By Clifford M. Marks | Wall Street Journal
June 18, 2010
Time to check in again on everybody’s favorite Arizona immigration controversy. Today, we have two updates for the price of one. (Feel free to hit refresh and give us another pageview to even the score.)
First, from Quito, Ecuador, of all places, a local TV station’s interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yielded this news: the Justice Department, she said, “will be bringing a lawsuit” against the recently passed Arizona law, which makes it a crime to be in the U.S. illegally and empowers state law enforcement officials to stop people they suspect of breaking the law.
Last month, we reported that DOJ was “likely” to sue, but Clinton went further.
“President Obama has spoken out against the law, because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy,” she told Ecuador’s NTN24. The interview was conducted on June 8, but surfaced yesterday.
The Justice Department has declined to confirm its plan to sue, according to this report today from the Washington Post.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was none too pleased with Clinton’s South American tidings. “If our government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do in inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation,” she said yesterday in a statement.
The other Arizona immigration news? Whatever happens between lawyers and judges, it seems the law at least has considerable support in the court of public opinion, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released yesterday. The survey reports that 58 percent of Americans support the Arizona measure, and 42 percent do so strongly, while 41 percent oppose the law.
But there’s still more immigration news to report. Citizens of Fremont, Nebraska, a town of 25,000, are due to vote Monday on a city ordinance that would prohibit harboring, hiring or renting to undocumented immigrants. Here are detailed reports today about the ordinance from WSJ and NYT.
The ACLU has threatened to sue if the ordinance passes, WSJ reports.
Showing posts with label SB1070. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SB1070. Show all posts
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law
This is terrible!
-Patricia
By Alan Gomez, USA TODAY
June 8, 2010
Arizona's tough new immigration enforcement law is fueling an exodus of Hispanics from the state seven weeks before it goes into effect, according to officials and residents in the state.
Though no one has precise figures, reports from school officials, businesses and individuals indicate worried Hispanics — both legal and illegal — are leaving the state in anticipation of the law, which will go into effect July 29.
Schools in Hispanic areas report unusual drops in enrollment. The Balsz Elementary School District is 75% Hispanic, and within a month of the law's passage, the parents of 70 students pulled them out of school, said District Superintendent Jeffrey Smith. The district lost seven students over the same one-month period last year, and parents tell Smith the Arizona law is the reason for leaving.
"They're leaving to another state where they feel more welcome," he said.
The measure, signed into law April 23 by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, requires a police officer to determine a person's immigration status if they are stopped, detained or arrested and there is "reasonable suspicion" they are in the country illegally.
About 100,000 illegal immigrants left Arizona after the state passed a law in 2007 that enhanced penalties on businesses that hired them, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Some early signs suggest another exodus.
Businesses serving the Hispanic community say business is down, signaling that illegal immigrants are holding on to cash in anticipation of a move from the state, said David Castillo, co-founder of the Latin Association of Arizona, a chamber of commerce for nearly 400 first-generation Hispanic business owners.
"(Brewer) signed the law, and everything fell apart," Castillo said. "It's devastating."
Jorge Vargas plans to move to New York City because his air-conditioning business relies mostly on Hispanics. "My business is completely dead," he said.
Juan Carlos Cruz, an illegal immigrant who has worked in plant nurseries for 20 years, huddled with dozens of relatives over the Memorial Day Weekend in the backyard of his brother's Phoenix-area home to plot out the family's next move to avoid what they say will be harassment by police. Virginia and California are the front-runners.
"If I were alone, I'd try to stay. But I have a family, and I have to find a place where we can live with more freedom," said Cruz, who hopes to move July 4 to blend in with holiday weekend traffic. "This is getting too hard."
Paul Senseman, a spokesman for Brewer, said it's difficult to gauge how many people are leaving because of the law, but he said he hears similar reports of people leaving the state.
"If that means that fewer people are breaking the law, that is absolutely an accomplishment," he said.
-Patricia
By Alan Gomez, USA TODAY
June 8, 2010
Arizona's tough new immigration enforcement law is fueling an exodus of Hispanics from the state seven weeks before it goes into effect, according to officials and residents in the state.
Though no one has precise figures, reports from school officials, businesses and individuals indicate worried Hispanics — both legal and illegal — are leaving the state in anticipation of the law, which will go into effect July 29.
Schools in Hispanic areas report unusual drops in enrollment. The Balsz Elementary School District is 75% Hispanic, and within a month of the law's passage, the parents of 70 students pulled them out of school, said District Superintendent Jeffrey Smith. The district lost seven students over the same one-month period last year, and parents tell Smith the Arizona law is the reason for leaving.
"They're leaving to another state where they feel more welcome," he said.
The measure, signed into law April 23 by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, requires a police officer to determine a person's immigration status if they are stopped, detained or arrested and there is "reasonable suspicion" they are in the country illegally.
About 100,000 illegal immigrants left Arizona after the state passed a law in 2007 that enhanced penalties on businesses that hired them, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Some early signs suggest another exodus.
Businesses serving the Hispanic community say business is down, signaling that illegal immigrants are holding on to cash in anticipation of a move from the state, said David Castillo, co-founder of the Latin Association of Arizona, a chamber of commerce for nearly 400 first-generation Hispanic business owners.
"(Brewer) signed the law, and everything fell apart," Castillo said. "It's devastating."
Jorge Vargas plans to move to New York City because his air-conditioning business relies mostly on Hispanics. "My business is completely dead," he said.
Juan Carlos Cruz, an illegal immigrant who has worked in plant nurseries for 20 years, huddled with dozens of relatives over the Memorial Day Weekend in the backyard of his brother's Phoenix-area home to plot out the family's next move to avoid what they say will be harassment by police. Virginia and California are the front-runners.
"If I were alone, I'd try to stay. But I have a family, and I have to find a place where we can live with more freedom," said Cruz, who hopes to move July 4 to blend in with holiday weekend traffic. "This is getting too hard."
Paul Senseman, a spokesman for Brewer, said it's difficult to gauge how many people are leaving because of the law, but he said he hears similar reports of people leaving the state.
"If that means that fewer people are breaking the law, that is absolutely an accomplishment," he said.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Counter-Protest against SB 1070
Here's information on an upcoming event in Austin.
-Patricia
Counter-Protest against SB 1070
On Saturday, June 12th, white supremacists and supporters of SB 1070 will hold a rally at the Capitol and call for a similar racist law to be passed in Texas. SB 1070 is an attack on immigrants and people of color and we need to send a clear message that we will resist similar legislation in Texas. Join us in solidarity with those who are resisting SB 1070 in Arizona and across the U.S.!
Contact the Democratic Solidarity Committee if you have any questions: atx.dsc@gmail.com
----
¡Ningún ser humano es ilegal!
El sábado, 12 de junio, racistas y personas que apoyan a la ley SB 1070 se reunirán en el Capitolio para abogar para una ley similar en Texas. SB 1070 ataca a los inmigrantes y a las minorías y debemos demostrar que resistiremos legislación similar en Texas. ¡Únase con nosotros en solidaridad con aquellos que están resistiendo la ley SB 1070 en Arizona y a través del país!
Comuníquese con el Comité Democrático en Solidaridad si tiene alguna pregunta: atx.dsc@gmail.com
-Patricia
Counter-Protest against SB 1070
On Saturday, June 12th, white supremacists and supporters of SB 1070 will hold a rally at the Capitol and call for a similar racist law to be passed in Texas. SB 1070 is an attack on immigrants and people of color and we need to send a clear message that we will resist similar legislation in Texas. Join us in solidarity with those who are resisting SB 1070 in Arizona and across the U.S.!
Contact the Democratic Solidarity Committee if you have any questions: atx.dsc@gmail.com
----
¡Ningún ser humano es ilegal!
El sábado, 12 de junio, racistas y personas que apoyan a la ley SB 1070 se reunirán en el Capitolio para abogar para una ley similar en Texas. SB 1070 ataca a los inmigrantes y a las minorías y debemos demostrar que resistiremos legislación similar en Texas. ¡Únase con nosotros en solidaridad con aquellos que están resistiendo la ley SB 1070 en Arizona y a través del país!
Comuníquese con el Comité Democrático en Solidaridad si tiene alguna pregunta: atx.dsc@gmail.com
Guest Column: Against Arizona
by Rafael Anchia | Texas Tribune
May 25, 2010
"It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists."
Those words, uttered by former President George W. Bush, hit at the heart of why Arizona's recently signed anti-immigrant law will ultimately be an exercise in futility and a complete failure to reduce undocumented immigration and border violence. Much has been written about the possible negative effects of the Arizona law: loss of liberty by law-abiding U.S. citizens who may now be asked by government to provide “papers, please,” additional unfunded state mandates on local law enforcement that will reduce their effectiveness in fighting crime, and increased discrimination against Latinos or other ethnic minorities. Instead of debating those issues and assessing what harm the Arizona bill might do, it is important to focus instead on the failure of the Arizona law because of what it does not do. The Arizona law misses the mark because it fails to address the underlying problems with our broken borders.
First, the Arizona law does not and cannot create an effective and legal system to match willing workers and willing employers. While the immigration debate in our country frequently devolves into emotional slogans and inflammatory rhetoric, the causes of immigration are quite simple. If we stop demagoguing “illegals” and understand immigration as transnational labor flows driven by host-country employment, then solutions become attainable. Until we align our immigration system with U.S. labor needs in a legal framework, we will continue to see an increase in undocumented workers. Arizona-like enforcement-only laws will have little to no impact on this larger macroeconomic dynamic. In fact, despite already having among the toughest anti-immigrant state laws on the books, USA Today, citing U.S. Border Patrol statistics, reported this week that Arizona is "the only border state where illegal crossings are on the rise.”
Second, the Arizona law does nothing to address the insatiable appetite for drugs in the U.S. that funds and arms murderous drug cartels and corrupts and destabilizes the Mexican government. Immigrant housekeepers, gardeners, cooks, nannies, construction workers and farmers working throughout the U.S. cannot be blamed for this brand of border violence. We need to look at ourselves as a responsible link in a vicious and destructive cycle. We buy the drugs. The money goes to the cartels. The cartels buy our guns with our money. The cartels buy government officials (on both sides of the border) with our money. The cartels murder thousands of people in Mexico (and some in the U.S.) using our guns and our money. The Arizona law will not stop border violence because it does nothing to address this cycle.
Third, the Arizona law does not and cannot resolve the situation of the 10 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. by allowing them to earn their way to legal status. During recent legislative sessions, members of the Texas Association of Business and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus — not conventional political allies under normal circumstances — found common ground by identifying several principles that each group supported as a step to comprehensive immigration reform. Those principles outlined an earned path to legal status that includes a criminal background check, learning basic English and American civics, payment of any fines for unlawful entry, and payment of any back taxes. After meeting those requirements, an immigrant would get in line with other would-be citizens.
Elected and business leaders who support comprehensive immigration reform realize that patchwork and piecemeal approaches will continue to fail. We have seen the negative effects of Arizona-like initiatives here in Texas. In the district I represent, the town of Farmers Branch elected to pass a particularly misguided anti-immigrant ordinance back in 2007 that was successful only in dividing a community, tarnishing the town’s image and costing nearly $5 million in attorneys' fees.
Arizona might be fortunate that the anti-immigrant law is destined to fail. If all the undocumented workers and their families in Arizona are stopped, identified and deported, the negative economic impact of such actions would worsen an already deep deficit that has forced the state to raise sales taxes. The Perryman Group has estimated that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity and approximately 140,324 jobs.
Like Arizona, Texas will face a challenging budget deficit in 2011. As legislators, we should devote every second of our time and every ounce of our effort next session to ensure that we balance the budget in a thoughtful and responsible manner. And we should demand the same from our Texas congressional delegation and call for, as Bush did, thoughtful and responsible comprehensive immigration reform.
State Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, represents District 103 in the Texas House.
May 25, 2010
"It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists."
Those words, uttered by former President George W. Bush, hit at the heart of why Arizona's recently signed anti-immigrant law will ultimately be an exercise in futility and a complete failure to reduce undocumented immigration and border violence. Much has been written about the possible negative effects of the Arizona law: loss of liberty by law-abiding U.S. citizens who may now be asked by government to provide “papers, please,” additional unfunded state mandates on local law enforcement that will reduce their effectiveness in fighting crime, and increased discrimination against Latinos or other ethnic minorities. Instead of debating those issues and assessing what harm the Arizona bill might do, it is important to focus instead on the failure of the Arizona law because of what it does not do. The Arizona law misses the mark because it fails to address the underlying problems with our broken borders.
First, the Arizona law does not and cannot create an effective and legal system to match willing workers and willing employers. While the immigration debate in our country frequently devolves into emotional slogans and inflammatory rhetoric, the causes of immigration are quite simple. If we stop demagoguing “illegals” and understand immigration as transnational labor flows driven by host-country employment, then solutions become attainable. Until we align our immigration system with U.S. labor needs in a legal framework, we will continue to see an increase in undocumented workers. Arizona-like enforcement-only laws will have little to no impact on this larger macroeconomic dynamic. In fact, despite already having among the toughest anti-immigrant state laws on the books, USA Today, citing U.S. Border Patrol statistics, reported this week that Arizona is "the only border state where illegal crossings are on the rise.”
Second, the Arizona law does nothing to address the insatiable appetite for drugs in the U.S. that funds and arms murderous drug cartels and corrupts and destabilizes the Mexican government. Immigrant housekeepers, gardeners, cooks, nannies, construction workers and farmers working throughout the U.S. cannot be blamed for this brand of border violence. We need to look at ourselves as a responsible link in a vicious and destructive cycle. We buy the drugs. The money goes to the cartels. The cartels buy our guns with our money. The cartels buy government officials (on both sides of the border) with our money. The cartels murder thousands of people in Mexico (and some in the U.S.) using our guns and our money. The Arizona law will not stop border violence because it does nothing to address this cycle.
