Anti-immigrant fervor could be more costly than Arizona lawmakers expected. Thanks to SB 1070, a new law that requires immigrants to carry papers at all times to prove their legal status, the state has become the focal point of the national immigration debate. The bill and the buzz surrounding it illustrates a desperate need for a federal fix to the broken immigration system.
President Barack Obama publicly condemned the measure shortly before Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill on April 23, while human rights groups and immigration reform supporters are threatening national boycotts and lawsuits.
SB 1070 makes it possible for local police to racially profile Latinos by allowing them to check a person's immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that they might be undocumented. It elicits memories of South Africa under apartheid, when blacks were forced to carry passbooks or otherwise risk incarceration. For a good historical perspective of immigration in Arizona, check out Jessica Pieklo's blog for Care2.
Hidden costs
Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine, joins many bloggers and immigrant rights supporters in calling for a boycott. "Arizona Representative Raul Grijalva is urging a boycott of his own state. San Francisco has already announced its intentions to boycott Arizona," Rothschild writes. "The response from the Latino community has been instant and outraged. And the upcoming May Day rallies are sure to be huge."
If threats to boycott simmer down, lawsuits could overturn the bill. At RaceWire, Julianne Hing writes that "Legal challenges to Arizona's [new immigration law] are coming from all sides. Both the [American Civil Liberties Union] and [the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund] are planning legal action."
Hing adds that "Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon announced on Friday that his city would bring a lawsuit against [the law]" and that he is joined by "Sara Presler, the mayor of Flagstaff, whose city is exploring its legal options as well."
Arizona will need to amp up its law enforcement arm to put the bill in action. That won't be cheap-the state budget is facing a $2 billion shortfall. As William Fisher reports at the Inter Press Service, "In one Arizona county alone, Yuma County, the sheriff estimates that law enforcement agencies would spend between $775,880 and $1,163,820 dollars in processing expenses. Jail costs would run between $21,195,600 and $96,086,720 dollars, and attorney and staff fees between $810,067 and $1,620,134 dollars."
The ripple effect
Ironically, Arizona lawmakers' attempts to crackdown on immigrants have galvanized Latinos and immigration reform supporters on a national level. As Suzy Khimm reports in Mother Jones, "In light of the passage of Arizona's draconian immigration law, advocates have been ramping up the pressure on the Democratic leadership to demonstrate some concrete sign of progress by May 1, when nationwide immigration reform rallies are scheduled."
At the Washington Monthly, Steve Benen notes how SB 1070 has also created a political quandary for Republican lawmakers in Congress. "So far, only two GOP members -- Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- have been willing to criticize the state law," writes Benen. "If the issue is a test of Republicans' political and moral seriousness, it appears most of the party caucus on the Hill is content with an 'incomplete.'"
The anti-immigrant backlash
Immigration reform supporters also know that punitive laws won't go away until Congress moves to pass reform. Already, as Jason Hancock at the Iowa Independent reports, "a Republican candidate for congress in Iowa's 3rd District calling for microchips to be installed in immigrants."
Pat Bertroche, the candidate, is quoted by Hancock comparing undocumented immigrants to "dogs," saying "I think we should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going. I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal?"
Meanwhile, the National Radio Project reports on the lives of gay and lesbian immigrants who live in the United States without papers. Un Jung Lim, a U.S. citizen whose partner was deported after living in the United States for 18 years on a worker visa, tearfully said "We've been separated for five months and we hope to be reunited soon, but we don't know when that's going to be."
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Atrios raises an interesting question- should those pissed off by Arizona's new immigration law do as Margaret Cho does:
Or vote with their feet, as he says, by getting the hell out of Arizona?
On its face, it may seem as simple as coming down to whether you're undocumented or not. If you're undocumented and now at greater risk of being deported, of course you would leave. Proof of ID is required at the polls (or providing similar documents), so how much collective mobilization can actually be had by undocumented immigrants who choose to stay?
I don't actually think it's that simple at all. There is something to be said for staying to influence others and the outcome of an election. I'm gay, and if my local elected officials passed a law that allowed discrimination in something extremely personal- like being required to sign a document swearing that I am straight before being able to get a job or apartment, or being arrested for holding hands with my lover in public- I could say "fuck you" to the District of Columbia and move.
Or I could talk to every single straight ally I know and make them aware of how heinous the law is, who voted for it, etc. Not to mention organizing the LGBT community. I say this because when the Obama administration extended hospital benefits for same-sex couples, I wrote at the time how many e-mails I got from straight allies who didn't know that wasn't already law- and when I wrote back to mention that it's legal to discriminate in employment on the basis of sexual orientation in 29 states, they were even further shocked. Despite the media glare on the Arizona law prior to Gov. Brewer's signature, some people just don't get what life is like for oppressed communities, and it takes a member of that community to, as Harvey Milk put it, "educate" that community, be they Dan Whites or straight friends.
So there is something to be said for staying and fighting. It's a very personal choice and certainly depends on each individual's situation in a variety of respects- and it's not my place or anyone else's to make a blanket ask to do either. And if a state like Oklahoma passed one of those anti-gay laws, it's going to be a long slog towards equality. But oppressed communities simply packing up and leaving whenever they are oppressed may not be the best strategy, both in terms of repealing the law and in terms of creating allies- neighbors, co-workers, other kids at school, etc.- who treat you as you'd want to be treated over the long-term.
