he tried to return to the U.S. after a visit to Mexico in July 1999, he was turned away by border officers at Nogales, Arizona, because two copies of his birth certificate, issued years apart, had different hospital registration dates. Not proficient in English, Martinez said he had never noticed the error.

Told to get his documents in order, he got a U.S. passport and was able to get into the country. But the problem was not over.

In January 2006, he went back to Mexico to be with his dying grandmother. When he tried to cross back at Laredo, Texas, in March, he carried his birth certificates, his birth registration card, his passport and state ID cards from Nebraska, California and Texas, where he had worked.

But by that time border security had become far stricter. Agents looked up Martinez in their database and found the earlier problem at Nogales. They claimed his U.S. passport was fake, he said.

Martinez was taken to an inspection room, forced to remove his shoes, searched, handcuffed to a chair and held for two hours while officers questioned his documents, he said. He was told unless he confessed to fraud, he would be sent to prison for six to eight months, according to a court document filed in Martinez’s lawsuit against the government.

“They told me if I didn’t say I was from over there, they would put me in jail. I was frightened,” Martinez said.

He said he asked to call his mother to help prove his citizenship, but was refused.

Martinez’s stepfather, Florentino Mireles, said in a Feb. 27, 2008, affidavit that he called border inspectors to ask why they had taken Martinez’s documents. The response, he said: An officer didn’t believe Martinez was a U.S. citizen because he didn’t speak English.

Afraid of jail, Martinez signed the papers. In an affidavit in his lawsuit, Martinez said he didn’t understand that by signing he was admitting to not being born in the U.S.

It took his parents two years to find an affordable attorney. Finally, at a meeting in Hidalgo, attorney Lisa Brodyaga showed border officers a copy of Martinez’ birth certificate from his parents that included his footprints and a thumbprint and tax records showing he had worked legally in the U.S. Officials agreed he was a U.S. citizen and allowed him to cross the border.

Lloyd Easterling, spokesman for Customs and Border Protection, declined comment because Martinez has sued. In court filings, the agency said Martinez denied being physically assaulted or subjected to excessive force and never filed a complaint against the officers.

Brodyaga said the cases of U.S. citizens detained or deported show more than bureaucratic bungling.

“I’ve been doing this for 30 years and I’ve seen bureaucratic bungling. This is more than that,” she said. “This is an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility, particularly for Mexican-Americans on the border.”

Illegal immigrants could get jobs created by US stimulus bill, think tanks say

Illegal immigrants might get stimulus jobs, experts say

3.9.09 / William M. Welch / USA Today

LOS ANGELES — Tens of thousands of jobs created by the economic stimulus law could end up filled by illegal immigrants, particularly in big states such as California where undocumented workers are heavily represented in construction, experts on both sides of the issue say.

Studies by two conservative think tanks estimate immigrants in the United States illegally could take 300,000 construction jobs, or 15% of the 2 million jobs that new taxpayer-financed projects are predicted to create.

They fault Congress for failing to require that employers certify legal immigration status of workers before hiring by using a Department of Homeland Security program called E-Verify. The program allows employers to check the validity of Social Security numbers provided by new hires. It is available to employers on a voluntary basis.

“They could have deterred this, but they chose not to,” said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies.

He said a federal requirement that employers use E-Verify would have reduced, if not eliminated, the hiring of immigrants in this country illegally.

An advocacy group for immigrants, illegal and legal, did not disagree with the 300,000 estimate. Camarota says the estimate is based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and other independent findings that 15% of all construction workers in the USA are either illegal immigrants or lack the status of legal immigrant authorized to work.

But Jorge-Mario Cabrera, director of education for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, said it is impossible to predict with certainty because it is unknown how many jobless immigrant construction workers may leave the U.S., frustrated by the economic recession, before the new spending produces jobs.

He questioned the Center for Immigration Studies’ motives.

“Those are fear tactics. … ‘The immigrants are here to take your job,’ ” Cabrera said. “I think that we really should be focusing on economic progress for all.”

The center is a Washington policy organization that, its website says, “seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.” Cabrera says his group believes unauthorized immigrants working in this country contribute to the economy.

A similar hiring estimate was produced in a report in February by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Senior research fellow Robert Rector wrote, “Without specific mechanisms to ensure that workers are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants authorized to work, it is likely that 15% of these workers, or 300,000, would be illegal immigrants.”

The version of the stimulus bill passed by the House of Representatives included a provision requiring employers to check immigration status with the E-Verify system before hiring. The Senate did not include such a provision, and it was not in the version sent to President Obama. The Obama administration has delayed until at least May 21 a Bush administration executive order requiring federal contractors to use the E-Verify system in hiring. It had been scheduled to take effect in January. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed suit seeking to block the requirement, joined by the Associated Builders and Contractors and other business organizations.