Third, the Arizona law does not and cannot resolve the situation of the 10 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. by allowing them to earn their way to legal status. During recent legislative sessions, members of the Texas Association of Business and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus — not conventional political allies under normal circumstances — found common ground by identifying several principles that each group supported as a step to comprehensive immigration reform. Those principles outlined an earned path to legal status that includes a criminal background check, learning basic English and American civics, payment of any fines for unlawful entry, and payment of any back taxes. After meeting those requirements, an immigrant would get in line with other would-be citizens.
Elected and business leaders who support comprehensive immigration reform realize that patchwork and piecemeal approaches will continue to fail. We have seen the negative effects of Arizona-like initiatives here in Texas. In the district I represent, the town of Farmers Branch elected to pass a particularly misguided anti-immigrant ordinance back in 2007 that was successful only in dividing a community, tarnishing the town’s image and costing nearly $5 million in attorneys' fees.
Arizona might be fortunate that the anti-immigrant law is destined to fail. If all the undocumented workers and their families in Arizona are stopped, identified and deported, the negative economic impact of such actions would worsen an already deep deficit that has forced the state to raise sales taxes. The Perryman Group has estimated that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity and approximately 140,324 jobs.
Like Arizona, Texas will face a challenging budget deficit in 2011. As legislators, we should devote every second of our time and every ounce of our effort next session to ensure that we balance the budget in a thoughtful and responsible manner. And we should demand the same from our Texas congressional delegation and call for, as Bush did, thoughtful and responsible comprehensive immigration reform.
State Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, represents District 103 in the Texas House.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Top 10 Myths About Immigration
By Leo Anchondo of Justice for Immigrants
1. Immigrants don't pay taxes.
Immigrants pay taxes, in the form of income, property, sales, and taxes at the federal and state level. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay income taxes as well, as evidenced by the Social Security Administration's "suspense file" (taxes that cannot be matched to workers' names and social security numbers), which grew by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998.
(Source: http://www.immigrationforum.org/about/articles/tax_study.htm)
2. Immigrants come here to take welfare.
Immigrants come to work and reunite with family members. Immigrant labor force participation is consistently higher than native-born, and immigrant workers make up a larger share of the U.S. labor force (12.4%) than they do the U.S. population (11.5%). Moreover, the ratio between immigrant use of public benefits and the amount of taxes they pay is consistently favorable to the U.S. In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits. In another cut of the data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use.
(Source: "Questioning Immigration Policy - Can We Afford to Open Our Arms?", Friends Committee on National Legislation Document #G-606-DOM, January 25, 1996. http:www.fas.org/pub/gen/fcnl/immigra.html)
3. Immigrants send all their money back to their home countries.
In addition to the consumer spending of immigrant households, immigrants and their businesses contribute $162 billion in tax revenue to U.S. federal, state, and local governments. While it is true that immigrants remit billions of dollars a year to their home countries, this is one of the most targeted and effective forms of direct foreign investment.
(Source: http://www.cato.org/research/articles/griswold-020218.html)
4. Immigrants take jobs and opportunity away from Americans.
The largest wave of immigration to the U.S. since the early 1900s coincided with our lowest national unemployment rate and fastest economic growth. Immigrant entrepreneurs create jobs for U.S. and foreign workers, and foreign-born students allow many U.S. graduate programs to keep their doors open. While there has been no comprehensive study done of immigrant-owned businesses, we have countless examples: in Silicon Valley, companies begun by Chinese and Indian immigrants generated more than $19.5 billion in sales and nearly 73,000 jobs in 2000.
(Source: Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and Stephen Moore, Immigration and Unemployment: New Evidence, Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Arlington, VA (Mar. 1994), p. 13.)
5. Immigrants are a drain on the U.S. economy.
During the 1990s, half of all new workers were foreign-born, filling gaps left by native-born workers in both the high- and low-skill ends of the spectrum. Immigrants fill jobs in key sectors, start their own businesses, and contribute to a thriving economy. The net benefit of immigration to the U.S. is nearly $10 billion annually. As Alan Greenspan points out, 70% of immigrants arrive in prime working age. That means we haven't spent a penny on their education, yet they are transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our social security system over the next 20 years.
(Source: Andrew Sum, Mykhaylo Trubskyy, Ishwar Khatiwada, et al., Immigrant Workers in the New England Labor Market: Implications for Workforce Development Policy, Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University, Boston, Prepared for the New England Regional Office, the Employment and Training Administration, and the U.S. Department of Labor, Boston, Massachusetts, October 2002. http://www.nupr.neu.edu/11-02/immigration.PDF)
6. Immigrants don't want to learn English or become Americans.
Within ten years of arrival, more than 75% of immigrants speak English well; moreover, demand for English classes at the adult level far exceeds supply. Greater than 33% of immigrants are naturalized citizens; given increased immigration in the 1990s, this figure will rise as more legal permanent residents become eligible for naturalization in the coming years. The number of immigrants naturalizing spiked sharply after two events: enactment of immigration and welfare reform laws in 1996, and the terrorist attacks in 2001.
(Source: American Immigration Lawyers Association, Myths & Facts in the Immigration Debate", 8/14/03. http://www.aila.org/contentViewer.aspx?bc=17,142#section4)
(Source: Simon Romero and Janet Elder, "Hispanics in the US Report Optimism" New York Times, Aug. 6, 2003)
7. Today's immigrants are different than those of 100 years ago.
The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th century it was approximately 15%. Similar to accusations about today's immigrants, those of 100 years ago initially often settled in mono-ethnic neighborhoods, spoke their native languages, and built up newspapers and businesses that catered to their fellow émigrés. They also experienced the same types of discrimination that today's immigrants face, and integrated within American culture at a similar rate. If we view history objectively, we remember that every new wave of immigrants has been met with suspicion and doubt and yet, ultimately, every past wave of immigrants has been vindicated and saluted.
(Source: Census Data: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf)
8. Most immigrants cross the border illegally.
Around 75% of today's immigrants have legal permanent (immigrant) visas; of the 25% that are undocumented, 40% overstayed temporary (non-immigrant) visas.
(Source: Department of Homeland Security http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/index.htm)
9. Weak U.S. border enforcement has led to high undocumented immigration.
From 1986 to 1998, the Border Patrol's budget increased six-fold and the number of agents stationed on our southwest border doubled to 8,500. The Border Patrol also toughened its enforcement strategy, heavily fortifying typical urban entry points and pushing migrants into dangerous desert areas, in hopes of deterring crossings. Instead, the undocumented immigrant population doubled in that timeframe, to 8 million-despite the legalization of nearly 3 million immigrants after the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. Insufficient legal avenues for immigrants to enter the U.S., compared with the number of jobs in need of workers, has significantly contributed to this current conundrum.
(Source: Immigration and Naturalization website:http://www.ncjrs.org/ondcppubs/publications/enforce/border/ins_3.html)
10. The war on terrorism can be won through immigration restrictions.
No security expert since September 11th, 2001 has said that restrictive immigration measures would have prevented the terrorist attacks-instead, the key is effective use of good intelligence. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were here on legal visas. Since 9/11, the myriad of measures targeting immigrants in the name of national security have netted no terrorism prosecutions. In fact, several of these measures could have the opposite effect and actually make us less safe, as targeted communities of immigrants are afraid to come forward with information.
(Source: Associated Press/Dow Jones Newswires, "US Senate Subcommittee Hears Immigration Testimony", Oct. 17, 2001.)
(Source: Cato Institute: "Don't Blame Immigrants for Terrorism", Daniel Griswold, Assoc. Director of Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-23-01.html)
1. Immigrants don't pay taxes.
Immigrants pay taxes, in the form of income, property, sales, and taxes at the federal and state level. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay income taxes as well, as evidenced by the Social Security Administration's "suspense file" (taxes that cannot be matched to workers' names and social security numbers), which grew by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998.
(Source: http://www.immigrationforum.org/about/articles/tax_study.htm)
2. Immigrants come here to take welfare.
Immigrants come to work and reunite with family members. Immigrant labor force participation is consistently higher than native-born, and immigrant workers make up a larger share of the U.S. labor force (12.4%) than they do the U.S. population (11.5%). Moreover, the ratio between immigrant use of public benefits and the amount of taxes they pay is consistently favorable to the U.S. In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits. In another cut of the data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use.
(Source: "Questioning Immigration Policy - Can We Afford to Open Our Arms?", Friends Committee on National Legislation Document #G-606-DOM, January 25, 1996. http:www.fas.org/pub/gen/fcnl/immigra.html)
3. Immigrants send all their money back to their home countries.
In addition to the consumer spending of immigrant households, immigrants and their businesses contribute $162 billion in tax revenue to U.S. federal, state, and local governments. While it is true that immigrants remit billions of dollars a year to their home countries, this is one of the most targeted and effective forms of direct foreign investment.
(Source: http://www.cato.org/research/articles/griswold-020218.html)
4. Immigrants take jobs and opportunity away from Americans.
The largest wave of immigration to the U.S. since the early 1900s coincided with our lowest national unemployment rate and fastest economic growth. Immigrant entrepreneurs create jobs for U.S. and foreign workers, and foreign-born students allow many U.S. graduate programs to keep their doors open. While there has been no comprehensive study done of immigrant-owned businesses, we have countless examples: in Silicon Valley, companies begun by Chinese and Indian immigrants generated more than $19.5 billion in sales and nearly 73,000 jobs in 2000.
(Source: Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and Stephen Moore, Immigration and Unemployment: New Evidence, Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Arlington, VA (Mar. 1994), p. 13.)
5. Immigrants are a drain on the U.S. economy.
During the 1990s, half of all new workers were foreign-born, filling gaps left by native-born workers in both the high- and low-skill ends of the spectrum. Immigrants fill jobs in key sectors, start their own businesses, and contribute to a thriving economy. The net benefit of immigration to the U.S. is nearly $10 billion annually. As Alan Greenspan points out, 70% of immigrants arrive in prime working age. That means we haven't spent a penny on their education, yet they are transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our social security system over the next 20 years.
(Source: Andrew Sum, Mykhaylo Trubskyy, Ishwar Khatiwada, et al., Immigrant Workers in the New England Labor Market: Implications for Workforce Development Policy, Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University, Boston, Prepared for the New England Regional Office, the Employment and Training Administration, and the U.S. Department of Labor, Boston, Massachusetts, October 2002. http://www.nupr.neu.edu/11-02/immigration.PDF)
6. Immigrants don't want to learn English or become Americans.
Within ten years of arrival, more than 75% of immigrants speak English well; moreover, demand for English classes at the adult level far exceeds supply. Greater than 33% of immigrants are naturalized citizens; given increased immigration in the 1990s, this figure will rise as more legal permanent residents become eligible for naturalization in the coming years. The number of immigrants naturalizing spiked sharply after two events: enactment of immigration and welfare reform laws in 1996, and the terrorist attacks in 2001.
(Source: American Immigration Lawyers Association, Myths & Facts in the Immigration Debate", 8/14/03. http://www.aila.org/contentViewer.aspx?bc=17,142#section4)
(Source: Simon Romero and Janet Elder, "Hispanics in the US Report Optimism" New York Times, Aug. 6, 2003)
7. Today's immigrants are different than those of 100 years ago.
The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th century it was approximately 15%. Similar to accusations about today's immigrants, those of 100 years ago initially often settled in mono-ethnic neighborhoods, spoke their native languages, and built up newspapers and businesses that catered to their fellow émigrés. They also experienced the same types of discrimination that today's immigrants face, and integrated within American culture at a similar rate. If we view history objectively, we remember that every new wave of immigrants has been met with suspicion and doubt and yet, ultimately, every past wave of immigrants has been vindicated and saluted.
(Source: Census Data: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf)
8. Most immigrants cross the border illegally.
Around 75% of today's immigrants have legal permanent (immigrant) visas; of the 25% that are undocumented, 40% overstayed temporary (non-immigrant) visas.
(Source: Department of Homeland Security http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/index.htm)
9. Weak U.S. border enforcement has led to high undocumented immigration.
From 1986 to 1998, the Border Patrol's budget increased six-fold and the number of agents stationed on our southwest border doubled to 8,500. The Border Patrol also toughened its enforcement strategy, heavily fortifying typical urban entry points and pushing migrants into dangerous desert areas, in hopes of deterring crossings. Instead, the undocumented immigrant population doubled in that timeframe, to 8 million-despite the legalization of nearly 3 million immigrants after the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. Insufficient legal avenues for immigrants to enter the U.S., compared with the number of jobs in need of workers, has significantly contributed to this current conundrum.
(Source: Immigration and Naturalization website:http://www.ncjrs.org/ondcppubs/publications/enforce/border/ins_3.html)
10. The war on terrorism can be won through immigration restrictions.
No security expert since September 11th, 2001 has said that restrictive immigration measures would have prevented the terrorist attacks-instead, the key is effective use of good intelligence. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were here on legal visas. Since 9/11, the myriad of measures targeting immigrants in the name of national security have netted no terrorism prosecutions. In fact, several of these measures could have the opposite effect and actually make us less safe, as targeted communities of immigrants are afraid to come forward with information.
(Source: Associated Press/Dow Jones Newswires, "US Senate Subcommittee Hears Immigration Testimony", Oct. 17, 2001.)
(Source: Cato Institute: "Don't Blame Immigrants for Terrorism", Daniel Griswold, Assoc. Director of Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-23-01.html)
MALCS with Consortium of Prof’l and Academic Assoc Condemning Arizona Immigration Law
May 30th, 2010
An ad-hoc working group comprised of representatives from over a dozen leading professional and academic associations has issued a joint statement condemning Arizona’s immigration law (SB 1070) and related state policies such as the prohibition against Ethnic Studies programs (HB 2281), calling for these laws to be rescinded. The “Consortium of Professional and Academic Associations” believes that these laws are inherently unjust, and that their application threatens to inflame anti-immigrant sentiments and undermine constructive solutions to the challenges faced by communities in Arizona and across the nation. We call upon the governor, legislators, and people of Arizona to work diligently and swiftly to repeal these laws.