While immigrant rights groups pressure the federal government via high-profile marches and rallies, anti-immigration forces are pushing punitive laws on the state and local levels. Thousands of immigration reform proponents rallied last week to push federal lawmakers to pass reform this year, but the Arizona House of Representatives passed one of the toughest immigration laws in the country, which enables racial profiling of Latinos.
If the Senate fails to propose a reform bill this Spring, immigration reform won't be on the agenda for 2010. With elections at the end of the year, it's uncertain if reform will pass after that, as the resulting Congress could be more conservative.
More rallies from the grassroots
As Seth Freed Wessler reports at RaceWire, "Rallies for immigration reform were held in at least seven cities on Saturday, including Las Vegas, Seattle and Chicago, and were meant to maintain momentum from the massive march in Washington last month." The rallies were part of a sustained effort by reform supporters to pressure the Senate to take up reform this year.
In Las Vegas, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made an appearance and told supporters that the Senate would start work on reform soon after legislators came back from a brief recess this week.
"Speaking before a crowd of more than 6,000, Reid, a vulnerable incumbent, assured his audience of his commitment," Steve Benen wrote for the Washington Monthly.
"We're going to come back, we're going to have comprehensive immigration reform now," Reid was quoted as saying. "We need to do this this year. We cannot wait."
New America Media cites a report from Univision, writing that "Reid, fresh from the fight for health system reform and with a difficult re-election campaign ahead, told demonstrators that there is some urgency to passing legislation to reform the immigration system, including improving border security and creating a guest worker program for seasonal workers."
New America Media also reports on a surprising conservative-evangelical alliance that supports comprehensive immigration reform that protects children and families. "While not entirely new, the involvement of conservative Latino and evangelical leaders in the immigration debate puts additional pressure on Congress and the president to take up the issue this year."
In Seattle, AlterNet reports on the large presence of Asian immigrants at the local rally, quoting Diane Narasaki, executive director of the Asian Counseling and Referral Service: "There are about 1 million Asians living in this country who are undocumented, so comprehensive immigration reform is really key to our community," Narasaki said.
Local laws target immigrants
Meanwhile, the GOP-controlled Arizona House of Representatives voted along party lines this week to pass a state law that would, as RaceWire's Freed Wessler reports, "make it a criminal offense simply to be an undocumented immigrant on Arizona soil and to require local cops to determine a person's immigration status if there is any 'reasonable suspicion' the person is undocumented."
"The law would essentially require police to racially profile Latinos and threatens to terrorize immigrant communities already trying to survive in what is arguably the country's most anti-immigrant state," writes Freed Wessler.
In Colorado, where a similar state law passed despite wide criticism of civil rights abuses, there are reports on an effort in Denver to push back against a a local city-wide anti-immigrant law that encourages police to impound vehicles of undocumented immigrants.
"Members of the city council here are considering eliminating a controversial vehicle impound law that has raised financial and constitutional questions," Joseph Boven reports for the Colorado Independent. "It's unconstitutional, for example, to require Denver police to judge whether someone driving in Denver without a license might be an illegal alien."
Linking national concerns with local issues, the National Radio Project reports on a panel called "Race, Immigration and the Fight for an Open Internet," which focused on how telecommunications corporations' moves to restrict internet access could affect immigrant communities.
"Right now, telecommunications companies are pursuing a restrictive pay-for-play business model for online access that many say will only further the digital divide, discriminating between those who have Internet access and those who do not," the news outlet notes.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), started a hubbub among comprehensive immigration reform advocateslast week when he expressed to members of the Capitol press corps that progressive immigration legislation was "dead" for 2010 due to the contentious passage of health care reform. But the battle isn't over yet. In an interview with Sandip Roy at New America Media, Frank Sharry, the executive director of DC-based immigration organization America's Voice, says, "I think we have a good chance of seeing a bipartisan bill being introduced in April."
Graham's declaration mirrors similar antics that happened around the health care debate-where insurance reform was pronounced dead countless times by a wide array of pundits and lawmakers. In fact, Seth Freed Wessler of ColorLines reports that Graham, who has been working with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on an immigration reform bill for a year later changed his tune, stating that he would continue to craft a bipartisan bill.
The Battle in the Senate
Gabriel Arana with The America Prospect questions just how the GOP lawmakers will react to the upcoming immigration debate, arguing that, "Even for those Republicans who are willing to publicly support immigration reform, partisan rancor all but ensures it won't go anywhere."
And outside the Capitol? As Laura Flanders of GRITtv points out, the immigration debate, "has the potential to be far, far messier-and more violent-than the health care battle," and will likely galvanize those with xenophobic tendencies on the far Right to become even more unhinged.
On top of that, providing a pathway to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States will most likely be dead in 2010 if a bill isn't proposed in the Senate this Spring. There needs to be time to debate the issue before the end of the year, and more importantly, before election season kicks off in the Fall. While there's already an immigration bill in the House of Representatives, a timeline for when one will actually be introduced in the Senate is unknown.
Immigration agents go rogue
Combined with the uphill battle for immigration reform, AlterNet reports on a government memo revealing that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has set quotas to initiate more deportations of undocumented immigrants, targeting those who had committed no crimes. The memo was in stark contrast to the Obama administration's stated goal to focus on deporting criminal offenders with violent histories, and prompted immigration rights groups to question the White House agenda.
At the same time, anti-immigration activists are also trying to label all immigrants as criminals. As the Colorado Independent documents, the shooting death of an Arizona rancher near the Mexican border has influenced former Colorado lawmaker Tom Tancredo and his followers to demand that the National Guard be sent the border-even though the death has not even been tied to an undocumented immigrant at this time. (The Department doesn't have jurisdiction over the National Guard to begin with.)