The business groups and immigrant advocacy groups argue that the E-Verify database is riddled with errors that could result in millions of workers being wrongly identified as not authorized for work. They say requiring its use before hiring would impose a cost burden on employers and open them to lawsuits.

Camarota said illegal immigrants working in construction are concentrated in California, Arizona and Texas along the border with Mexico, as well as Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina and Georgia.

The BBC’s startling campaign to associate blue collar white Brits with racists

It’s all in the edit

Some of the BBC’s reports about the recent strike action have a disturbing undertone: working-class people are racist

2.3.09 / Padraig Reidy / The Guardian

Why is the BBC obsessed with making working-class people seem racist?

Watching BBC news bulletins yesterday, it was very easy to believe claims that the current spate of wildcat strikes is inherently motivated by xenophobia. Constant emphasis was placed on objections to “foreign workers” per se, rather than fear of workers’ wages being undercut, which would seem to be the real issue.

The 10 o’clock bulletin gave us a good example. A voiceover by the BBC’s political editor, Nick Robinson, (about 12 mins in) told us: “Beneath the anger, ministers fear, lies straightforward xenophobia.” Cut to woolly-hatted worker telling BBC reporter: “These Portugese and Eyeties – we can’t work alongside of them.” There we are: northern white bloke refusing to work with foreigners. Case closed.

Except, watch Paul Mason’s report on Newsnight, featuring the same interview (about 4:30 in):

These Portugese and eyeties – we can’t work alongside of them: we’re segregated from them. They’re coming in in full companies.

Even taking into account the dodginess of the use of “Eyetie” to refer to an Italian person, one has to admit that it would be very difficult to portray the second, full quote as racist or xenophobic. It’s a statement addressing basic workplace issues – British workers literally cannot work alongside foreign workers, as they are separated. There really is no excuse for editing and presenting a quote in such a misrepresentative manner, unless one is setting out to prove something – namely, that working-class people are racists.

The BBC does have form on this, unfortunately: last year’s White season was almost exclusively concerned with portraying white working-class people as paranoid and racist. This despite the fact – and this really needs to be repeated until it’s firmly implanted in every bien pensant liberal’s head – that white working-class people are the most likely to have friends of other races and religions, and are most likely to marry and have children with people of other races and religions. Not the behaviour of a resentful army of racists.

The apex of the White season’s utter weirdness was a Newsnight interview with the BNP’s Nick Griffin, author of Who Are The Mindbenders, a 1997 pamphlet detailing how “the Jews” control the BBC and other media. Griffin was interviewed on his own, and then we were taken in to a panel discussion featuring, among others, Bob Crow and Nick Ferrari (both of whom had obviously refused to share a platform with Griffin, hence the solo interview). Hardly natural bedfellows, Crow and Ferrari took turns lambasting the BBC for its portrayal of working-class people. It was an encouraging sight.

But even after this spectacular dressing down, the practice persists. Why? Is it because of a skewed identity politics at play in BBC newsrooms and commissioning meetings? Or is it because the BBC, like much of the media, is increasingly dominated by middle-class scions who don’t actually know many working-class people, and thus breezily project any prejudice or other trait they wish on to them? Either way, it’s a sordid state of affairs, and – as shown by the devious editing of last night’s 10 o’clock news, a dangerous one, too.

The real causes of illegal Mexican immigration

Published on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

Immigration Flood Unleashed by NAFTA’s Disastrous Impact on Mexican Economy
by Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter

The recent ferment on immigration policy has been so narrow that it has excluded the real issue: family-sustaining wages for workers both north and south of the border. The role of the North American Free Trade Agreement and misnamed ‘free trade’ has been scarcely mentioned in the increasingly bitter debate over the fate of America’s 11 to 12 million illegal aliens.

NAFTA was sold to the American public as the magic formula that would improve the American economy at the same time it would raise up the impoverished Mexican economy. The time has come to look at the failures of this type of trade agreement before we engage in more and lower the economic prospects of all workers affected.

While there has been some media coverage of NAFTA’s ruinous impact on US industrial communities, there has been even less media attention paid to its catastrophic effects in Mexico:

* NAFTA, by permitting heavily-subsidized US corn and other agri-business products to compete with small Mexican farmers, has driven the Mexican farmer off the land due to low-priced imports of US corn and other agricultural products. Some 2 million Mexicans have been forced out of agriculture, and many of those that remain are living in desperate poverty. These people are among those that cross the border to feed their families. (Meanwhile, corn-based tortilla prices climbed by 50%. No wonder many so Mexican peasants have called NAFTA their ‘death warrant.’
* NAFTA’s service-sector rules allowed big firms like Wal-Mart to enter the Mexican market and, selling low-priced goods made by ultra-cheap labor in China, to displace locally-based shoe, toy, and candy firms. An estimated 28,000 small and medium-sized Mexican businesses have been eliminated.
* Wages along the Mexican border have actually been driven down by about 25% since NAFTA, reported a Carnegie Endowment study. An over-supply of workers, combined with the crushing of union organizing drives as government policy, has resulted in sweatshop pay running sweatshops along the border where wages typically run 60 cents to $1 an hour.