Our organizations include members from fields including sociology, criminology, political science, peace studies, psychology, anthropology, environmental studies, Chicano/a studies, and a multitude of related areas of study. Our collective membership numbers more than 10,000 scholars, educators, and activists, with many residing in Arizona. The decision to join together in issuing the open letter below represents an unprecedented and historical moment of collaboration. As academics and professionals concerned about social and environmental justice, human rights, and due process, we add our collective voices to those of many others from across the country calling for the immediate rescission of SB 1070 (and, as amended, HB 2162) and HB 2281 in the name of equity, compassion, integrity, constitutionality, and sound public policy.
Signatories to the joint statement include representatives from the following professional organizations and academic associations, all of which have either issued individual statements or otherwise indicated their opposition to and condemnation of SB 1070 and related policies (additional signatories may be added to this growing list as organizations finalize their support):
* American Studies Association (ASA)
* Association of Asian American Studies (AAAS)
* Chicano/Latino Faculty and Staff Association, ASU (CLFSA)
* City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center’s Immigration Working Group
* Justice Studies Association (JSA)
* MAVIN Foundation
* Mujeres Activas en Letras y Cambio Social (MALCS)
* National Association for Chicano and Chicana Studies (NACCS)
* Native American and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA)
* Peace and Justice Studies Association (PJSA)
* Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR)
* San Francisco State University (SFSU), College of Ethnic Studies (multiple programs):Department of Africana Studies; Department of American Indian Studies; Department of Asian American Studies; Department of Raza Studies; Race and Resistance Program; Arab and Muslim Ethnicities in Diaspora Program; César E. Chavez Institute
* Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics & Native Americans in Science (SACNAS)
* Science Fiction Research Association (SFRA)
* Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA)
* Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA)
* Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP)
* Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS)
* Sociologists Without Borders (Sociologos Sin Fronteras) (SSF)
A press conference featuring delegates from these organizations was held on Wednesday, May 19, 2010, at 1PM on the Senate Lawn at the Arizona State Capitol. Representatives from many of the signatory organizations issued short statements, and then engaged in follow-up discussion. Participants and representatives at the press conference included:
Randall Amster, J.D., Ph.D., Executive Director, PJSA Merrill Eisenberg, Ph.D., President-elect, SfAA Paul Espinosa, Ph.D., President, CLFSA Luis Fernandez, Ph.D., Board Member, SSSP Zoe Hammer, Ph.D., Program Committee Member, ASA Manuel de Jesus Hernandez G., Ph.D., Former National Chair, NACCS Marie Keta Miranda, Ph.D., Chair, MALCS Devon Pena, Ph.D., President, NACCS Michelle Tellez, Ph.D., Board Member, NACCS
================================= May 17, 2010
To Governor Brewer, the State Legislature, and the People of Arizona:
We wish to express our deep concern with and unequivocal condemnation of Senate Bill 1070, which you signed into law on April 23, 2010. By making it a state crime to be in Arizona without federal authorization, and also making it a punishable offense to support someone without the appropriate documents, SB 1070 criminalizes countless decent human beings who live, work, pay taxes, and raise their families in Arizona. In addition, the enforcement of such a constitutionally problematic law threatens everyone’s civil rights in the process, and undermines the potential for fostering an environment based on peace and social justice. We unanimously denounce this law and strenuously urge that you rescind it in the name of compassion and human dignity.
We are all non-partisan professional organizations of scholars, educators, and practitioners, with thousands of members from across the country and abroad, committed to and knowledgeable about a wide range of social justice and environmental issues. We count among our members numerous scholars and other professionals who are among the most knowledgeable in the country on the subjects of immigration, including undocumented immigration, and our legal and political systems. While immigration reform in the United States may be overdue, we also know that using this to justify state laws that usurp federal authority over immigration will create many more legal and social problems than it resolves.
Moreover, we note that the combined effect of SB 1070 with the prohibition on Ethnic Studies contained in HB 2281 creates an atmosphere of legislated intolerance and racialized politicking that is simply untenable, unwise, and unjust. Indeed, the simple fact that SB 1070 had to be amended, under pressure following its passage, by HB 2162 (which sought to qualify the conditions for officer contact) demonstrates quite clearly the inherently flawed and potentially racist implications of this piece of legislation. We note here as well that the purported “remedy” of requiring a “stop” before officers can inquire further about legal status based a “reasonable suspicion” is equally expansive in its application, and thus equally problematic. These alterations, again adopted in haste following public pressure, will not provide sufficient protection against racial profiling.
Police officers are not immigration officers. Putting them in the position of enforcing federal immigration law will destroy the trust between police officers and communities so essential for effective law enforcement. It will also lead to unwarranted and prolonged detention of citizens and legal residents, increasing the likelihood of civil rights litigation against police departments, cities, and towns, and potentially damaging family units across the state. Despite language ostensibly prohibiting racial profiling, this will be the de facto reality of the law’s implementation. Physical appearance, particularly being of Hispanic background, will unavoidably remain the primary factor determining whether someone is or is not asked to prove her or his citizenship or residency status. For all these reasons, many law enforcement leaders across the country, as well as in Arizona, oppose this law. It would be wise to heed the objections of the law enforcement officers who are now faced with enforcing this unjust law.
For some, the stated intent of SB 1070 unequivocally is to cleanse Arizona of its undocumented immigrants and their families, among them children and other relatives born in the United States, as evidenced by the fact that legislative supporters of this law have repeatedly and proudly described this as part of a strategy to make life so unbearable for undocumented residents and their families that they will leave the state. Any law whose goal and effect is to drive an ethnic population to leave its place of residence is a crime against humanity under current international law. The law will also have the effect of separating cohesive family units, leading to increased marginalization and immiseration among communities already facing grave challenges. In this manner, SB 1070 risks making Arizona a pariah state on the national and international stages.
Furthermore, whatever the intent, at minimum this law will create a climate of fear so intense as to make low-wage workers even more vulnerable and therefore much easier to exploit by unscrupulous employers. Denying immigrant workers protections or otherwise making them more vulnerable does not stop them from coming. Rather, it simply drives them further underground and makes them more exploitable. Finally, the climate of fear and hostility that this law will create is antithetical to the aims of promoting a more just and peaceful world. By institutionalizing chauvinism and magnifying differences of race and ethnicity, SB 1070 promises to enlarge the gulf between diverse communities and pit groups against one another, rather than encouraging people to work together to find mutually-beneficial solutions to challenging issues. Ironically, and sadly, the net effect of SB 1070 will be precisely what is sought to be prohibited under HB 2281, namely that it will in practice and principle serve to “promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group.”
Opposition to this law has been rapid and strong, and is likely to become even stronger, as more and more groups and individuals boycott the state of Arizona and businesses based in Arizona. We are aware as well of the ostensible support in the state for the law, and therefore recognize the political pressures that have led you to pass this law. But widespread support for a law does not make it just; not long ago the majority of southerners supported segregation laws. As Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his landmark essay Letter from a Birmingham Jail, following the teachings of St. Augustine: “‘An unjust law is no law at all.’… Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” It is especially in instances such as these that strong moral leadership is needed, and we are appealing to the governor, state legislators, and all concerned Arizonans to provide it. Please choose to be on the right side of history and work to overturn this patently unjust law. We thank you for your time and attention in this important matter.
Sincerely,
The Consortium of Professional and Academic Associations
The following member organizations have issued specific statements condemning SB 1070, which can be found at these locations:
* SSSP
* PJSA
* NACCS
* MALCS
* SSF
* PsySR
* NAISA
* AAAS
* SACNAS
* JSA
* SFRA
An ad-hoc working group comprised of representatives from over a dozen leading professional and academic associations has issued a joint statement condemning Arizona’s immigration law (SB 1070) and related state policies such as the prohibition against Ethnic Studies programs (HB 2281), calling for these laws to be rescinded. The “Consortium of Professional and Academic Associations” believes that these laws are inherently unjust, and that their application threatens to inflame anti-immigrant sentiments and undermine constructive solutions to the challenges faced by communities in Arizona and across the nation. We call upon the governor, legislators, and people of Arizona to work diligently and swiftly to repeal these laws.
Our organizations include members from fields including sociology, criminology, political science, peace studies, psychology, anthropology, environmental studies, Chicano/a studies, and a multitude of related areas of study. Our collective membership numbers more than 10,000 scholars, educators, and activists, with many residing in Arizona. The decision to join together in issuing the open letter below represents an unprecedented and historical moment of collaboration. As academics and professionals concerned about social and environmental justice, human rights, and due process, we add our collective voices to those of many others from across the country calling for the immediate rescission of SB 1070 (and, as amended, HB 2162) and HB 2281 in the name of equity, compassion, integrity, constitutionality, and sound public policy.
Signatories to the joint statement include representatives from the following professional organizations and academic associations, all of which have either issued individual statements or otherwise indicated their opposition to and condemnation of SB 1070 and related policies (additional signatories may be added to this growing list as organizations finalize their support):
* American Studies Association (ASA)
* Association of Asian American Studies (AAAS)
* Chicano/Latino Faculty and Staff Association, ASU (CLFSA)
* City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center’s Immigration Working Group
* Justice Studies Association (JSA)
* MAVIN Foundation
* Mujeres Activas en Letras y Cambio Social (MALCS)
* National Association for Chicano and Chicana Studies (NACCS)
* Native American and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA)
* Peace and Justice Studies Association (PJSA)
* Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR)
* San Francisco State University (SFSU), College of Ethnic Studies (multiple programs):Department of Africana Studies; Department of American Indian Studies; Department of Asian American Studies; Department of Raza Studies; Race and Resistance Program; Arab and Muslim Ethnicities in Diaspora Program; César E. Chavez Institute
* Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics & Native Americans in Science (SACNAS)
* Science Fiction Research Association (SFRA)
* Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA)
* Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA)
* Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP)
* Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS)
* Sociologists Without Borders (Sociologos Sin Fronteras) (SSF)
A press conference featuring delegates from these organizations was held on Wednesday, May 19, 2010, at 1PM on the Senate Lawn at the Arizona State Capitol. Representatives from many of the signatory organizations issued short statements, and then engaged in follow-up discussion. Participants and representatives at the press conference included:
Randall Amster, J.D., Ph.D., Executive Director, PJSA Merrill Eisenberg, Ph.D., President-elect, SfAA Paul Espinosa, Ph.D., President, CLFSA Luis Fernandez, Ph.D., Board Member, SSSP Zoe Hammer, Ph.D., Program Committee Member, ASA Manuel de Jesus Hernandez G., Ph.D., Former National Chair, NACCS Marie Keta Miranda, Ph.D., Chair, MALCS Devon Pena, Ph.D., President, NACCS Michelle Tellez, Ph.D., Board Member, NACCS
================================= May 17, 2010
To Governor Brewer, the State Legislature, and the People of Arizona:
We wish to express our deep concern with and unequivocal condemnation of Senate Bill 1070, which you signed into law on April 23, 2010. By making it a state crime to be in Arizona without federal authorization, and also making it a punishable offense to support someone without the appropriate documents, SB 1070 criminalizes countless decent human beings who live, work, pay taxes, and raise their families in Arizona. In addition, the enforcement of such a constitutionally problematic law threatens everyone’s civil rights in the process, and undermines the potential for fostering an environment based on peace and social justice. We unanimously denounce this law and strenuously urge that you rescind it in the name of compassion and human dignity.
We are all non-partisan professional organizations of scholars, educators, and practitioners, with thousands of members from across the country and abroad, committed to and knowledgeable about a wide range of social justice and environmental issues. We count among our members numerous scholars and other professionals who are among the most knowledgeable in the country on the subjects of immigration, including undocumented immigration, and our legal and political systems. While immigration reform in the United States may be overdue, we also know that using this to justify state laws that usurp federal authority over immigration will create many more legal and social problems than it resolves.
Moreover, we note that the combined effect of SB 1070 with the prohibition on Ethnic Studies contained in HB 2281 creates an atmosphere of legislated intolerance and racialized politicking that is simply untenable, unwise, and unjust. Indeed, the simple fact that SB 1070 had to be amended, under pressure following its passage, by HB 2162 (which sought to qualify the conditions for officer contact) demonstrates quite clearly the inherently flawed and potentially racist implications of this piece of legislation. We note here as well that the purported “remedy” of requiring a “stop” before officers can inquire further about legal status based a “reasonable suspicion” is equally expansive in its application, and thus equally problematic. These alterations, again adopted in haste following public pressure, will not provide sufficient protection against racial profiling.
Police officers are not immigration officers. Putting them in the position of enforcing federal immigration law will destroy the trust between police officers and communities so essential for effective law enforcement. It will also lead to unwarranted and prolonged detention of citizens and legal residents, increasing the likelihood of civil rights litigation against police departments, cities, and towns, and potentially damaging family units across the state. Despite language ostensibly prohibiting racial profiling, this will be the de facto reality of the law’s implementation. Physical appearance, particularly being of Hispanic background, will unavoidably remain the primary factor determining whether someone is or is not asked to prove her or his citizenship or residency status. For all these reasons, many law enforcement leaders across the country, as well as in Arizona, oppose this law. It would be wise to heed the objections of the law enforcement officers who are now faced with enforcing this unjust law.
For some, the stated intent of SB 1070 unequivocally is to cleanse Arizona of its undocumented immigrants and their families, among them children and other relatives born in the United States, as evidenced by the fact that legislative supporters of this law have repeatedly and proudly described this as part of a strategy to make life so unbearable for undocumented residents and their families that they will leave the state. Any law whose goal and effect is to drive an ethnic population to leave its place of residence is a crime against humanity under current international law. The law will also have the effect of separating cohesive family units, leading to increased marginalization and immiseration among communities already facing grave challenges. In this manner, SB 1070 risks making Arizona a pariah state on the national and international stages.