The Inter Press Service also reports on the results of such criminalization, as human rights abuses in immigration detention continue to increase each day. "More abuses in the U.S. immigration detention system came to light last week," notes the media outlet, writing that "It was revealed that two mentally disabled men continue to be held in detention while facing possible deportation for criminal assault convictions, despite having already served their time." The inmates were later released after the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed legal petitions against federal government.
Which brings me to my theory. I believe that Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer have been planning to introduce an immigration-reform bill in 2010, not because they think it can be passed -- I think Drum is right, it has virtually no chance -- but because it will raise the issue back up to the big, national conservative marketplace.
You see, one of the biggest problems facing Democrats this year is that Hispanics don't vote in mid-term elections. That doesn't make a huge difference in most swing House districts (in fact, the issue hurts in more districts than it helps) -- but it could make a huge difference in quite a few US Senate races (Cal., Fla., Tex., Col., etc.), Governor races (Cal., Fla., Ariz., NM, NY, etc.), and (duh-duh-duuummm...) control over state legislatures heading into redistricting.
How do you get Hispanics to vote? You fill the TV with images of hateful conservatives screaming for mass deportation, that's how. You think Rahm didn't notice the effect in 2006?
On the one hand, there may be that benefit, as Mark opines, given the relative motivation on each side, particularly in what is likely to be a Republican year and how the Republican base feels about this issue. In addition, there's the December 2009 polling demonstrating immigration reform is a motivating factor for Hispanic voters:
A newly released poll of 1,010 Latino voters in twelve key states by Bendixen & Amandi reveals how Latino voters view the two major political parties on the issue, and how this perception impacts their vote. Among the findings:
* Immigration is a key issue for the Latino electorate. While more respondents chose issues such as the economy and health care than immigration as their number one priority, 78% said the immigration issue is important to them and their family, including 51% who called it "very important." The issue is particularly salient among the 55% of respondents who were foreign-born; 84% of foreign-born voters called the immigration issue "important," with 64% labeling it "very important."
* The vast majority of Latino voters support comprehensive immigration reform. By a 77%-11% margin, respondents favored an immigration plan that would legalize undocumented workers over one that would force most of the undocumented population to leave the country.
* Immigration reform is a personal issue to Latinos. Sixty-two percent of respondents reported having an undocumented friend, family member, neighbor, or co-worker. For these respondents, immigration reform is not an abstract concept discussed on the nightly news, but a personal matter that requires a fair and humane solution.
[...]
* Latinos are poised to make a difference in November. While this survey was conducted a year before the next election, and a lot can change in that time frame, 73% of respondents said they were very likely to vote in November 2010, and 20% said they were somewhat likely. Fully 65% said they were more likely to support generic Democratic candidates for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, while 20% said they would vote Republican and 15% were undecided. However, 72% of Latino voters said they would not even consider voting for a candidate whose stance on immigration reform was to try and deport most undocumented immigrants.
Of course, you could say the same thing about many blocs on almost any issue- fill TV screens with Virginia Foxx and John Cornyn screaming about "special rights for homosexuals" and "men in women's bathrooms" on ENDA to turn out LGBT voters, for example. If this were true, then absent considerations about the legislative calendar and members not wanting to take certain votes, you'd hold votes on lots of things just for the inflammatory effect.
The other thing this whole discussion reminds me of is the discussion around holding a vote in the New York State Senate on marriage equality even if you knew it would fail by a large margin, 24-38. Since many members refused to state a position on the issue, having a vote gave advocates a target list to work with (Fight Back NY is one group that is already on the ground) and, in the aftermath, it certainly emboldened LGBT activists across the state.
Whether or not the same can be applied on immigration reform remains to be seen, but I wouldn't put it past someone at the White House seeing the politics of it, and it raises questions around the value of having issue fights for the sake of voter motivation, at least in part.
Having spent most of March 21st (the day health care reform passed in the House and the day of the immigration rights march) inside the boiler room vote whipping operation, I missed most of the action on the streets, but a friend of mine who was at the march was telling me about how striking the contrast was between the immigration reform rally and the tea partiers gathered outside the Capitol building to protest the health care vote. The biggest difference, of course, was the size of the two crowds, the 200,000 on the side of immigration reform vs. several hundred tea partiers. But that wasn't what struck her.
"In our rally, the crowd was incredibly diverse - plenty of Latinos, of course, but a really tremendous cross-section of nationalities and backgrounds and religious faiths. A lot of young people, but a good cross-section of older people. Many immigrants, naturally, but a large number of clearly non-immigrant supporters as well.
"Beyond the demographic diversity, thought, it was striking how upbeat the really was. People were determined to get immigration reform passed, and there was some disappointment that it hadn't yet been a priority, but the crowd was happy, proud to be there, and confident that the country would do right by them."
The contrast could not have been sharper with the tea partiers. She didn't see a single non-white face, and saw very few young people. But the spirit of the crowd more than the demographics was what was most striking: that sense of bitterness, fear, and hate that was evident in their faces and remarks as the pro-immigration crowd passed by them by.