So rather than improving living standards, Mexican wages have actually fallen since NAFTA. The initial growth in the number of jobs has leveled off, with China’s even more repressive labor system luring US firms to locate there instead.

But Mexicans must still contend with the results of the American-owned ‘maquiladora’ sweatshops: subsistence-level wages, pollution, congestion, horrible living conditions (cardboard shacks and open sewers), and a lack of resources (for streetlights and police) to deal with a wave of violence against vulnerable young women working in the factories. The survival (or less) level wages coupled with harsh working conditions have not been the great answer to Mexican poverty, while they have temporarily been the answer to Corporate America’s demand for low wages.

With US firms unwilling to pay even minimal taxes, NAFTA has hardly produced the promised uplift in the lives of Mexicans. Ciudad Juarez Mayor Gustavo Elizondo, whose city is crammed with US-owned low-wage plants, expressed it plainly: “We have no way to provide water, sewage, and sanitation workers. Every year, we get poorer and poorer even though we create more and more wealth.”

Falling industrial wages, peasants forced off the land, small businesses liquidated, growing poverty: these are direct consequences of NAFTA. This harsh suffering explains why so many desperate Mexicans — lured to the border area in the false hope that they could find dignity in the US-owned maquiladoras — are willing to risk their lives to cross the border to provide for their families. There were 2.5 million Mexican illegals in 1995; 8 million have crossed the border since then. In 2005, some 400 desperate Mexicans died trying to enter the US.

NAFTA failed to curb illegal immigration precisely because it was never designed as a genuine development program crafted to promote rising living standards, health care, environmental cleanup, and worker rights in Mexico. The wholesale surge of Mexicans across the border dramatically illustrates that NAFTA was no attempt at a broad uplift of living conditions and democracy in Mexico, but a formula for government-sanctioned corporate plunder benefiting elites on both sides of the border.

NAFTA essentially annexed Mexico as a low-wage industrial suburb of the US and opened Mexican markets to heavily-subsidized US agribusiness products, blowing away local producers. Capital could flow freely across the border to low-wage factories and Wal-mart-type retailers, but the same standard of free access would be denied to Mexican workers.

Meanwhile, with the planned Central American Free Trade Agreement with five Central American nations coming up, we can anticipate even greater pressure on our borders as agricultural workers are pushed off the land without positive, alternative employment opportunities. People from Guatemala and Honduras will soon learn that they can’t compete for industrial jobs with the most oppressed people in say, China, by agreeing to lowering their wages even more. Further, impoverished Central American countries don’t have the resources to deal with the pollution and crime that results from moving people from rural areas to the city, often without their families.

Thus far, we have been presented with a narrow range of options to cope with the tide of illegal immigrants living fearfully in the shadows of American life. Should they simply be walled off and criminalized, as Sensenbrenner and House Republicans suggest? The Sensenbrenner option seeks to exploit the sentiment that illegal immigrants entering the US — rather than US corporations exiting the US for Mexico and China — are the primary cause of falling wages for most Americans.

The Bush version is only slightly different, envisioning the “illegal immigrants” as part of a vast disposable pool of cheap labor with no meaningful rights on the job or even the right to vote, to be returned to Mexico upon the whim of their employers.

Yet there is another well-known path of economic and social integration that has been ignored in the debates over immigration in the US: the one followed by the European Union and their “social charter” calling for decent wages, health care, and extensive retraining in all nations. Before then-impoverished nations like Spain, Greece and Portugal were admitted, they received massive EU investments in roads, health care, clean water, and education. The implementation of democracy, including worker rights, was an equally vital pre-condition for entry into the EU.

The underlying concept: the entire reason for trade is to provide improved lives across borders, not to exploit the cheapest labor and weakest environmental rules. We need to question the widely-held assumption that what benefits American corporations benefits Mexican workers and American workers. An authentic plan for growth and development isn’t about further enriching Wall Street, major corporations, and a handful of Mexican billionaires; it is about the creation of family-supporting jobs. It is also about a healthy environment, healthy workers, good education, and ordinary people being able to achieve their dreams.

The massive tide of illegal immigration from Mexico is merely one symptom of an economic arrangement where human needs — not maximum profits– are not the ultimate goal but a subject of neglect. Neither a massive, shameful barrier at the border nor a disposable guest-worker program will address the problems ignited by NAFTA.

Programs providing stable, decent employment, modern transportation, clean water, and environmental cleanup are needed to take the place of the immense NAFTA failure and allow Mexicans to live decent, hopeful lives in their native land. But such an effort is imaginable only if the aim is truly mutual uplift for all citizens in both nations, instead of the NAFTA-fueled race to the bottom.

Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter are Milwaukee-based writers and activists. They can be reached at winterbybee@earthlink.net.