Furthermore, whatever the intent, at minimum this law will create a climate of fear so intense as to make low-wage workers even more vulnerable and therefore much easier to exploit by unscrupulous employers. Denying immigrant workers protections or otherwise making them more vulnerable does not stop them from coming. Rather, it simply drives them further underground and makes them more exploitable. Finally, the climate of fear and hostility that this law will create is antithetical to the aims of promoting a more just and peaceful world. By institutionalizing chauvinism and magnifying differences of race and ethnicity, SB 1070 promises to enlarge the gulf between diverse communities and pit groups against one another, rather than encouraging people to work together to find mutually-beneficial solutions to challenging issues. Ironically, and sadly, the net effect of SB 1070 will be precisely what is sought to be prohibited under HB 2281, namely that it will in practice and principle serve to “promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group.”
Opposition to this law has been rapid and strong, and is likely to become even stronger, as more and more groups and individuals boycott the state of Arizona and businesses based in Arizona. We are aware as well of the ostensible support in the state for the law, and therefore recognize the political pressures that have led you to pass this law. But widespread support for a law does not make it just; not long ago the majority of southerners supported segregation laws. As Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his landmark essay Letter from a Birmingham Jail, following the teachings of St. Augustine: “‘An unjust law is no law at all.’… Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” It is especially in instances such as these that strong moral leadership is needed, and we are appealing to the governor, state legislators, and all concerned Arizonans to provide it. Please choose to be on the right side of history and work to overturn this patently unjust law. We thank you for your time and attention in this important matter.
Sincerely,
The Consortium of Professional and Academic Associations
The following member organizations have issued specific statements condemning SB 1070, which can be found at these locations:
* SSSP
* PJSA
* NACCS
* MALCS
* SSF
* PsySR
* NAISA
* AAAS
* SACNAS
* JSA
* SFRA
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Foes and Supporters of New Immigration Law Gather in Arizona
May 29, 2010
Foes and Supporters of New Immigration Law Gather in Arizona
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
PHOENIX — Two sides of the immigration debate converged here Saturday: a throng of several thousand marching for five miles opposed to Arizona’s new immigration law, and several thousand nearly filling a nearby stadium in the evening in support of it.
Organizers said the timing was coincidental, with both sides taking advantage of a holiday weekend to bring out the masses. But the gatherings encapsulated in a single day the passions surrounding the national immigration debate, recharged by the new law, which will expand the state’s role in immigration enforcement.
Both demonstrations made a point of waving a large number of American flags and issuing pleas for a national overhaul of immigration law, but they offered a jarring study in how polarized the debate has become here.
The demonstrators against the law were mostly Latino, with young people and families making up a large share. They played drums, whistled and chanted and gave speeches in Spanish and English denouncing the perceived racism behind the law. Many carried posters or wore T-shirts with the message: “Do I look illegal?”
At the rally in favor of the law, which began with the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem, any mention of Mexico or supporters of the law brought lusty boos — a video clip of President Felipe Calderón of Mexico especially fired up the crowd, which was mostly white and middle-aged or older. Placards like “Illegals out of the U.S.A.” were typical, though speaker after speaker ridiculed the idea that the crowd was racist.
Far more attended the earlier rally opposed to the law, which included a five-mile march to the Capitol in withering heat. It was one of the largest since Gov. Jan Brewer signed the law April 23.
Some were citizens, like Armando Diaz, 33, a mechanic born and raised here who believes the law has helped spread anti-Latino fervor in the state.
“This is not what Arizona is about, hate,” Mr. Diaz said as he neared the capitol, where people fled for what little shade they could find. “But that is what this law is about.”
The later rally, at sundown, was organized by Tea Party groups from St. Louis and Dallas who said they decided to take the lead and support the state against a wave of boycotts protesting the law, some by cities like San Francisco and Seattle.
“We are doing this to crush any boycott against the free market,” said Tina Loudon, a Tea Party member from St. Louis who helped organize the rally. “Arizona has a sovereign right to enforce immigration laws on the books.”
The law — barring any successful legal challenges — will take effect July 29. It would allow the police to check the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants when they have been stopped for another reason. It also makes it a state crime, not just a federal one, to not carry immigration papers.
Advocates see it as a tool for law enforcement to weed out illegal immigrants, while five lawsuits filed against it call it an infringement on federal authority and suggest that Latino citizens and legal residents will be swept up for questioning.
On another front, the governor and attorney general are disputing who will defend the state against the legal challenges and possible litigation by the United States Justice Department.
Ms. Brewer, a Republican, said Friday she had removed the state’s attorney general, a Democrat and vocal opponent of the law, from defending it, accusing him of colluding with the Justice Department as it nears a decision on whether to challenge the law in court.
But the matter remained in dispute on Saturday, as the attorney general, Terry Goddard, a Democrat and potential challenger in her re-election bid, said in an e-mail message that he was “definitely defending the state” in legal challenges to the law.
Ms. Brewer said she took action after Mr. Goddard met Friday with Justice Department lawyers, who then met with her legal advisers.
Justice Department officials said they routinely meet with a state’s attorney general and governor when considering legal action against their state.
“We continue to have concerns that the law drives a wedge between law enforcement and the communities they serve, and are examining it to see what options are available to the federal government,” said Tracy Schmaler, a department spokeswoman.
The United States attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., has said he worries that the law may intrude on federal authority and lead to racial profiling.
Protest rallies were also held Saturday at the state capitols in Texas and Oregon, as well as in San Francisco, according to The Associated Press.
At the Arizona demonstrations, opinions could not be further apart.
Mireya Chavez Cerna, 43, an illegal immigrant who works as a maid, marched with her 9-year-old son, who was born in the United States and wore a shirt reading “Made in America.”
She denounced the climate of fear in the state and said immigrants like her could not abide the wait of a decade or more for a legal visa while their families grow hungry.
“Do you think we would risk losing our lives crossing the border if we didn’t have a need to come here for a better life?” she said. Supporters of the law “don’t know,” she added. “They don’t understand. They don’t live in Mexico. They don’t know how it is.”
But Ann Hyde, a radiological technologist from Chandler, said she grew frustrated at supporters being tarred as prejudiced or worse.
“We are not racists,” she said. “This law is about respecting the laws of the nation and the economic impact of illegal immigration, which is enormous. My state is broke and they cost us with spending on schools, hospitals and other services.”
Though violent crime is declining in Arizona, as in most other states, and illegal immigration is down at the border, speakers played up crimes that illegal immigrants have been charged with over the years, including shooting of police officers.
“One is too many,” said Mark Spencer, the chairman of a union representing rank-and-file police officers in Phoenix.
Ana Facio Contreras contributed from Phoenix.
Foes and Supporters of New Immigration Law Gather in Arizona
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
PHOENIX — Two sides of the immigration debate converged here Saturday: a throng of several thousand marching for five miles opposed to Arizona’s new immigration law, and several thousand nearly filling a nearby stadium in the evening in support of it.
Organizers said the timing was coincidental, with both sides taking advantage of a holiday weekend to bring out the masses. But the gatherings encapsulated in a single day the passions surrounding the national immigration debate, recharged by the new law, which will expand the state’s role in immigration enforcement.
Both demonstrations made a point of waving a large number of American flags and issuing pleas for a national overhaul of immigration law, but they offered a jarring study in how polarized the debate has become here.
The demonstrators against the law were mostly Latino, with young people and families making up a large share. They played drums, whistled and chanted and gave speeches in Spanish and English denouncing the perceived racism behind the law. Many carried posters or wore T-shirts with the message: “Do I look illegal?”
At the rally in favor of the law, which began with the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem, any mention of Mexico or supporters of the law brought lusty boos — a video clip of President Felipe Calderón of Mexico especially fired up the crowd, which was mostly white and middle-aged or older. Placards like “Illegals out of the U.S.A.” were typical, though speaker after speaker ridiculed the idea that the crowd was racist.
Far more attended the earlier rally opposed to the law, which included a five-mile march to the Capitol in withering heat. It was one of the largest since Gov. Jan Brewer signed the law April 23.
Some were citizens, like Armando Diaz, 33, a mechanic born and raised here who believes the law has helped spread anti-Latino fervor in the state.
“This is not what Arizona is about, hate,” Mr. Diaz said as he neared the capitol, where people fled for what little shade they could find. “But that is what this law is about.”
The later rally, at sundown, was organized by Tea Party groups from St. Louis and Dallas who said they decided to take the lead and support the state against a wave of boycotts protesting the law, some by cities like San Francisco and Seattle.
“We are doing this to crush any boycott against the free market,” said Tina Loudon, a Tea Party member from St. Louis who helped organize the rally. “Arizona has a sovereign right to enforce immigration laws on the books.”
The law — barring any successful legal challenges — will take effect July 29. It would allow the police to check the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants when they have been stopped for another reason. It also makes it a state crime, not just a federal one, to not carry immigration papers.
Advocates see it as a tool for law enforcement to weed out illegal immigrants, while five lawsuits filed against it call it an infringement on federal authority and suggest that Latino citizens and legal residents will be swept up for questioning.
On another front, the governor and attorney general are disputing who will defend the state against the legal challenges and possible litigation by the United States Justice Department.
Ms. Brewer, a Republican, said Friday she had removed the state’s attorney general, a Democrat and vocal opponent of the law, from defending it, accusing him of colluding with the Justice Department as it nears a decision on whether to challenge the law in court.
But the matter remained in dispute on Saturday, as the attorney general, Terry Goddard, a Democrat and potential challenger in her re-election bid, said in an e-mail message that he was “definitely defending the state” in legal challenges to the law.
Ms. Brewer said she took action after Mr. Goddard met Friday with Justice Department lawyers, who then met with her legal advisers.
Justice Department officials said they routinely meet with a state’s attorney general and governor when considering legal action against their state.
“We continue to have concerns that the law drives a wedge between law enforcement and the communities they serve, and are examining it to see what options are available to the federal government,” said Tracy Schmaler, a department spokeswoman.
The United States attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., has said he worries that the law may intrude on federal authority and lead to racial profiling.
Protest rallies were also held Saturday at the state capitols in Texas and Oregon, as well as in San Francisco, according to The Associated Press.
At the Arizona demonstrations, opinions could not be further apart.
Mireya Chavez Cerna, 43, an illegal immigrant who works as a maid, marched with her 9-year-old son, who was born in the United States and wore a shirt reading “Made in America.”
She denounced the climate of fear in the state and said immigrants like her could not abide the wait of a decade or more for a legal visa while their families grow hungry.
“Do you think we would risk losing our lives crossing the border if we didn’t have a need to come here for a better life?” she said. Supporters of the law “don’t know,” she added. “They don’t understand. They don’t live in Mexico. They don’t know how it is.”
But Ann Hyde, a radiological technologist from Chandler, said she grew frustrated at supporters being tarred as prejudiced or worse.
“We are not racists,” she said. “This law is about respecting the laws of the nation and the economic impact of illegal immigration, which is enormous. My state is broke and they cost us with spending on schools, hospitals and other services.”
Though violent crime is declining in Arizona, as in most other states, and illegal immigration is down at the border, speakers played up crimes that illegal immigrants have been charged with over the years, including shooting of police officers.
“One is too many,” said Mark Spencer, the chairman of a union representing rank-and-file police officers in Phoenix.
Ana Facio Contreras contributed from Phoenix.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Citizenship-By-Birth Faces Challenges
This story shows us how what's happening in Arizona and other states effects us ALL! This should be a concern for everyone.
The discussion in Texas is that similar legislation will be filed here, and that it will not pass. Regardless, we need to be concerned with the effects that this sentiment has on our society, with or without a policy.
Check out the recent discussion between Texas State Reps Trey Martinez Fisher (D-San Antonio, and Chair of the Texas Mexican American Legislative Caucus) and Debbie Riddle,
R-Tomball on this issue in Texas.
-Patricia
by Alan Greenblatt | NPR
May 25, 2010
If you're born in the U.S.A., you're an American citizen. Some lawmakers, however, plan to challenge that basic assumption.
In what might be the next great flash point in the nation's ongoing debate about immigration policy, legislation has been introduced in Congress and a pair of states to deny birth certificates to babies born of illegal-immigrant parents.
"Currently, if you have a child born to two alien parents, that person is believed to be a U.S. citizen," says Randy Terrill, a Republican state representative in Oklahoma who is working on an anti-birthright bill. "When taken to its logical extreme, that would produce the absurd result that children of invading armies would be considered citizens of the U.S."
Bills to challenge the fact that citizenship is granted as a birthright in this country have been perennial nonstarters in Congress, although the current legislation has 91 co-sponsors. As with other issues surrounding immigration, however, some state legislatures still might act, if only in hopes of bringing this issue before the Supreme Court.
"That was the primary purpose of the bill, for someone to sue us in federal court, and let's resolve this issue once and for all," says Texas state Rep. Leo Berman, a Republican who has introduced a bill to deny birth certificates to the newborn children of illegal immigrants. "I believe we are giving away 350,000 citizens a year to children born to illegal aliens."
What The Constitution Says
Berman faces an uphill battle. For more than a century, courts have held that citizenship is granted to anyone born within the territory of the United States.
The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in the wake of the Civil War, overturned the Dred Scott decision, clarifying that the children of former slaves were citizens and entitled to constitutional protections: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Since then, courts have made it clear that this applies to the children of American Indians, visiting diplomats and Chinese guest workers, among other groups. The principle of birthright citizenship has never been successfully challenged, according to immigration lawyers.
But the federal courts have never specifically addressed the question of whether children born to those in the country illegally should be entitled to citizenship, says Michael M. Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Law Reform Institute, which favors tighter restrictions on immigration and has advised the state legislators on their efforts.
Berman says the 14th Amendment was meant to clarify the status of freedmen and "does not apply to foreigners. The 14th Amendment, which is being used to provide citizenship, is the last thing that should be used."
Subject To What Jurisdiction?