For a variety of reasons, I didn't have a chance to go down to the immigration march yesterday, but I've caught up with all the coverage, and was happy to hear that not only did it go well, but there was a good-sized LGBT contingent:
h/t to Joe Sudbay for the video
Of course, the contingent doesn't tell the whole story on how immigration reform would affect LGBT people, which brings me to a point I want to discuss today. Back in December (buried around the Christmas holiday), I wrote two few pieces (here and here) discussing how immigration reform, with or without the Uniting American Families Act (an LGBT-specific piece of legislation that would extend immigration benefits to same-sex partners in bi-national relationships) would significantly affect LGBT individuals. There has been a vigorous debate over the lack of inclusion of UAFA in the legislation that's been introduced or is set to be introduced, and whether immigration reform without UAFA is still "an LGBT issue". Andrew Belonsky has a thoughtful summary of this debate at a conference I attended a few weeks ago. The answer, to me, is overwhelmingly yes, but as I've observed this debate, I've noticed there may be two different communities here.
One of the communities is made up of undocumented immigrants themselves. As Kerry Eleveld over at The Advocate magazine wrote, out of an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living here, an estimated 600,000 undocumented immigrants are LGBT. The other community, to me, is made up of LGBT-focused activists who also (with the disclaimer that I'm talking about friends and colleagues I've met in recent months) tend to be US citizens or permanent residents. Many of those I talk to in this community tell me immigration reform without UAFA inclusion isn't really, then, "an LGBT issue", and therefore not worthy of expenditure of resources to pass it by LGBT-focused activists.
What I wonder about that is whether the estimated 600,000 LGBT undocumented immigrants think that immigration reform without UAFA is "an LGBT issue" or not. And I don't just say that because 600,000 undocumented immigrants are LGBT, since anyone affected by nearly any issue may "happen" to be a member of a certain community. I say that because on some aspects of immigration reform, there is a disproportionate impact on LGBT people. For undocumented immigrants who are LGBT, I'm not sure UAFA is as high on the priority list of provisions they want to see in immigration reform as, say, basic human rights. Undocumented immigrants who are LGBT and from countries like Uganda, Jamaica and Iran are at risk of deportation back to those countries, where they would be at risk of violence, imprisonment and death. They would benefit from a path to legalization, which is likely to be included in immigration reform.
There's also asylum issues- others come here to seek asylum on those grounds but don't take advantage, something Sen. Leahy and Immigration Equality, the lead organization focusing on LGBT immigration issues, are starting to address:
Washington, DC - The Immigration Equality Action Fund praised new legislation, introduced Monday by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), which would provide new protections for asylum seekers and refugees.
"We have always believed that LGBT asylum seekers are disproportionately affected by the one year filing deadline for asylum applications, because so many of them simply don't know that the persecution they faced as sexual minorities could be grounds for asylum here," said Rachel B. Tiven, the group's executive director. "Eliminating this unfair deadline will help many LGBT and HIV-positive victims of persecution obtain safe haven in the United States."
There's also detention- other LGBT immigrants are placed in detention and especially at risk of sexual violence and severe mistreatment (check out the story of Esmeralda, who is transgender, in the video below):
Esmeralda: A Transgender Detainee Speaks Out from Breakthrough on Vimeo.
In the Gutierrez bill that's been introduced in the House, there are provisions that would both provide a path to legalization as well as improve detainee conditions. The Schumer/Graham bill may also track along those lines, and I'm told that the asylum issue has a good chance of inclusion because of Leahy's support, in his role as chairman of Judiciary. Just like HIV/AIDS and hate crimes laws, these issues are LGBT issues because they have a disproportionate impact on LGBT people. For undocumented immigrants who are LGBT, perhaps they aren't marching as LGBT activists- perhaps they are marching as immigrants who happen to be LGBT. Doesn't make a difference to me- they are as worthy of attention on those grounds because of the risks faced by undocumented LGBT immigrants. And because of that, perhaps just basic human rights- rather than a focus whether or not there is an LGBT-specific provision included in the bill- should be the priority here in terms of what LGBT-focused activists define as "an LGBT issue".
This is not to say that it is critical to include UAFA in the bill, and we all have to keep fighting to get it in. But it is to say that sometimes it's important to change the lens on what we view as discrimination and what's worth fighting for.
Bart Stupak is supposed to be holding a press conference at 11 AM, and Chris will be blogging about it (afterwards, he said last night, but that could change, I suppose). Details are murky and confusing, but it now seems that Stupak is the only person in the world who can get a bill through the Senate with neither a fillibuster blocking him, nor recourse to reconciliation. Who knew?
This could, of course, blow everything up. If Stupak language really could become law, I don't think they'll be able to hold enough pro-choice votes in the House to pass the bill. And if they do, the damage to the party will make it one of the most costly "victories" in a very long time.
I don't mean to diminish the importance of this. To the contrary, I want to use this occassion to underscore a point I've made before, but haven't pounded on repeatedly the way I maybe should have: My problem with much of how people have related to health care reform is the way they've focused on it as if it were the be-all and end-all of progressive politics. To extend my metaphor of the last diary, they've not only assumed a can-opener with respect to health care reform, but they've also assumed it was part of a Swiss Army Knife for dealing with all our other ills as well.
Obviously not.
There are major demonstrations today marking the 7th Anniversary of invasion of Iraq (United for Peace and Justice, Cindy Sheehan/Peace of the Action, ANSWER March on Washington) and the immigration reform "March for America" tomorrow. These issues have been largely invisible here at Open Left, and we're not alone in that. Neither has figured prominently on progressive blogosphere's radar screen over the past several months, and that narrowing of focus is not a sign of health on our part. Whatever happens this weekend, let us hope that one thing comes out of this: an end to the period in which we have looked to Washington and taken our cues from what is happening there. That is not how the left blogosphere was born and built, and it is not how it can best serve the common good of our nation today. We need to be bigger than that... much, much bigger.
