Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day12Fixed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Liberal Hypocrisy on Immigration

Krugman and Clinton: Shut the Door

by SHARON SMITH

Economist Paul Krugman is "proud of America’s immigrant history, and grateful that the door was open when my grandparents fled Russia."

Now, however, he argues that the U.S. should close its door on the poor huddled masses, warning, "We need to do something about immigration, and soon," in a New York Times op-ed on March 27-the same day the Senate opened debate on immigration reform.

Krugman cites "serious, nonpartisan research" revealing "some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular."

In reality, the foreign-born population today remains under its historic high point of 15 percent a century ago, when Krugman’s grandparents presumably emigrated to the U.S.

But Krugman claims that the current pool of Mexican migrants reduces wages for unskilled native-born workers, citing a recent Harvard study estimating that "high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren’t for Mexican immigration."

Krugman neatly sidesteps another "uncomfortable fact": the federal minimum wage, unchanged by Congress for eight years, fell to its lowest level in 56 years in 2005-to just 32 percent of the average wage for private sector workers-surely exercising a greater downward pressure on wages than that of Mexican workers.

In addition, he claims, "low-skill immigrants don’t pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive," threatening to "unravel" America’s (suddenly generous) welfare state.

Yet, according to the National Conference of State Legislators in 2005, immigrants pay on average $1,800 in taxes in excess of their "cost" in government services.

Krugman’s argument, furthermore, fails to account for the millions in unpaid taxes, thanks to Bush’s tax cuts, from extremely wealthy, native-born Americans.

His anti-immigrant stance showcases the bankruptcy of the "liberal" flank in the current immigration debate now supposedly "raging" on Capitol Hill.

Senator Hillary Clinton helped raise the level of melodrama last week, accusing Republicans of promoting legislation that would criminalize "even Jesus himself," while Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid threatened to filibuster Republican legislation raising the crime level of undocumented immigration to felony status.

Yet back in 2003, Clinton told WABC, "People have to stop employing illegal immigrants." She also went on record supporting "at least a visa ID, some kind of entry-and-exit ID. And … we might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens."

Politicians of both parties face a similar dilemma: balancing their search for votes among Red State conservatives with the growing Latino vote, 40 percent of which went to Bush in 2004.

Both Democrats and Republicans have already opportunistically agreed to limit the parameters of debate to varying degrees of "enhancing border security" and the desirability of guest worker programs-both assuring certain deportation for Mexican workers.

Linda Chavez-Thompson, AFL-CIO Executive Vice President, recently argued that "all" bills in Congress "fail to protect even the most basic rights of immigrant workers and their families."

Wholesale amnesty is not in the cards on either side. Also missing is the notion that foreign-born workers hold the potential to raise working-class wages through their own struggles for union organization.

Immigrant workers have played a key role in advancing the labor movement historically, from the battle for the eight-hour day that led to the 1886 Haymarket Square massacre to the United Farm Workers, a self-organized movement that finally unionized California’s migrant farm workers in the 1960s.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, undocumented immigrants make up 24 percent of all workers currently employed in farming occupations, 17 percent in cleaning, 14 percent in construction and 12 percent in food preparation.

Their potential for organizing is far greater today than 100 years ago, when the American Federation of Labor’s president Samuel Gompers routinely described immigrant labor as "garbage".

In 2000, the AFL-CIO finally reversed its long-standing opposition to undocumented immigrants, supporting amnesty and the right to organize into unions.

Now it is time for the labor movement to make good on this promise to the hundreds of thousands of Mexican-American workers who have been demonstrating across the country, demanding legalization, in recent weeks.

SHARON SMITH is the author of Women and Socialism and Subterranean Fire: a History of Working-Class Radicalism in the United States. She can be reached at: sharon@internationalsocialist.org