The authors of the 14th Amendment, he argues, intended to make citizenship contingent on allegiance to the country. The congressional debate at the time makes it clear that this did not apply to foreigners, Berman says.
"There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal," Lino A. Graglia, a professor at the University of Texas law school, wrote in a law review article last year. "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens."
Opponents to granting birthright citizenship often grab hold of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," saying that those in the country illegally are by their nature not subject to the jurisdiction in question, whether it's the U.S. or a particular state.
Many other lawyers say that's a false reading. "Of course they're under our jurisdiction," says Michele Waslin, senior policy analyst with the American Immigration Council, which works to protect the legal rights of immigrants. "If they commit a crime, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the courts."
'Who Is An American?'
Not every nation grants citizenship as a birthright. Sometimes it is an inheritance from one's parents, based more on blood than land.
But challenging the traditional expectation that anyone born within the physical territory of the U.S. is automatically a citizen represents a "major change in a bedrock principle that has lasted for decades," says Karen Tumlin, managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, a public interest legal group based in Los Angeles.
"It's a core American belief that those who are born here get integrated into our society, no matter where your parents are from," she says. "This would be an erosion of the core principles about who belongs in this country."
That's precisely the argument opponents of birthright citizenship want to start. If a law denying birth certificates to the children of illegal immigrants passes — and it's written in such a way that it gets argued in federal court, rather than being dismissed out of hand — it will have more of a "galvanizing effect" than the recent passage of a strict anti-immigration law in Arizona, says Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Law Reform Institute.
"All the interested parties, which in the case of birthright citizenship includes everyone in the country, would have to respond to it, either supporting it or opposing it," Hethmon says. "Who is an American? If that question can't be answered, it's hard to conceive of a greater constitutional crisis for a democratic republic."
The discussion in Texas is that similar legislation will be filed here, and that it will not pass. Regardless, we need to be concerned with the effects that this sentiment has on our society, with or without a policy.
Check out the recent discussion between Texas State Reps Trey Martinez Fisher (D-San Antonio, and Chair of the Texas Mexican American Legislative Caucus) and Debbie Riddle,
R-Tomball on this issue in Texas.
-Patricia
by Alan Greenblatt | NPR
May 25, 2010
If you're born in the U.S.A., you're an American citizen. Some lawmakers, however, plan to challenge that basic assumption.
In what might be the next great flash point in the nation's ongoing debate about immigration policy, legislation has been introduced in Congress and a pair of states to deny birth certificates to babies born of illegal-immigrant parents.
"Currently, if you have a child born to two alien parents, that person is believed to be a U.S. citizen," says Randy Terrill, a Republican state representative in Oklahoma who is working on an anti-birthright bill. "When taken to its logical extreme, that would produce the absurd result that children of invading armies would be considered citizens of the U.S."
Bills to challenge the fact that citizenship is granted as a birthright in this country have been perennial nonstarters in Congress, although the current legislation has 91 co-sponsors. As with other issues surrounding immigration, however, some state legislatures still might act, if only in hopes of bringing this issue before the Supreme Court.
"That was the primary purpose of the bill, for someone to sue us in federal court, and let's resolve this issue once and for all," says Texas state Rep. Leo Berman, a Republican who has introduced a bill to deny birth certificates to the newborn children of illegal immigrants. "I believe we are giving away 350,000 citizens a year to children born to illegal aliens."
What The Constitution Says
Berman faces an uphill battle. For more than a century, courts have held that citizenship is granted to anyone born within the territory of the United States.
The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in the wake of the Civil War, overturned the Dred Scott decision, clarifying that the children of former slaves were citizens and entitled to constitutional protections: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Since then, courts have made it clear that this applies to the children of American Indians, visiting diplomats and Chinese guest workers, among other groups. The principle of birthright citizenship has never been successfully challenged, according to immigration lawyers.
But the federal courts have never specifically addressed the question of whether children born to those in the country illegally should be entitled to citizenship, says Michael M. Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Law Reform Institute, which favors tighter restrictions on immigration and has advised the state legislators on their efforts.
Berman says the 14th Amendment was meant to clarify the status of freedmen and "does not apply to foreigners. The 14th Amendment, which is being used to provide citizenship, is the last thing that should be used."
Subject To What Jurisdiction?
The authors of the 14th Amendment, he argues, intended to make citizenship contingent on allegiance to the country. The congressional debate at the time makes it clear that this did not apply to foreigners, Berman says.
"There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal," Lino A. Graglia, a professor at the University of Texas law school, wrote in a law review article last year. "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens."
Opponents to granting birthright citizenship often grab hold of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," saying that those in the country illegally are by their nature not subject to the jurisdiction in question, whether it's the U.S. or a particular state.
Many other lawyers say that's a false reading. "Of course they're under our jurisdiction," says Michele Waslin, senior policy analyst with the American Immigration Council, which works to protect the legal rights of immigrants. "If they commit a crime, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the courts."
'Who Is An American?'
Not every nation grants citizenship as a birthright. Sometimes it is an inheritance from one's parents, based more on blood than land.
But challenging the traditional expectation that anyone born within the physical territory of the U.S. is automatically a citizen represents a "major change in a bedrock principle that has lasted for decades," says Karen Tumlin, managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, a public interest legal group based in Los Angeles.
"It's a core American belief that those who are born here get integrated into our society, no matter where your parents are from," she says. "This would be an erosion of the core principles about who belongs in this country."
That's precisely the argument opponents of birthright citizenship want to start. If a law denying birth certificates to the children of illegal immigrants passes — and it's written in such a way that it gets argued in federal court, rather than being dismissed out of hand — it will have more of a "galvanizing effect" than the recent passage of a strict anti-immigration law in Arizona, says Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Law Reform Institute.
"All the interested parties, which in the case of birthright citizenship includes everyone in the country, would have to respond to it, either supporting it or opposing it," Hethmon says. "Who is an American? If that question can't be answered, it's hard to conceive of a greater constitutional crisis for a democratic republic."
Immigrant Students Detained for the DREAM Act
Here's a great video of the courageous students defending human rights.
-Patricia
by Barni Qaasim
On May 17, 2010 five immigrant students held a sit-in in Senator John McCain's office in Tucson, AZ. Four students, including three who were undocumented, were detained by the police. When they face the judge tomorrow morning they may face deportation
Over three million students graduate from U.S. high schools every year. Most get the opportunity to test their dreams and live their American story. However, a group of approximately 65,000 youth do not get this opportunity; they are smeared with an inherited title, an illegal immigrant. These youth have lived in the United States for most of their lives and want nothing more than to be recognized for what they are, Americans.
The DREAM Act is a bipartisan legislation ‒ pioneered by Sen. Orin Hatch [R-UT] and Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL] ‒ that can solve this hemorrhaging injustice in our society. Under the rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, qualifying undocumented youth would be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two years of military service.
-Patricia
Immigrant Students Detained for the DREAM Act from Barni Qaasim on Vimeo.
by Barni Qaasim
On May 17, 2010 five immigrant students held a sit-in in Senator John McCain's office in Tucson, AZ. Four students, including three who were undocumented, were detained by the police. When they face the judge tomorrow morning they may face deportation
Over three million students graduate from U.S. high schools every year. Most get the opportunity to test their dreams and live their American story. However, a group of approximately 65,000 youth do not get this opportunity; they are smeared with an inherited title, an illegal immigrant. These youth have lived in the United States for most of their lives and want nothing more than to be recognized for what they are, Americans.
The DREAM Act is a bipartisan legislation ‒ pioneered by Sen. Orin Hatch [R-UT] and Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL] ‒ that can solve this hemorrhaging injustice in our society. Under the rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, qualifying undocumented youth would be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two years of military service.
¡Alto Arizona! Isabel Garcia
Check out this powerful statement by Isabel Garcia
-Patricia
Isabel Garcia, Pima County Public Defender and Derechos Humanos member speaking out against Arizona's SB1070. Sign the petition at altoarizona.com and come to the National Day of Action in Phoenix, AZ on May 29, 2010.
On Friday, April 23rd, Governor Jan Brewer joined the ranks of George Wallace and others like him who sought to gain political advantage by encouraging hatred and bigotry. And while Brewer and Sheriff Joe Arpaio may have written themselves into the history books by supporting this repugnant law, they will appear as nothing more than a footnote. Indeed, this chapter of history will be written by the millions of immigrants who assert their place in the American story like all others who came before them. This chapter will be written by a new generation of fearless leaders, like the thousands of high school students who walked out in Phoenix and Tucson, and the nine brave leaders who sacrificed their freedom to prevent and protest the enactment of an unjust and unconstitutional law. It will be written by all of us.
Arizona's immigrant community is organizing and preparing to mount the political, legal, and economic pressure needed to restore constitutional protections to the state. They need the nation's help to change the federal policy that allowed for the formation of SB 1070. The simple fact is that the President of the United States has the moral authority and legal obligation to intervene and put an end to SB 1070.
-Patricia
¡Alto Arizona! Isabel Garcia from Barni Qaasim on Vimeo.
Isabel Garcia, Pima County Public Defender and Derechos Humanos member speaking out against Arizona's SB1070. Sign the petition at altoarizona.com and come to the National Day of Action in Phoenix, AZ on May 29, 2010.
On Friday, April 23rd, Governor Jan Brewer joined the ranks of George Wallace and others like him who sought to gain political advantage by encouraging hatred and bigotry. And while Brewer and Sheriff Joe Arpaio may have written themselves into the history books by supporting this repugnant law, they will appear as nothing more than a footnote. Indeed, this chapter of history will be written by the millions of immigrants who assert their place in the American story like all others who came before them. This chapter will be written by a new generation of fearless leaders, like the thousands of high school students who walked out in Phoenix and Tucson, and the nine brave leaders who sacrificed their freedom to prevent and protest the enactment of an unjust and unconstitutional law. It will be written by all of us.
Arizona's immigrant community is organizing and preparing to mount the political, legal, and economic pressure needed to restore constitutional protections to the state. They need the nation's help to change the federal policy that allowed for the formation of SB 1070. The simple fact is that the President of the United States has the moral authority and legal obligation to intervene and put an end to SB 1070.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Educated, Non-Hysterical Debate is Too Much for Arizona
by Lorenzo Herrera y Lozano May 18, 2010 01:31 PM (PT) Topics: Civil Rights, Immigration, Multiculturalism, racism
Regardless of where you stand on Arizona’s SB1070 (which legalizes racial profiling) and HB2281 (which bans ethnic studies in public schools), you’ve likely heard about the backlash against such laws. As I've previously written, opponents are pushing for mass state boycotts, while others plan to descend on Arizona to protest.
In all these efforts, most of us enjoy the sense of being part of a group. Few of us are standing physically alone — before, for example, an anti-immigrant audience — while carrying the weight of an entire movement and people on our shoulders.
But Dr. Sandra Soto, professor at the University of Arizona, is one such person. While delivering the convocation address at the University of Arizona’s College of Social and Behavioral Sciences graduation ceremony this year, Dr. Soto publicly criticized Arizona’s anti-immigrant SB1070 and anti-people of color HB2281. This speech evoked immediate, roaring protest from the crowd, subsequent hate mail and demands that the University of Arizona terminate her employment.
So who is this woman at the center of the storm? To name just a few areas of her expertise, Dr. Soto is a leading voice on Chicana/o Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies and Queer Studies. As someone wedded to her convictions, she committed a dangerous and courageous act, standing firm in her delivery while speaking out against Arizona’s racist legislation. In so doing, Dr. Soto not only challenged these laws — she also called on the graduating class to adhere to a higher degree of humanity.
In her speech, Dr. Soto declared that it's our civic responsibility to have "educated, well-informed and non-hysterical debate.” Those words are especially true when it comes to the debate over Arizona's laws. Unfortunately, we've reached a point at which Dr. Soto’s words are actually getting deemed radical, when all she intended was to appeal to the basic humanity in all of us. After all, what's so radical about asking that we have educated, well-informed and non-hysterical debate about issues affecting the lives of thousands?
Perhaps the threat in these words lies in how they might actually encourage — as Dr. Soto describes — the development of "solutions that are fundamentally respectful of human and civil rights.” The crowd’s reactions, and the backlash that's followed, illustrate how low our society's regard for basic civil rights has sunk. As a scholar, a woman of color — a Chicana — Dr. Soto was simply honoring her own integrity by speaking on behalf of those of us who cannot or will not. For that, she's been publicly pilloried.
I once identified as a progressive — someone who believed in fundamental human rights and civil liberties. Based on the conservative wave washing over our “post-race” America, I realize the term progressive falls short. It seems those of us who hold beliefs like Dr. Soto's are in fact, radicals, perhaps of another planet. Arizona Governor Brewer was right; I am an alien.
Photo Credit: Ken Lund
Lorenzo Herrera y Lozano is the Associate Director of Justice Matters and has previously worked in queer communities of color in the South and Southwest.
Regardless of where you stand on Arizona’s SB1070 (which legalizes racial profiling) and HB2281 (which bans ethnic studies in public schools), you’ve likely heard about the backlash against such laws. As I've previously written, opponents are pushing for mass state boycotts, while others plan to descend on Arizona to protest.
In all these efforts, most of us enjoy the sense of being part of a group. Few of us are standing physically alone — before, for example, an anti-immigrant audience — while carrying the weight of an entire movement and people on our shoulders.
But Dr. Sandra Soto, professor at the University of Arizona, is one such person. While delivering the convocation address at the University of Arizona’s College of Social and Behavioral Sciences graduation ceremony this year, Dr. Soto publicly criticized Arizona’s anti-immigrant SB1070 and anti-people of color HB2281. This speech evoked immediate, roaring protest from the crowd, subsequent hate mail and demands that the University of Arizona terminate her employment.
So who is this woman at the center of the storm? To name just a few areas of her expertise, Dr. Soto is a leading voice on Chicana/o Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies and Queer Studies. As someone wedded to her convictions, she committed a dangerous and courageous act, standing firm in her delivery while speaking out against Arizona’s racist legislation. In so doing, Dr. Soto not only challenged these laws — she also called on the graduating class to adhere to a higher degree of humanity.