As grassroots support for the pro-immigration reform March for America grows, anti-immigration groups and their allies are trying to use racial tension to stop the momentum. Opposition groups like NumbersUSA and the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC announced plans this week to partner with Tea Party activists in response to the event, which is expected to draw as many as 100,000 people to the National Mall on March 21.
Their hope? To scare the public into opposing a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States.
NumbersUSA, a mainstream group that was instrumental in defeating reform in 2007, has discussed the idea of calling immigrant women from Mexico "the new welfare queens," while others are spreading paranoia that immigrants are trying to "steal the next election." The White House is holding a bipartisan meeting on immigration legislation this week and the possibility of reform is worrying opponents. They are now desperately attempting to block reform by appealing to frustration and fear.
Amplifying hate
Along with actions to flood Congress with phone calls and faxes, anti-immigration forces are also spreading misinformation and proposing ways to dehumanize immigrant communities. As Stephanie Mencimer notes in Mother Jones, operatives on the far right are pushing a conspiracy theory that the Obama administration is using immigration to steal the 2012 election.
The magazine reports that the WorldNet Daily, a publication which bills itself as "conservative news website," has come up with an elaborate scheme in which a secret "illegal immigrant registration" will "open the floodgates to fraud." That's despite the fact that undocumented immigrants are legally barred from voting in the first place.
On top of that, in a conference call organized by anti-immigration group NumbersUSA, an organization that is routinely quoted by the mainstream media to oppose reform, participants suggested calling immigrant mothers with Mexican heritage "the new welfare queens." As I report for Campus Progress, NumbersUSA, which worked to kill immigration reform in 2007, held the call this week to coordinate actions against the immigration march.
"I feel the new welfare queen in America today is women coming from Mexico with a bunch of babies," said one caller.In response, NumbersUSA conference moderator Chad MacDonald said "Thank you very much. I appreciate that."
Right after that, another caller suggested that anti-immigration activists not use the word "babies," because it was "emotional." Said the conference participant, "They aren't babies. They're dependents. ... They have dependents. We have babies." While NumbersUSA claims to be against "immigrant bashing," they made no efforts to stop the hateful statements that their supporters spewed over the phone.
Smart politics
While incendiary rhetoric from immigration opponents is alarming, Kai Wright writes in The Nation that such radicalism could be a good impetus for Democrats to embrace immigration reform. "The great thing about racists is they'll always take the bait," claims Wright. "You won't get far into an immigration-reform debate, for instance, before the GOP's more zealous legislators start doing things like criminalizing priests and calling Miami a 'third world country.'"
Politically, most Americans will probably be turned off by hateful and racist language used during the immigration debate, much like they were during the lead up to the confirmation of Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In the end, the disgust factor could end up helping Democrats-if they let it.
"Immigration reform is an issue where Democrats are served better politically by picking a fight with the GOP than running from one," Wright explains. "The long-term politics are plain: Latino communities nationwide are young, growing and increasingly ready to show up at the polls. And the certain-to-be xenophobic reaction of the GOP's loudest voices today will not only motive Latinos this November, it will alienate independent voters as well."
Out of patience
This week, pro-reform grassroots groups held a press conference on Monday to denounce what they said was increased enforcement under the Obama administration, as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency reported at least a 5% increase in deportations for 2009. New America Media reports that advocates at the press meeting pointed out that "livelihoods were lost, local economies affected, and families split apart."
"These are the same enforcement practices that we marched against during the Bush administration," said Angelica Salas, director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, who was quoted by New America Media. The outlet also notes that advocacy groups "contended that the immigration audits or 'paper raids' that have replaced workplace raids under Obama are just as damaging to immigrant communities and the businesses that depend on them."
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
On election night, 2008, when the word went out that Barack Obama had been declared the winner, there was quite literally dancing in the streets. All over America, people hungry for change and fed up with eight years of George Bush running our country into the ditch were overjoyed that hope had been chosen over fear of more of the same. Young people, black people, immigrants, and all kinds of Americans who wanted a new day were out in the streets dancing and celebrating. A friend visiting from Sweden's Social Democratic Party was out on U Street in DC as throngs danced their butts off, weeping with pure joy, and he turned to a friend and said, "Are all American elections like this?" The answer is a big no; election night 2008 was different because it felt like change was coming.
A couple million people showed up for the inauguration, shattering all previous records. In early 2009, one of DC's big progressive groups, the Campaign for America's Future, announced their annual conference, for years entitled Take Back America, was changing its name (to America's Future Now) because, well, America had been taken back from the right wingers who had been governing it. I had just written a book (The Progressive Revolution: How The Best In America Came To Be) about how progressives had every so often in our country's history been able to create a big change moment, and I was on my book tour telling audiences that we had a chance at creating another one.
A year later, it all feels a lot different, doesn't it? A version of health care reform is still alive, but struggling mightily and so weakened by concessions to insurers and drug companies that there's a palpable sense of disappointment by the progressives who have been fighting for it. Climate change legislation is stalled in the Senate after barely getting through the House in highly compromised fashion. There's been no action on labor law reform. The Obama administration has deported more undocumented immigrants than Bush did in 2008, and there's still no movement on long promised immigration reform. The war in Afghanistan has been escalated twice by President Obama. Almost 20% of Americans are unemployed or under-employed. Financial reform is on the verge of being watered down to almost nothing, and the big banks on Wall Street are still running roughshod over the rest of us- economically and politically.
