The Immigration Debate David Stoll has done us all a ser- vice by suggesting in his letter to the editor that we be more explicit and critical about our assumptions and agendas regarding immigration [March/April, 1996]. Many progressives share Stoll's concern about the worsening condi- tions of U.S. workers. His sugges- tion that high levels of immigration are a significant cause of these dete- riorating conditions, however, is not convincing. Indeed, one might infer from such an analysis that we would find the best labor conditions in regions in the United States that receive relatively low numbers of immigrants-like the South. This is not to suggest that immi- gration does not have its costs. Undoubtedly, high levels of immi- gration-all other factors remaining constant-worsen labor-market con- ditions for low-wage workers in this country. But since all other factors never remain constant, this is not an inevitable outcome. We can only understand the conditions of partic- ular labor markets within their spe- cific social, historical and geo- graphical contexts. Imposing greater restrictions on immigration is only one response to the argument that an increasing pool of potential employees strengthens the ability of employers to under- mine the position of workers. The response most consistent with leftist principles is to strengthen organiza- tional solidarity among workers and build a movement that includes recent immigrants. Such a move- ment would make it difficult for the powerful to use immigration as a tool to undercut workers. Vigorous enforcement of a high minimum wage, a guaranteed minimum income, strong health and safety standards and labor rights would go a long way towards minimizing the detrimental effects-real or poten- tial-of immigration on low-wage workers in the United States. In a previous letter to NACLA [Nov/Dec, 1993], Stoll advocates "militarizing what has been a porous border" to protect and enhance the working conditions of U.S. farm workers. In fact, while it is unlikely such efforts will signifi- cantly help U.S. workers, the border has been increasingly militarized over the last two decades. Given the strength and persistence of the forces promoting immigration from Mexico and Central America into the United States (many driven by U.S. foreign policy and U.S.-based multinationals), such militarization can only lead to tragic results for migrants forced to take great risks to cross the border. Last year, some 300 people lost their lives trying to swim across the Rio Grande. To the extent that immigration has detrimental effects in the United States, our society needs to develop practices and mechanisms to address these problems while simultaneously working to mini- mize the conditions that are driving migration in foreign countries. Rather than jumping on the immi- gration-restriction bandwagon, pro- gressives should work for a demili- tarization of the border, informed by a vision that moves beyond nation- alism and border controls. All human beings have the right to work and to a life of dignity; migra- tion is often a necessary part of the process to realize these goals. In this regard, freedom of movement and residence are basic human rights. As progressives, we need to argue and fight for practices and mecha- nisms that are consistent with our principles. One of the most impor- tant is solidarity, which knows no boundaries. Matthew Jardine Los Angeles, California Popular Participation and Neoliberalism In his article "Neoliberal Social Policy: Managing Poverty (Somehow)," [May/June, 1996] Carlos Vilas points out that the two basic functions of neoliberal social policy are to encourage capital accumulation and legitimize the political order. Bolivia's Popular Participation Law is increasingly viewed by its neighbors as a model to legitimize their neoliberal agenda and the injustices it engenders. On paper, the Popular Parti- cipation Law is redistributive, and it explicitly encourages the participa- tion of women and indigenous orga- nizations while introducing mecha- nisms for community control over municipal government. Yet as Vilas argues, viewed within the global context of a neoliberal economic model which promotes poverty, pop- ular participation alone cannot sig- nificantly alter the structural inequal- ities that the neoliberal agenda has failed to address. This is especially so in Bolivia's rural areas, where newly created municipalities that are expected to provide social services and pro- mote rural development lack finan- cial resources and institutional and technical expertise. Each munici- pality will receive $25 per person from the national pot-not nearly enough to resolve health and edu- cation, let alone production needs. In rural municipalities, moreover, those who succeed in getting access to resources tend to be bet- ter organized groups, usually mid- dle-class urbanites. The poorest, most remote campesino communi- ties are often excluded from the limited benefits on offer, reinforc- ing existing inequalities. Nevertheless, as Xavier Alb6 sug- gests in his article, "Bolivia: Making the Leap from Local Mobilization to National Politics" [March/April, 1996], investment in the organiza- tional capacity of campesino, indigenous and women's organiza- tions is beginning to reverse the his- torical exclusion of Bolivia's rural poor. Last December, campesino and indigenous leaders ran for the first time as candidates in local elec- tions, winning 26% of Bolivia's municipal council seats. While rec- ognizing Vilas' powerful criticism of the neoliberal model, the introduc- tion of elements of participatory democracy, as a means of perfecting a flawed representational democ- racy, has opened a small window of opportunity-one we should begin to examine more closely. Simon Ticehurst La Paz, Bolivia