In her speech, Dr. Soto declared that it's our civic responsibility to have "educated, well-informed and non-hysterical debate.” Those words are especially true when it comes to the debate over Arizona's laws. Unfortunately, we've reached a point at which Dr. Soto’s words are actually getting deemed radical, when all she intended was to appeal to the basic humanity in all of us. After all, what's so radical about asking that we have educated, well-informed and non-hysterical debate about issues affecting the lives of thousands?
Perhaps the threat in these words lies in how they might actually encourage — as Dr. Soto describes — the development of "solutions that are fundamentally respectful of human and civil rights.” The crowd’s reactions, and the backlash that's followed, illustrate how low our society's regard for basic civil rights has sunk. As a scholar, a woman of color — a Chicana — Dr. Soto was simply honoring her own integrity by speaking on behalf of those of us who cannot or will not. For that, she's been publicly pilloried.
I once identified as a progressive — someone who believed in fundamental human rights and civil liberties. Based on the conservative wave washing over our “post-race” America, I realize the term progressive falls short. It seems those of us who hold beliefs like Dr. Soto's are in fact, radicals, perhaps of another planet. Arizona Governor Brewer was right; I am an alien.
Photo Credit: Ken Lund
Lorenzo Herrera y Lozano is the Associate Director of Justice Matters and has previously worked in queer communities of color in the South and Southwest.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The Truth Shall Not be Spoken in Arizona
Check this out. By Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report.
Angela
Angela
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
San Diego School Board Denounces Arizona's SB 1070
Below is a copy of the formal resolution passed (5-0 vote) by the San Diego Unified School Board, the second largest K-12 school district in California. There are 130,000 students enrolled in the district of which 75 % are from ethnic communities. Latino enrollment is 44% and growing.
-Patricia
BOARD OF EDUCATION
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of Denouncing Arizona )
Laws SB 1070 and HB 2162 and Warning ) RESOLUTION
San Diego School Children and Their )
Families of the Risk of Traveling to Arizona )
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2010, the Governor of Arizona signed into law SB 1070, permitting state and local law enforcement officials to engage in racial profiling, thereby turning the clock back on a generation of civil rights gains;
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2010, the Governor of Arizona signed into law HB 2162 which modifies SB 1070 to prohibit racial profiling but still criminalizes unlawful presence; still requires state and local law enforcement to engage in immigration enforcement; still requires police to question people they “reasonably suspect” of being in the country unlawfully in the course of any “lawful stop, detention or arrest”; and still grants police the authority to arrest individuals without a warrant for federal civil immigration violation;
WHEREAS, the law undermines fundamental civil rights and civil liberties, and poses a special threat to people of color who live in and travel through Arizona;
WHEREAS, public officials in Arizona are asserting that undocumented immigrants can be identified by the clothes they wear and the way they speak, and are using stereotypes as proxies for race which will inevitably lead to racial profiling;
WHEREAS, the State of California and the City of San Diego prohibit the unequal treatment of its residents and, furthermore, prohibit racial profiling of any kind;
WHEREAS, an estimated 75 percent of San Diego Unified school children are people of color and 44 percent are of Hispanic or Latino origin who potentially could be targeted and harassed by law enforcement officials in Arizona as “reasonably suspect” if they fall into a stereotype held by law enforcement officers;
WHEREAS, the Major Cities Chiefs of the United States stated in 2006 [http://www.houstontx.gov/police/pdfs/mcc_position.pdf] that when police engage in immigration enforcement, community members are less apt to call them when they witness or suffer a crime, thereby undermining the ability of police to protect the community and threatening public safety;
WHEREAS, to the extent the Arizona laws threaten public safety in Arizona, they also threaten public safety in neighboring California and could potentially undermine trust between police and the communities they serve in San Diego and in California;
WHEREAS, civil rights leaders, constitutional rights scholars, elected officials, and police chiefs across the country are repudiating the new law;
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2010, the City of San Diego passed a resolution condemning the Arizona laws;
WHEREAS, we need humane and workable solutions, not an irrational and irresponsible response to our broken immigration system, and we need solutions that help our state and our country move forward together rather than divide us apart;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the San Diego Unified School Board, for and on behalf of the school children and the families served by the school district, that the school board condemns Arizona State Law SB 1070 and HB 2162, and urges the State of Arizona to repeal both;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the San Diego Unified School district develop a policy restricting travel and participation in conferences in the State of Arizona;
BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED, that we call upon U.S. Congress members to develop comprehensive immigration reform that will be applied consistently throughout our nation;
Adopted and approved by the Board of Education of the San Diego Unified School District at the regular meeting held on the 11th day of May 2010.
-Patricia
BOARD OF EDUCATION
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of Denouncing Arizona )
Laws SB 1070 and HB 2162 and Warning ) RESOLUTION
San Diego School Children and Their )
Families of the Risk of Traveling to Arizona )
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2010, the Governor of Arizona signed into law SB 1070, permitting state and local law enforcement officials to engage in racial profiling, thereby turning the clock back on a generation of civil rights gains;
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2010, the Governor of Arizona signed into law HB 2162 which modifies SB 1070 to prohibit racial profiling but still criminalizes unlawful presence; still requires state and local law enforcement to engage in immigration enforcement; still requires police to question people they “reasonably suspect” of being in the country unlawfully in the course of any “lawful stop, detention or arrest”; and still grants police the authority to arrest individuals without a warrant for federal civil immigration violation;
WHEREAS, the law undermines fundamental civil rights and civil liberties, and poses a special threat to people of color who live in and travel through Arizona;
WHEREAS, public officials in Arizona are asserting that undocumented immigrants can be identified by the clothes they wear and the way they speak, and are using stereotypes as proxies for race which will inevitably lead to racial profiling;
WHEREAS, the State of California and the City of San Diego prohibit the unequal treatment of its residents and, furthermore, prohibit racial profiling of any kind;
WHEREAS, an estimated 75 percent of San Diego Unified school children are people of color and 44 percent are of Hispanic or Latino origin who potentially could be targeted and harassed by law enforcement officials in Arizona as “reasonably suspect” if they fall into a stereotype held by law enforcement officers;
WHEREAS, the Major Cities Chiefs of the United States stated in 2006 [http://www.houstontx.gov/police/pdfs/mcc_position.pdf] that when police engage in immigration enforcement, community members are less apt to call them when they witness or suffer a crime, thereby undermining the ability of police to protect the community and threatening public safety;
WHEREAS, to the extent the Arizona laws threaten public safety in Arizona, they also threaten public safety in neighboring California and could potentially undermine trust between police and the communities they serve in San Diego and in California;
WHEREAS, civil rights leaders, constitutional rights scholars, elected officials, and police chiefs across the country are repudiating the new law;
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2010, the City of San Diego passed a resolution condemning the Arizona laws;
WHEREAS, we need humane and workable solutions, not an irrational and irresponsible response to our broken immigration system, and we need solutions that help our state and our country move forward together rather than divide us apart;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the San Diego Unified School Board, for and on behalf of the school children and the families served by the school district, that the school board condemns Arizona State Law SB 1070 and HB 2162, and urges the State of Arizona to repeal both;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the San Diego Unified School district develop a policy restricting travel and participation in conferences in the State of Arizona;
BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED, that we call upon U.S. Congress members to develop comprehensive immigration reform that will be applied consistently throughout our nation;
Adopted and approved by the Board of Education of the San Diego Unified School District at the regular meeting held on the 11th day of May 2010.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
UC Berkeley Police forcefully take down hunger strike encampment as Chancellor returns from trip to Europe
> MEDIA ADVISORY
> For immediate release,
> May 10, 2010
>
> CONTACT:
> Marco Amaral (619) 764-8540 marco.amaral6@gmail.com
> Tanya Smith (510) 325-6381 tanyagays@yahoo.com
> Maricruz Manzanarez (510) 375-0245 balucu@hotmail.com
> Horacio Corona (fasting) (559) 789-2381 corona12@berkeley.edu
> Katherine Isabel Vega (661) 802-2943 kathyivega@gmail.com
>
>
> UC Berkeley Police forcefully take down hunger strike encampment as Chancellor returns from trip to Europe
> After 170 hours without food, strikers vow to continue until demands met
>
> When: Now, Monday May 10th
> Where: California Hall on UC Berkeley Campus
> Visuals: dozens of supporters, hunger strikers forced dispersal of encampment.
>
> BERKELEY, CA- At 6am UC Police arrived at the site of the 7 day-old hunger strike with an order to disperse the encampment or face arrest.
>
> This all comes as UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, who has been traveling in Europe during the duration of the strike, returns today to face the strikers for the first time. Many had criticized the Chancellor for not returning earlier to work to resolve the situation, though it appears the administration's techniques have taken a more forceful turn as with the Chancellor's return. Hunger strikers, visibly weak after fasting for over 170 hours, are currently struggling to take down the camp.
>
> "They say they're doing this for our health and for the good of the students" says Marco Amaral, a freshman who is one of the organizers of the strike. "But if Chancellor Birgeneau really cared about the health of the students he wouldn't be forcing those on the strike to leave in this manner. If the Chancellor truly cared about the students and workers of this campus he would meet our demands and end the strike."
>
> Students, workers, and community supporters have been protesting on the front lawn of California Hall since last Monday. The 19 individuals on the hunger strike have demands of denouncing racist legislation in Arizona, creating a sanctuary campus and ending retaliation against student and worker activists (see next page for complete demands).
>
> "Our demands are very reasonable and the Chancellor could meet them at any time", continued Amaral. "We are not ending this strike until they are all met. The Chancellor needs to decide if he's going to stand with the students, workers, faculty and supporters at the Berkeley campus, and the people of California, or if he's going to stand with the racists who are passing these laws in Arizona and perpetuating violence against people of color".
>
> A rally has been planned today at 3:30pm to increase the pressure on the administration. In addition, regularly scheduled demonstrations each day with an 11am mass and prayer service and a 7pm rally.
>
> For up-to-date information on the hunger strike visit our Facebook page at
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=114079228632152
>
> The demands to end the hunger strike are:
>
> 1. Publically denounce Arizona's SB1070 Law and ask President Yudof and other UC Chancellors to do the same. We urge you to bring this up at tomorrow's UC system-wide meeting with other Chancellors. Blatantly racist and xenophobic laws run counter to the values of the UC education system.
>
> 2. Make UC Berkeley a Sanctuary Campus and provide extensive protection for undocumented students.
>
> 3. Drop all student conduct charges related to protest actions that occurred during the academic year 2009-10.
>
> 4. Stop cuts to low-wage workers on campus and stop attacks against union activists; rehire all AFSCME service workers and UPTE union activists and Cal performances employees.
>
>
> 5. Suspend the Student code of conduct and initiate a democratic student-led process to review the code. Those participating in this process should be charged with attending particularly to concerns about students' due process rights and to free speech considerations. If, through this review, it is determined that a new code can be written in any way that adequately addresses these concerns, a new code should be written by a democratic, student-led body. If not, the student code of conduct should be abolished.
>
> 6. Accept responsibility for the violence and escalation of the confrontation surrounding Wheeler Hall on November 20th and December 11th 2009 that resulted in injuries to many students and jeopardized the safety and security of AB540 students. Additionally, commit to using non-violent means of ensuring safety at student demonstrations in the future.
> For immediate release,
> May 10, 2010
>
> CONTACT:
> Marco Amaral (619) 764-8540 marco.amaral6@gmail.com
> Tanya Smith (510) 325-6381 tanyagays@yahoo.com
> Maricruz Manzanarez (510) 375-0245 balucu@hotmail.com
> Horacio Corona (fasting) (559) 789-2381 corona12@berkeley.edu
> Katherine Isabel Vega (661) 802-2943 kathyivega@gmail.com
>
>
> UC Berkeley Police forcefully take down hunger strike encampment as Chancellor returns from trip to Europe
> After 170 hours without food, strikers vow to continue until demands met
>
> When: Now, Monday May 10th
> Where: California Hall on UC Berkeley Campus
> Visuals: dozens of supporters, hunger strikers forced dispersal of encampment.
>
> BERKELEY, CA- At 6am UC Police arrived at the site of the 7 day-old hunger strike with an order to disperse the encampment or face arrest.
>
> This all comes as UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, who has been traveling in Europe during the duration of the strike, returns today to face the strikers for the first time. Many had criticized the Chancellor for not returning earlier to work to resolve the situation, though it appears the administration's techniques have taken a more forceful turn as with the Chancellor's return. Hunger strikers, visibly weak after fasting for over 170 hours, are currently struggling to take down the camp.
>
> "They say they're doing this for our health and for the good of the students" says Marco Amaral, a freshman who is one of the organizers of the strike. "But if Chancellor Birgeneau really cared about the health of the students he wouldn't be forcing those on the strike to leave in this manner. If the Chancellor truly cared about the students and workers of this campus he would meet our demands and end the strike."
>
> Students, workers, and community supporters have been protesting on the front lawn of California Hall since last Monday. The 19 individuals on the hunger strike have demands of denouncing racist legislation in Arizona, creating a sanctuary campus and ending retaliation against student and worker activists (see next page for complete demands).
>
> "Our demands are very reasonable and the Chancellor could meet them at any time", continued Amaral. "We are not ending this strike until they are all met. The Chancellor needs to decide if he's going to stand with the students, workers, faculty and supporters at the Berkeley campus, and the people of California, or if he's going to stand with the racists who are passing these laws in Arizona and perpetuating violence against people of color".
>
> A rally has been planned today at 3:30pm to increase the pressure on the administration. In addition, regularly scheduled demonstrations each day with an 11am mass and prayer service and a 7pm rally.