It's time for a different kind of dancing (and marching and chanting and raising hell) in the streets - the kind where regular folks tell the politicians and the special interests we aren't going to sit around let them ruin our country.
More on that, and two event announcements, in the extended entry.
Ed. Note: After a brief hiatus, the Diaspora is back! We're very excited to have Erin Rosa on board for this project. Please stay tuned for a the latest developments on the immigration reform front every Thursday morning.
Fed up with Congress and frustrated with President Barack Obama's brief mention of immigration reform in the State of the Union address, immigrant rights supporters are now organizing around the clock to push legislators to move on reform in 2010. It will not be an easy feat.
Congress is already bogged down with health care reform and a lingering economic crisis. While Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) has proposed a bill in the House of Representatives to provide a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, immigration reform could be doomed for 2010 if it's not introduced in the Senate by this Spring. Otherwise, it's very unlikely that Congress will get around to debating the issue by the end of the year.
Aware of these bitter facts-and even more cognizant of the human rights abuses that will continue so long as the status quo is maintained-reform proponents are gearing up for a number of key battles to improve the immigration system.
La marcha
Born from dissatisfaction with Congress and Obama's inability to deliver reform, organizers from around the country are preparing to march on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. On March 21, the first day of Spring. The objective is to draw tens of thousands of immigrant rights supporters to Capitol Hill. As New America Media reports, March for America "will be a test of immigrant advocates' organizing capacity and their increasing use of technology to stoke a popular groundswell on immigration."
The march, which is organized by the Reform Immigration For America coalition, will also "bring together advocates focused on different parts of the immigration policy agenda," including supporters of agricultural labor, better immigrant detention standards, and the DREAM Act, federal legislation that provide a pathway to citizenship for certain immigrants who entered the United States before the age of 16.
While mainstream media coverage of the march has been relatively quiet, with many English-language outlets ignoring it completely, the organizing behind the scenes has been even more hush hush. This is a massive grassroots effort to raise public awareness around the country. Members from hundreds of state immigration groups are attending churches, making phone calls, knocking on doors, and organizing caravans to get people to Washington in March. Even mainstream Spanish-language outlets have gotten involved and encouraged their audiences to contact the Reform Immigration For America campaign for all the latest information.
Perhaps most refreshing is that unlike the immigration reform fight in 2007, which was plagued by a number of organizational hurdles, national immigration organizations in Washington have reached out to grassroots groups across the nation for the march. As Bill Chandler, an executive director for the Mississippi Immigrant's Rights Alliance, told the National Radio Project recently, "The grassroots groups were left out of the discussion [in 2007] and what we're trying to do is make sure that doesn't happen again."
Speed bumps on the Trail of Dreams
While organizers are preparing for his month's march, four young students are continuing a 1,500 mile trek on foot, dubbed the "Trail of Dreams," in support of the DREAM Act. The students, three of whom are undocumented immigrants, started their journey on Jan 1. in Miami and are currently hiking through Georgia on their way to Washington, where they are expected to arrive in May. Along the way, they are educating people about how the DREAM Act would help kids like them.
Under current law, some of the walkers still face deportation, even though they were only children when their parents brought them into the United States. While the four students have encountered a lot of support from the communities that they've visited, they've also come across some ugly opposition. As AlterNet notes, a recent Ku Klux Klan rally in Georgia "was timed to occur when the Trail of Dreams walkers were passing through the area," and there was a "a stark difference between the messages of the two groups: one for tolerance and human rights, the other for hatred and racism.
Immigration Detention Abuses Continue
The Varick Federal Detention Facility, a privately-run immigration prison in New York city that was overseen by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, is closing and relocating approximately 250 of its inmates to a New Jersey lockup. As RaceWire reports, the move is "partially because of public pressure" since "Varick has a well-documented track record of detainee abuse and fatal medical negligence," but "shutting down one facility doesn't address the broader system."
When immigration officials granted a media tour to The Nation shortly before the prison closed, reporter Jackie Stevens described the scene inside: "The dorms are packed with rows of narrow beds, fifty in all; the law library has dated resources; there is no privacy; and there is no natural light, ever."
On top of that, even "the agents hosting the tour seemed embarrassed and emphasized the upcoming transfer as we looked through a long hall window at men slouching, feet on the floor, using their beds as backless chairs." Varick is just one of many immigration detention facilities with documented abuses, and while the Department of Homeland Security, the agency that ultimately controls ICE, has promised to reform the system, they have still refused to introduce any legally-binding regulations for detainee treatment.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Professional pundits and Democratic politicians are in a frenzy over what Martha Coakley's senate seat loss to Republican Scott Brown might mean for American politics.
Immigration reform in jeopardy
As Harold Meyerson of the American Prospect reports, the loss of one seat probably won't derail heath care reform, but it does make the chances of passing immigration reform slimmer. Meyerson writes that immigration reform is "necessary to restore our economic vitality and political equality," and actually passing reform would benefit the Democratic faction. Unfortunately, that means that immigration reform will require 60 votes in order to pass the senate.
The Texas Observer's Melissa del Bosque writes about the slim chances of immigration reform passing in 2010. According to Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, a 2011 target date is "probably more realistic." del Bosque refuses to lose hope, reminding us that Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) has assured the public that "the Obama administration promised to bring up the issue in 2010." Of course, bringing up an issue and actually passing reform are two very different animals.
Holding on to hope for 2010
In her daily roundup of Spanish-language media, Erin Rosa of Campus Progress also urges a positive outlook "despite the reorganization of the Senate." Rosa relays that Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) assured the media during a telephone conference that President Obama "remembers his promise well." While "most latinos" interviewed are impatient, they hold on to hope that 2010 is the year for reform.
TPS for Haitians
Haitian undocumented that are currently within U.S. borders will be given Temporary Protected Status (TPS), as Julianne Hing reports for RaceWire. The decision only applies to Haitian immigrants in the U.S. prior to January 12, 2010. Hing observes that it is unfortunate that it took "a disaster of this magnitude" to inspire the White House to offer TPS to Haitian immigrants, though it is "a great relief."
What will the recently granted TPS status mean for Haitians that are already in deportation proceedings? Such is the case of Haitian immigrant Jean Montrevil, asAarti Shahani reports for New America Media. Montrevil came to the U.S. on a green card in 1986 to "make it big," but in his efforts, "got stupid," and caught up in selling drugs from his taxi cab. That was 20 years ago, and Montrevil has served 11 years in prison to pay for his errors. Montrevil is now a father of four and a community leader. The Department of Homeland Security considers his prison time proper cause to deport him. Many others feel he has done his time, and is a positively contributing member of our society. Democracy Now! also covered Montrevil's story recently, as noted in the Jan. 7 Diaspora.
Invisible to the first world
Why are countries like Haiti mostly invisible to first world nations like the U.S. until catastrophe strikes? Leonardo Padura asks, before the earthquake, "Who talked about Haiti?" for IPS News. Haiti desperately needs the emergency aid so generously given today, but the country has needed help for a long time. "Let us hope that tomorrow, when the tragedy no longer dominates the headlines, and the dead are buried," writes Padura, "we will not forget Haiti exists...."
Disappointingly, "U.S. corporations, private mercenaries, Washington and the International Monetary Fund" are remembering Haiti in a rather cruel and opportunist fashion, as Benjamin Dangl reports for AlterNet. At a time of crisis and great human need, Washington D.C. is "promoting unpopular economic policies and extending military and economic control over the Haitian people." This is disturbing, as a long history of economic exploitation helped render the country vulnerable to disaster. The recent earthquake has claimed roughly 200,000 lives so far.
Haiti in context
While borders and border cities bear the brunt of blame when migrants move, the cure won't be found in bigger bails of barbed wire, or harsh enforcement tactics that deny escape from economic desperation or dangerous conditions.
Jocelyn Barnes, reporting for The Nation, provides a much needed contextualization of Haiti. There are many related factors that weakened and harmed Haiti's ability to thrive, not the least of which have been storms and earthquakes. But the privatization of Haiti's infrastructure-which was "championed" by current envoy to Haiti in charge of "leading the quake assistance brigade" former president Bill Clinton-have definitely been instrumental in the country's fate.
Marching against Arpaio
Finally, given the recent holiday celebrating the life and efforts of civil rights hero Martin Luther King, Jr., we would be remiss in overlooking the January 16 march in Arizona protesting Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The event was organized by Salvador Reza, a respected Mexican American activist and community organizer in Arizona. Musician Linda Ronstadt, Co-Founder of United Farm Workers Dolores Huerta, and approximately 5,000 people marched from a park to Tent City, the name for the sheriff's makeshift detention center.
Arpaio is reviled by many in the Latino and undocumented community for his methods of racial profiling and humiliating treatment of detainees. Recently, Arpaio was compared to Bull Connor by an ad published in in the Arizona Republic by 60 black leaders and the Center for New Community.
King's vision was large and led to new horizons; it cannot possibly be contained to one era, or one day on a calendar. The struggle continues, every day, everywhere.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
On Tuesday, the worst earthquake in 200 years struck just off the coast of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, as The Nation reports. Bringing "catastrophic destruction" to the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, the disaster has spurred relief efforts worldwide. Crises like this are important reminders of how the treatment and protection of refugees must be a part of immigration reform.
Temporary protected status for Haitian refugees
In September of 2009-just one year after Haiti was decimated by four successive hurricanes and tropical storms that affected at least 3 million people-New America Media (NAM) made a prescient call to halt all deportation to Haiti, and grant Haitians temporary protected status (TPS) status in the U.S. "before more Haitians die or are impacted by natural disasters."
Andrea Nill, writing for NAM's EthnoBlog, reminds us it was only ten months ago, in March of 2009 that the Obama administration indicated it would "continue deporting undocumented Haitians," in spite of the critical situation on the ground. Yesterday, Nill argued that not granting Haitian refugees TPS at this point would be "inconsistent with the promises the Obama administration has already made to the people of Haiti." Later in the day, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano responded by stating deportations to Haiti would, indeed, be temporarily halted.
[ED. NOTE: Stay tuned for more coverage of Haiti and relief efforts. The Media Consortium will release a special report compiling our member's coverage of the crisis and ways to help later today.]
Legalize the undocumented; boost the economy
It's a fortunate confluence of circumstance, when doing the right thing could also help our faltering economy. Jorge Rivas of RaceWire highlights a new study on the beneficial economic effects of legalizing undocumented workers through comprehensive immigration reform. The study came about through a partnership between the Center for American Progress and Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, associate professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. The research suggests that legalization would yield $1.5 trillion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product over a 10-year period, generate billions of dollars in additional tax revenue, increase wages for all levels of workers in the U.S. (the "wage floor") and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Detention center cover up continues
RaceWire also reveals new developments in the horrific tale of corrupt immigration officials "desperate to conceal" multiple incidents of abuse in Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers. Violations of law include "covering up evidence of gross mistreatment, undercounting the number of detention deaths, discharging patients right before they die, and major efforts to avoid scrutiny from the news media." Reportedly, ICE has made great efforts to cover up detention conditions and cruelty. (Video below).