>
> For up-to-date information on the hunger strike visit our Facebook page at
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=114079228632152
>
> The demands to end the hunger strike are:
>
> 1. Publically denounce Arizona's SB1070 Law and ask President Yudof and other UC Chancellors to do the same. We urge you to bring this up at tomorrow's UC system-wide meeting with other Chancellors. Blatantly racist and xenophobic laws run counter to the values of the UC education system.
>
> 2. Make UC Berkeley a Sanctuary Campus and provide extensive protection for undocumented students.
>
> 3. Drop all student conduct charges related to protest actions that occurred during the academic year 2009-10.
>
> 4. Stop cuts to low-wage workers on campus and stop attacks against union activists; rehire all AFSCME service workers and UPTE union activists and Cal performances employees.
>
>
> 5. Suspend the Student code of conduct and initiate a democratic student-led process to review the code. Those participating in this process should be charged with attending particularly to concerns about students' due process rights and to free speech considerations. If, through this review, it is determined that a new code can be written in any way that adequately addresses these concerns, a new code should be written by a democratic, student-led body. If not, the student code of conduct should be abolished.
>
> 6. Accept responsibility for the violence and escalation of the confrontation surrounding Wheeler Hall on November 20th and December 11th 2009 that resulted in injuries to many students and jeopardized the safety and security of AB540 students. Additionally, commit to using non-violent means of ensuring safety at student demonstrations in the future.
Arizona immigration law inspires Michigan initiative
This should really concern us all. Arizona has really ignited a disaster.
-Patricia
MARK HORNBECK | Detroit News Lansing Bureau
May 9, 2010
Lansing -- The controversial immigration law recently passed in Arizona has sparked some interest in similar reform in Michigan.
Rep. Kim Meltzer, R-Clinton Township, is drafting a bill that would give police officers the authority to arrest illegal aliens who are stopped and questioned on another offense, while Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard is making immigration a key topic in his race for the Republican nomination for governor.
The Arizona law passed last month directs police to stop suspected illegal aliens and ask them for documentation proving their lawful residency. It has triggered a heated debate and numerous jokes on late-night television, touched off protests across the country and prompted states to look at revising their laws.
While Michigan doesn't have nearly the immigration problem states in the southwest have, the issue is enough of a concern to federal border officials that they allocated about $20 million a year ago for 11 cameras to be set up along the St. Clair River to watch for illegal immigrants crossing from Canada.
Meltzer said she's proposing tightening immigration laws because "we have borders in place for a reason. "We should not tie the hands of local law enforcement."
She said the firestorm over the Arizona law is misplaced.
"Everyone should play by the rules," Meltzer said.
Meltzer said she's realistic about the chances of her bill being taken up by the Democrat-dominated House. She said other immigration legislation she has proposed has languished in committee.
Shelli Weisberg, legislative director for ACLU Michigan, said the organization will fight the Meltzer bill in the Legislature and in court if it comes to that.
"We don't want an Arizona-style bill. It encourages racial profiling," Weisberg said.
She added such a law would put Michigan out of step with other states and "make us look like a police state."
The national ACLU's website urges members to pass alson a message to their governors and lawmakers: "What happens in Arizona, stops in Arizona."
Bouchard is hitting the immigration issue hard in his campaign. He says the federal government's failure to secure the borders is the reason Arizona had to take action. He called for Michigan to follow the Grand Canyon State's example.
"More and more people are sneaking into America on the southern and northern borders from countries that are known terrorist havens," Bouchard said. He also said those here illegally are taking jobs and stealing identities to get those jobs.
"Michigan is a huge border state and needs to follow suit and pass legislation that allows local police to enforce mirroring provisions of federal law and then submit a bill to the federal government for costs."
Bill Rustem, president of the Lansing-based Public Sector Consultants Inc., said there likely isn't much political mileage to be gained from pushing an immigration law here similar to the Arizona measure.
"It probably appeals to a small percentage of people who will vote in a Republican primary and an even smaller portion of the general election," Rustem said. "It seems to be a purely political calculation to reach out and say 'I'm more conservative than my opponent,' and to appeal to the tea party wing. I don't sense any massive rage against immigrants in Michigan, whether they're from Mexico or Canada."
There is no official estimate of the number of illegal aliens in Michigan, said state demographer Ken Darga, who added the counting process "is pretty imprecise."
Ken Grabowski, legislative director for the Police Officers Association of Michigan, said a law giving local police more authority to deal with illegal aliens is "probably something that needs to be done.
"In many instances, if police find someone who is here illegally, they take them to the local (Immigration and Naturalization Service) office, and the person is given an appearance notice for a later date. But nobody ever shows up. It's a farce."
-Patricia
MARK HORNBECK | Detroit News Lansing Bureau
May 9, 2010
Lansing -- The controversial immigration law recently passed in Arizona has sparked some interest in similar reform in Michigan.
Rep. Kim Meltzer, R-Clinton Township, is drafting a bill that would give police officers the authority to arrest illegal aliens who are stopped and questioned on another offense, while Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard is making immigration a key topic in his race for the Republican nomination for governor.
The Arizona law passed last month directs police to stop suspected illegal aliens and ask them for documentation proving their lawful residency. It has triggered a heated debate and numerous jokes on late-night television, touched off protests across the country and prompted states to look at revising their laws.
While Michigan doesn't have nearly the immigration problem states in the southwest have, the issue is enough of a concern to federal border officials that they allocated about $20 million a year ago for 11 cameras to be set up along the St. Clair River to watch for illegal immigrants crossing from Canada.
Meltzer said she's proposing tightening immigration laws because "we have borders in place for a reason. "We should not tie the hands of local law enforcement."
She said the firestorm over the Arizona law is misplaced.
"Everyone should play by the rules," Meltzer said.
Meltzer said she's realistic about the chances of her bill being taken up by the Democrat-dominated House. She said other immigration legislation she has proposed has languished in committee.
Shelli Weisberg, legislative director for ACLU Michigan, said the organization will fight the Meltzer bill in the Legislature and in court if it comes to that.
"We don't want an Arizona-style bill. It encourages racial profiling," Weisberg said.
She added such a law would put Michigan out of step with other states and "make us look like a police state."
The national ACLU's website urges members to pass alson a message to their governors and lawmakers: "What happens in Arizona, stops in Arizona."
Bouchard is hitting the immigration issue hard in his campaign. He says the federal government's failure to secure the borders is the reason Arizona had to take action. He called for Michigan to follow the Grand Canyon State's example.
"More and more people are sneaking into America on the southern and northern borders from countries that are known terrorist havens," Bouchard said. He also said those here illegally are taking jobs and stealing identities to get those jobs.
"Michigan is a huge border state and needs to follow suit and pass legislation that allows local police to enforce mirroring provisions of federal law and then submit a bill to the federal government for costs."
Bill Rustem, president of the Lansing-based Public Sector Consultants Inc., said there likely isn't much political mileage to be gained from pushing an immigration law here similar to the Arizona measure.
"It probably appeals to a small percentage of people who will vote in a Republican primary and an even smaller portion of the general election," Rustem said. "It seems to be a purely political calculation to reach out and say 'I'm more conservative than my opponent,' and to appeal to the tea party wing. I don't sense any massive rage against immigrants in Michigan, whether they're from Mexico or Canada."
There is no official estimate of the number of illegal aliens in Michigan, said state demographer Ken Darga, who added the counting process "is pretty imprecise."
Ken Grabowski, legislative director for the Police Officers Association of Michigan, said a law giving local police more authority to deal with illegal aliens is "probably something that needs to be done.
"In many instances, if police find someone who is here illegally, they take them to the local (Immigration and Naturalization Service) office, and the person is given an appearance notice for a later date. But nobody ever shows up. It's a farce."
Monday, May 10, 2010
SACNAS responds to AZ immigration law SB 1070
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Judit Camacho, SACNAS Executive Director, (831) 459-0170, ext. 444
Jose Dolores Garcia, PhD, SACNAS President, (831) 459-0170
Kelli Williams, SACNAS Director of Communications, (831) 459-0170, ext. 225
SACNAS eliminates Arizona as potential conference location citing likelihood of attendee harassment due to SB1070 immigration law
SANTA CRUZ, CA, May 10, 2010 - In a recent letter to Governor Jan Brewer, SACNAS formally withdrew Phoenix as a potential conference site for its 2012 national conference, stating the new Arizona immigration law virtually guarantees harassment of its conference attendees, most of whom are Hispanic. SACNAS, a national society of scientists advancing Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in science, estimates the total loss in revenue to the local economy at $3 million.
"The leadership of SACNAS strongly believes the immigration law SB1070 will make the state inhospitable to people of color, especially Hispanics," says society president, Jose Dolores Garcia, PhD. "We have been seriously considering Phoenix as a site for our conference in 2012. However, we feel the passage of this law and the policies of Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio will lead to racial profiling of our students and faculty."
Each year, SACNAS holds a major annual national conference bringing together 3,000 student and professional scientists for a four-day meeting. Members of the organization are among the nation's brightest minds in science and represent over 300 leading research facilities, colleges and universities, government agencies and corporations.
The organization's executive director, Judit Camacho points out, "We are not only concerned for our Hispanic attendees, but also for the Native American populations we serve. The law's potential impact on the civil liberties of all Americans cannot be underestimated. Unfortunately, the state has simply become too hostile for the safety and well-being of our members."
If Arizona's current punitive immigration law is repealed, SACNAS may again consider Phoenix as a possible future conference site.
SACNAS is a 37-year-old professional society of scientists dedicated to fostering the success of Chicano/Hispanic and Native American scientists-from college students to professionals-in attaining advanced degrees, careers, and positions of leadership. It has been recognized by the National Science Board as the premier organization promoting diversity in science careers and has received the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring.
www.sacnas.org
Contact:
Judit Camacho, SACNAS Executive Director, (831) 459-0170, ext. 444
Jose Dolores Garcia, PhD, SACNAS President, (831) 459-0170
Kelli Williams, SACNAS Director of Communications, (831) 459-0170, ext. 225
SACNAS eliminates Arizona as potential conference location citing likelihood of attendee harassment due to SB1070 immigration law
SANTA CRUZ, CA, May 10, 2010 - In a recent letter to Governor Jan Brewer, SACNAS formally withdrew Phoenix as a potential conference site for its 2012 national conference, stating the new Arizona immigration law virtually guarantees harassment of its conference attendees, most of whom are Hispanic. SACNAS, a national society of scientists advancing Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in science, estimates the total loss in revenue to the local economy at $3 million.
"The leadership of SACNAS strongly believes the immigration law SB1070 will make the state inhospitable to people of color, especially Hispanics," says society president, Jose Dolores Garcia, PhD. "We have been seriously considering Phoenix as a site for our conference in 2012. However, we feel the passage of this law and the policies of Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio will lead to racial profiling of our students and faculty."
Each year, SACNAS holds a major annual national conference bringing together 3,000 student and professional scientists for a four-day meeting. Members of the organization are among the nation's brightest minds in science and represent over 300 leading research facilities, colleges and universities, government agencies and corporations.
The organization's executive director, Judit Camacho points out, "We are not only concerned for our Hispanic attendees, but also for the Native American populations we serve. The law's potential impact on the civil liberties of all Americans cannot be underestimated. Unfortunately, the state has simply become too hostile for the safety and well-being of our members."
If Arizona's current punitive immigration law is repealed, SACNAS may again consider Phoenix as a possible future conference site.
SACNAS is a 37-year-old professional society of scientists dedicated to fostering the success of Chicano/Hispanic and Native American scientists-from college students to professionals-in attaining advanced degrees, careers, and positions of leadership. It has been recognized by the National Science Board as the premier organization promoting diversity in science careers and has received the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring.
www.sacnas.org
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
AERA Leaders Vow to Boycott Arizona
By Debra Viadero | Ed Week
May 2, 2010
The 25,000-member American Educational Research Association has joined the growing list of organizations vowing to boycott Arizona in protest of its new immigration law.
At its annual meeting here in Denver, the group's governing council approved a resolution on Friday declaring that it will no longer hold meetings in the state until the law is rescinded.
"As education researchers, we need to be concerned about the effects this new law may have on fostering an environment of fear with consequences for students' learning, educational achievement, and attachment to and belief in the social institutions of society," said Kris Gutierrez, the group's president-elect and a researcher from the University of Colorado at Boulder.
The organization's boycott resolution comes days after Denver Public Schools did much the same thing, banning its employees from attending any work-related conferences in Arizona. And on Saturday, thousands of Denver-area protesters marched from a local high school to the state Capitol, cutting a swath through the middle of the downtown area where AERA members were shuffling from hotel to hotel.
Even in an Ivory Tower, you can't escape the politics of immigration.
May 2, 2010
The 25,000-member American Educational Research Association has joined the growing list of organizations vowing to boycott Arizona in protest of its new immigration law.
At its annual meeting here in Denver, the group's governing council approved a resolution on Friday declaring that it will no longer hold meetings in the state until the law is rescinded.
"As education researchers, we need to be concerned about the effects this new law may have on fostering an environment of fear with consequences for students' learning, educational achievement, and attachment to and belief in the social institutions of society," said Kris Gutierrez, the group's president-elect and a researcher from the University of Colorado at Boulder.
The organization's boycott resolution comes days after Denver Public Schools did much the same thing, banning its employees from attending any work-related conferences in Arizona. And on Saturday, thousands of Denver-area protesters marched from a local high school to the state Capitol, cutting a swath through the middle of the downtown area where AERA members were shuffling from hotel to hotel.
Even in an Ivory Tower, you can't escape the politics of immigration.
AERA Resolves to Avoid Arizona in Response to Immigration Law
By Peter Schmidt | Chronicle of Higher Ed
Denver
May 1, 2010
The American Educational Research Association's governing council voted overwhelmingly Friday to no longer hold meetings or conferences in the state of Arizona in response to that state's passage of a controversial law calling for police officers to demand proof of legal immigration status of people whom they suspect of being undocumented aliens.
The resolution, approved by every voting member of the council except one who abstained, argues that the new law "is so broad in its reach and enforcement powers that it can have an adverse impact on the freedom to travel or assemble without encroachment." It says the association "will no longer hold meetings or conferences in the state of Arizona until such time as this law is rescinded or AERA otherwise revisits the issue."
At a news conference on Saturday held to announce the adoption of the new resolution, Kris D. Gutiérrez, the association's president-elect, said the council voted on the measure under an organizational bylaw allowing the group to define the appropriate conditions for its meeting locations and take the safety and security of those who will participate into account. Although the group had no plans to hold its annual conference in Arizona any time soon, it routinely holds smaller organizational meetings and other events at Arizona State University, and its leadership was concerned that its members might be stopped or detained by state or local law enforcement officers, she said.
As Ms. Gutiérrez and other AERA representatives at the news conference discussed the resolution, however, it became clear that their objections to the new Arizona law extended well beyond concerns about their members' ability to travel freely without fear of intimidation or run-ins with the police.
Ms. Gutiérrez, an Arizona native who is a professor of learning sciences and literacy in the School of Education at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wore a sign on her conference name tag that said "I could be illegal." She said her organization plans to use its resources to disseminate research on the negative effects of the law, which she sees as likely to impede researchers' efforts to study immigrants who will be fearful of identifying themselves as such.
Patricia Gándara, a professor of education at the University of California at Los Angeles and co-director of the Civil Rights Project there, said, "We are very concerned that Arizona is turning into the new apartheid South." She said the group also worries that the law will derail international education efforts, especially those involving the United States and Mexico, and make immigrant families in Arizona fearful to venture out to send their children to school.
Felice J. Levine, the executive director of AERA, criticized the Arizona measure as not grounded in empirical social-science research on its likely impact on law enforcement and people in that state. She said her organization's leaders feel obliged to speak out against the measure because they fear it will have a chilling effect on research.
Denver
May 1, 2010
The American Educational Research Association's governing council voted overwhelmingly Friday to no longer hold meetings or conferences in the state of Arizona in response to that state's passage of a controversial law calling for police officers to demand proof of legal immigration status of people whom they suspect of being undocumented aliens.
The resolution, approved by every voting member of the council except one who abstained, argues that the new law "is so broad in its reach and enforcement powers that it can have an adverse impact on the freedom to travel or assemble without encroachment." It says the association "will no longer hold meetings or conferences in the state of Arizona until such time as this law is rescinded or AERA otherwise revisits the issue."
At a news conference on Saturday held to announce the adoption of the new resolution, Kris D. Gutiérrez, the association's president-elect, said the council voted on the measure under an organizational bylaw allowing the group to define the appropriate conditions for its meeting locations and take the safety and security of those who will participate into account. Although the group had no plans to hold its annual conference in Arizona any time soon, it routinely holds smaller organizational meetings and other events at Arizona State University, and its leadership was concerned that its members might be stopped or detained by state or local law enforcement officers, she said.
As Ms. Gutiérrez and other AERA representatives at the news conference discussed the resolution, however, it became clear that their objections to the new Arizona law extended well beyond concerns about their members' ability to travel freely without fear of intimidation or run-ins with the police.
Ms. Gutiérrez, an Arizona native who is a professor of learning sciences and literacy in the School of Education at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wore a sign on her conference name tag that said "I could be illegal." She said her organization plans to use its resources to disseminate research on the negative effects of the law, which she sees as likely to impede researchers' efforts to study immigrants who will be fearful of identifying themselves as such.
Patricia Gándara, a professor of education at the University of California at Los Angeles and co-director of the Civil Rights Project there, said, "We are very concerned that Arizona is turning into the new apartheid South." She said the group also worries that the law will derail international education efforts, especially those involving the United States and Mexico, and make immigrant families in Arizona fearful to venture out to send their children to school.
Felice J. Levine, the executive director of AERA, criticized the Arizona measure as not grounded in empirical social-science research on its likely impact on law enforcement and people in that state. She said her organization's leaders feel obliged to speak out against the measure because they fear it will have a chilling effect on research.
'I Could Be Illegal'
Inside Higher Ed
May 3, 2010
DENVER -- At a hastily called news conference here Saturday afternoon, the president-elect of the American Educational Research Association was sporting an unusual name tag over her official badge. It said "I Could Be Illegal." Another scholar at the press conference wore a name tag that said "Being Brown Isn't a Crime."
The briefing was called to announce that the AERA's Council had voted not to hold any further meetings in Arizona. The new immigration law in that state is "so broad in its reach and enforcement powers that it can have an adverse impact on the freedom to travel or assemble without encroachment," the boycott resolution says.
Research on immigrant students -- both those with full legal status in the United States and those lacking it -- was well-represented on the agenda of the AERA's annual meeting, even before the recent turmoil over the Arizona law. But in the quickly-distributed name badges or buttons, the numerous references to Arizona, and a general sense of urgency about the issue, the new law clearly changed the mood here.
If anyone at the meeting was a fan of the law, he or she couldn't be located, in part because of the numerous reasons cited by researchers here to be angry at Arizona. These scholars feel that their research on immigration has been ignored, that doing research in Arizona or elsewhere on immigrant children may now be more difficult, and (for some) that they could personally be at unacceptable risk if they were to travel to Arizona.
Kris Gutiérrez, president-elect of the association and a professor of education at the University of Colorado at Boulder, noted that she is a native of Arizona and that if she returned, and happened to be stopped by authorities without her license handy, she could be identified as someone to be treated as if she had no legal right to be in the country. "This is my personal statement," she said.
The AERA boycott resolution doesn't reference immigration policy in general, just the impact of the new law on researchers -- a distinction Gutiérrez said was important because of the association's nonprofit status. (The Arizona law has many controversial provisions, including permitting the police to question those who somehow appear to be in the country illegally, a provision widely criticized as a measure that will encourage ethnic profiling of Latinos -- whatever their immigration status.)
“This materially affects our research," Gutiérrez said. "We are interested in studying our communities, many of whom are immigrant. We are interested in looking at the learning going on.... Doing this work requires the trust and respect of these communities. Researchers are also held suspect in these communities. You layer onto it the fear of being profiled and deported" and many children will be scared to talk to researchers and many parents won't want their children studied.
Scholars stressed that the research problems weren't just facing those who specialize in immigrant education issues. It would be impossible to conduct research on education in many urban (and plenty of suburban or rural) areas without considering immigrants, with or without legal documents, they said.
Many speakers here said that much of the legislative push to crack down on immigration is based on false assumptions and that it ignores their research. They talked about studies showing that immigration crackdowns don't send anyone back across the border, but can chase people away from schools. They talked about how those in school -- even from families where the parents don't speak English -- are in fact learning English, counter to what one might hear from some immigration critics. And they talked about research about the importance of parental involvement in students' educations -- involvement that may disappear if more parents are afraid of authorities.
While many researchers here complained about how difficult it is to be heard in the debate on immigration issues, some resolved to do more. Patricia Gándara, professor of education and co-director of the Civil Rights Project at the University of California at Los Angeles, said that Arizona is turning into "the new apartheid South" and that researchers need to document what is happening. She said that her research center is planning a series of projects to do just that.
The Impact on College Students
Most of the immigration scholarship presented here focused on elementary and secondary school students. But a number of scholars are also looking at college students. The research on higher education generally stresses the problems faced by students trying to earn a college degree and policies that could help them. Patricia A. Pérez, assistant professor of Chicana/o studies at California State University at Fullerton, is presenting research on the way undocumented students pay for college and view affordability issues.
Several of the papers here attempt to personalize the issue -- and to challenge the stereotypes about these students. These profiles of individual students are particularly important, scholars say, because the legal situation in Arizona, and fears elsewhere, make it hard for students to speak in public about their situations. Tracy Buenavista of California State University at Northridge and Angela Chuan-Ru Chen are presenting a paper about an undocumented Asian-American college student, attempting to show that these issues affect more than one ethnic group.
Ryan Evely Gildersleeve, assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at Iowa State University, is presenting his work on life stories of undocumented students. In an interview, he said that he hoped these stories would challenge the consciences of policy makers and also inject some common sense into the discussion.
He will describe here the story of a student who graduated from a community college in Los Angeles and is now at UCLA, and the family sacrifices that are involved to assure her success. "She's really not just going to college for her family, but with her family," Gildersleeve said. Her family members had to bring in extra income to allow her to quit a job to have time for college, and they had to assign child care duties she'd been performing to others. These examples, he said, show just how much the students and their families want an education.
Another student he has profiled is graduating this year with a degree in computer science and a minor in mathematics. "The state of California needs hundreds more like this young man, who is bilingual and biliterate, and yet he's scared to leave his home county," Gildersleeve said.
His situation shows that, even if policies are changed to make it easier for these students to enroll in college, more reform is needed, Gildersleeve said. Otherwise these students will graduate and then be unable to make the best use of their educations. The stories are needed, he said, so undocumented students are not faceless.
"By focusing on lives, I want to show that when we talk about policy, it's not devoid of human beings," he said.
— Scott Jaschik
May 3, 2010
DENVER -- At a hastily called news conference here Saturday afternoon, the president-elect of the American Educational Research Association was sporting an unusual name tag over her official badge. It said "I Could Be Illegal." Another scholar at the press conference wore a name tag that said "Being Brown Isn't a Crime."
The briefing was called to announce that the AERA's Council had voted not to hold any further meetings in Arizona. The new immigration law in that state is "so broad in its reach and enforcement powers that it can have an adverse impact on the freedom to travel or assemble without encroachment," the boycott resolution says.
Research on immigrant students -- both those with full legal status in the United States and those lacking it -- was well-represented on the agenda of the AERA's annual meeting, even before the recent turmoil over the Arizona law. But in the quickly-distributed name badges or buttons, the numerous references to Arizona, and a general sense of urgency about the issue, the new law clearly changed the mood here.
If anyone at the meeting was a fan of the law, he or she couldn't be located, in part because of the numerous reasons cited by researchers here to be angry at Arizona. These scholars feel that their research on immigration has been ignored, that doing research in Arizona or elsewhere on immigrant children may now be more difficult, and (for some) that they could personally be at unacceptable risk if they were to travel to Arizona.
Kris Gutiérrez, president-elect of the association and a professor of education at the University of Colorado at Boulder, noted that she is a native of Arizona and that if she returned, and happened to be stopped by authorities without her license handy, she could be identified as someone to be treated as if she had no legal right to be in the country. "This is my personal statement," she said.
The AERA boycott resolution doesn't reference immigration policy in general, just the impact of the new law on researchers -- a distinction Gutiérrez said was important because of the association's nonprofit status. (The Arizona law has many controversial provisions, including permitting the police to question those who somehow appear to be in the country illegally, a provision widely criticized as a measure that will encourage ethnic profiling of Latinos -- whatever their immigration status.)
“This materially affects our research," Gutiérrez said. "We are interested in studying our communities, many of whom are immigrant. We are interested in looking at the learning going on.... Doing this work requires the trust and respect of these communities. Researchers are also held suspect in these communities. You layer onto it the fear of being profiled and deported" and many children will be scared to talk to researchers and many parents won't want their children studied.
Scholars stressed that the research problems weren't just facing those who specialize in immigrant education issues. It would be impossible to conduct research on education in many urban (and plenty of suburban or rural) areas without considering immigrants, with or without legal documents, they said.
Many speakers here said that much of the legislative push to crack down on immigration is based on false assumptions and that it ignores their research. They talked about studies showing that immigration crackdowns don't send anyone back across the border, but can chase people away from schools. They talked about how those in school -- even from families where the parents don't speak English -- are in fact learning English, counter to what one might hear from some immigration critics. And they talked about research about the importance of parental involvement in students' educations -- involvement that may disappear if more parents are afraid of authorities.
While many researchers here complained about how difficult it is to be heard in the debate on immigration issues, some resolved to do more. Patricia Gándara, professor of education and co-director of the Civil Rights Project at the University of California at Los Angeles, said that Arizona is turning into "the new apartheid South" and that researchers need to document what is happening. She said that her research center is planning a series of projects to do just that.
The Impact on College Students
Most of the immigration scholarship presented here focused on elementary and secondary school students. But a number of scholars are also looking at college students. The research on higher education generally stresses the problems faced by students trying to earn a college degree and policies that could help them. Patricia A. Pérez, assistant professor of Chicana/o studies at California State University at Fullerton, is presenting research on the way undocumented students pay for college and view affordability issues.
Several of the papers here attempt to personalize the issue -- and to challenge the stereotypes about these students. These profiles of individual students are particularly important, scholars say, because the legal situation in Arizona, and fears elsewhere, make it hard for students to speak in public about their situations. Tracy Buenavista of California State University at Northridge and Angela Chuan-Ru Chen are presenting a paper about an undocumented Asian-American college student, attempting to show that these issues affect more than one ethnic group.
Ryan Evely Gildersleeve, assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at Iowa State University, is presenting his work on life stories of undocumented students. In an interview, he said that he hoped these stories would challenge the consciences of policy makers and also inject some common sense into the discussion.
He will describe here the story of a student who graduated from a community college in Los Angeles and is now at UCLA, and the family sacrifices that are involved to assure her success. "She's really not just going to college for her family, but with her family," Gildersleeve said. Her family members had to bring in extra income to allow her to quit a job to have time for college, and they had to assign child care duties she'd been performing to others. These examples, he said, show just how much the students and their families want an education.
Another student he has profiled is graduating this year with a degree in computer science and a minor in mathematics. "The state of California needs hundreds more like this young man, who is bilingual and biliterate, and yet he's scared to leave his home county," Gildersleeve said.
His situation shows that, even if policies are changed to make it easier for these students to enroll in college, more reform is needed, Gildersleeve said. Otherwise these students will graduate and then be unable to make the best use of their educations. The stories are needed, he said, so undocumented students are not faceless.
"By focusing on lives, I want to show that when we talk about policy, it's not devoid of human beings," he said.
— Scott Jaschik
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)