'Draconian' anti-immigration legislation passed in Mississippi
Rev. Jeremy Tobin of American Forum reports on a piece of "draconian" anti-immigration legislation passed in Mississippi in March of 2008. SB 2988 makes it a felony for an undocumented immigrant to work in the state. The bill includes a waivable fine for employers that cooperate with the prosecution of undocumented workers. SB 2988 oppresses immigrants and weakens the power of organized labor. According to Tobin, one frustrated legislator said that the bill was "making it a crime to work an honest job."
Tobin calls out various organizations that backed the bill. These groups "started out anti-civil rights" and have since "reinvented themselves to be anti-immigrant rights." He also notes that a "disturbing" number of Mississippi Democrats voted for SB 2988.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
"Is it ever 'the right time' to pass immigration reform and a path to legalization?" asks Maribel Hastings at New America Media. The short answer? Yes. Our national economic situation dictates that we are smart about the resources available to us all. It's also a moral imperative to adjust our laws to protect the most vulnerable of us.
Hastings runs through the complications, campaign promises, and opportunities facing the Obama administration in regards to immigration reform. While acknowledging the nature of our government as "a complex organism," Hastings nonetheless signs off with a warning: There are many awaiting action today, people "who voted for Democrats with the expectation that they would make comprehensive immigration reform a reality."
This year is primed for immigration reform. Activists worldwide are pushing for a "record number of ratifications" to The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families (ICRMW), as Oneworld.net reports. The ICRMW was adopted by the United Nations in 1990, and "sets standards for humane working and living conditions for migrants." To date, 42 countries have are signatory to the ICRMW and 15 more have taken "preliminary steps to approve the convention." While the U.S. debates reform, protecting and supporting migrants should be at the front of the list.
The Washington Independent looks back at 2009, a year in which immigration was never center stage, and yet it managed to impact every other major issue on the table, from health care reform to the economy. Daphne Eviatar profiles five individuals who shaped the immigration debate for good or bad in 2009. Characters such as the infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, and commentator Lou Dobbs, formerly of CNN are included in the list, but admirable women like Dr. Dora Schriro also made the cut. Dr. Schriro's reports on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention system led directly to "a major commitment" to overhaul it.
In the light of policy and compacts, it is important to remember that there is a dark and often violent side to the immigration reform debate. Luis Ramirez was beaten to death by multiple local youth in Shanendoah, PA. The local police worked to obscure the facts of the murder and thwart justice, but their complicity and hand in the judicial process has been uncovered, as RaceWire reports.
Former Shenandoah mayor Thomas O'Neill's description of the police department reads, essentially, as a gang felled by hubris: "If they want to help somebody, they will, If they want to hurt somebody, they'll hurt them. There's nothing they could do that they couldn't get away with. That's what they thought."
Another incident that exposes the inadequacy of current immigration laws can be found in the case of Haitian community activist Jean Montrevil, who now faces deportation, as Democracy Now! reports. Montrevil is a working father of four, married to an American woman, a "longtime community leader," is very involved with local immigrants rights groups and checks in with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regularly and voluntarily. During one such check in Montrevil was detained and marked for deportation.
ICE is removing a tax-paying and productive member of society for a 20 year-old drug conviction for which Montrevil did his time-11 years in prison. There is no chance of a legal appeal, though ICE has the power to defer the deportation. If it isn't halted, Montrevil's wife Jani will be left alone with their four children. Before 1996 immigration reforms passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton, a judge would have had discretion to consider the effect of such a deportation on the children.
Melissa del Bosque reports for the Texas Observer on the violent fallout from Mexican President Felipe Calderón's continued drug war "on the Mexican side of the [U.S.-Mexico] border." del Bosque notes a disturbing trend: A growing number of uninvolved people in the proximity of State- or cartel-initiated violence in Mexico are being impacted by the violence. This is an important balance to mind, as law and State forces are designed to help the populace thrive. Various sources place the death toll in Mexico between 9,000 and 13,000.
We conclude this week's Diaspora with a big shout out to Wiretap, which is closing its doors. Wiretap was a well-written, vibrant, and relevant collection of writing by younger people. Their writing on immigration was original, provocative, and useful. We wish them well. You will be missed!
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
The other day I wrote a piece about how the Gutierrez bill on immigration reform does actually contain provisions that affect LGBT people in a significant way. Specifically, the provisions related to a pathway to citizenship, the DREAM Act, and immigration detention.
In response, commenter filler wrote two comments (I condense here to summarize filler's argument and the points I want to look at, but feel free to go here and here to read both comments and responses):
It seems to me that the points you list don't actually help LGBT people--they help immigrants, some of whom just happen to be LGBT...
It's the equivalent of saying that food stamps are pro-LGBT because some poor people are LGBT.
It's like saying that military spending is pro-LGBT, because LGBT people are defended by the military too, all while ignoring the fact that LGBT individuals aren't allowed to serve in the military.
I think that's an entirely fair point, but there's another aspect to this, and it got me thinking a little bit about how I classify legislation as significant towards the LGBT community or not.
