So yes, this blog has been quiet for over a year. But we have been doing different things and are going to start using this blog again to share our activities and ideas. You can also find us here.
Right now we are working on gathering food donations for the Pioneer Valley Project's food bank. We have done this before and hosted a member to speak about their group at our event in October, "Disowning Columbus Day: Celebrating People's Resistance." (more to come about that mini-conference soon!)
Food donations need to be culturally sensitive, that is, recognizing that most of the people who work with the Pioneer Valley Project are migrants or immigrants from Mexico and Central America so please bring beans, rice, maseca (corn flour) and other such items.
Donations can go outside of the office of Judith Flores Carmona, in the Franklin Patterson Hall (top floor, right near the copy machine), Hampshire College, Amherst, MA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR GENEROSITY!!!
Monday, November 28, 2011
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Drop the I-Word.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/10/why_i_dont_use_the_i-word--in_any_form.html
BY RINKU SEN
"Since we launched the Drop the I-Word campaign, thousands of people and numerous media outlets have pledged not to label immigrants criminals and to affirm their humanity and dignity. Of those thousands, some are immigrants, both undocumented and with papers, who are asking us to stand up for our values, not just bear witness to their demise. Others are allies who recognize that this is an historic moment to support a resilient community. Still others are motivated by the simple recognition that journalists and everyday people alike can no longer allow fear mongers to dictate the parameters of our conversation.
We have also encountered skepticism, notably from progressive reporters. While our colleagues agree that “illegals” is a slur, they’re okay with its longer version, “illegal immigrant.” Ezra Klein at the Washington Post, for instance, dismisses “word games” that “paper over” the issue. But Klein picks the wrong target. As long as we use the word “illegal” in connection with immigration or immigrants, it papers over the fact that our laws are unjustly applied. It creates the illusion of simplicity, when that could not be further from the case. The only thing that should be simple is that immigrants are real people, not problems."
READ FULL ARTICLE AT THE LINK ABOVE.
BY RINKU SEN
"Since we launched the Drop the I-Word campaign, thousands of people and numerous media outlets have pledged not to label immigrants criminals and to affirm their humanity and dignity. Of those thousands, some are immigrants, both undocumented and with papers, who are asking us to stand up for our values, not just bear witness to their demise. Others are allies who recognize that this is an historic moment to support a resilient community. Still others are motivated by the simple recognition that journalists and everyday people alike can no longer allow fear mongers to dictate the parameters of our conversation.
We have also encountered skepticism, notably from progressive reporters. While our colleagues agree that “illegals” is a slur, they’re okay with its longer version, “illegal immigrant.” Ezra Klein at the Washington Post, for instance, dismisses “word games” that “paper over” the issue. But Klein picks the wrong target. As long as we use the word “illegal” in connection with immigration or immigrants, it papers over the fact that our laws are unjustly applied. It creates the illusion of simplicity, when that could not be further from the case. The only thing that should be simple is that immigrants are real people, not problems."
READ FULL ARTICLE AT THE LINK ABOVE.
Birthright Citizenship under attack
http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/10/efforts_to_revoke_birthright_citizenship_move_to_state_level.html
36Share
The Roots of the GOP’s Birthright Citizenship Mania
If you thought ending birthright citizenship and anti-immigrant slurs like “anchor babies” might go away after the elections wrapped up, we’ve got news for you.
Elise Foley reports for the Washington Independent that State Legislators for Legal Immigration, a coalition of immigration-restrictionist lawmakers in 41 states, is kicking off a national effort this week to get states to pass bills that rewrite the Constitution. The fourteenth amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of the immigration status of the baby’s parents. If groups like the 14th Amendment Citizens Model Committee gets its way though, that right will be limited to people whose parents are legal residents or U.S. citizens.
At least a dozen Republican state lawmakers have plans to introduce bills in their states’ next legislative session to revoke birthright citizenship rights for kids born to undocumented immigrants. SB 1070-author and Arizona state Rep. Russell Pearce has already announced his plans to do so.
Right-wing lawmakers know what they’re proposing is currently against the law, and that’s the point. They’re itching for a legal battle so that they can get the Supreme Court to take up the issue. Legal scholars argue that the Constitution’s language on birthright citizenship is crystal clear. It says: “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.”
And yet the bills are on their way soon. Pearce has promised to deliver his by January. Check out Victor Goode’s breakdown of the right’s constitutional revisionism here.
Threats to roll back the 14th amendment’s birthright citizenship clause often sound too hare-brained to take seriously. But if right-wing lawmakers have their way, the talk may soon become bills, which may become laws.
36Share
The Roots of the GOP’s Birthright Citizenship Mania
If you thought ending birthright citizenship and anti-immigrant slurs like “anchor babies” might go away after the elections wrapped up, we’ve got news for you.
Elise Foley reports for the Washington Independent that State Legislators for Legal Immigration, a coalition of immigration-restrictionist lawmakers in 41 states, is kicking off a national effort this week to get states to pass bills that rewrite the Constitution. The fourteenth amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of the immigration status of the baby’s parents. If groups like the 14th Amendment Citizens Model Committee gets its way though, that right will be limited to people whose parents are legal residents or U.S. citizens.
At least a dozen Republican state lawmakers have plans to introduce bills in their states’ next legislative session to revoke birthright citizenship rights for kids born to undocumented immigrants. SB 1070-author and Arizona state Rep. Russell Pearce has already announced his plans to do so.
Right-wing lawmakers know what they’re proposing is currently against the law, and that’s the point. They’re itching for a legal battle so that they can get the Supreme Court to take up the issue. Legal scholars argue that the Constitution’s language on birthright citizenship is crystal clear. It says: “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.”
And yet the bills are on their way soon. Pearce has promised to deliver his by January. Check out Victor Goode’s breakdown of the right’s constitutional revisionism here.
Threats to roll back the 14th amendment’s birthright citizenship clause often sound too hare-brained to take seriously. But if right-wing lawmakers have their way, the talk may soon become bills, which may become laws.
ICE and Secure Communities
So eventhough this blog has been very inactive, I would like to start posting more news and analysis. Right now I, Jaymes, am writing from Chiapas, México, and invite all compañeros involved with this group to contribute to this blog. I am especially interested in thoughts about this article, and developments regarding sanctuary city movements and how we can oppose secure communities-ICE.
This article brings up a lot of questions about the transparency of ICE, its´goals and objectives, and the what the future of the immigrant rights movement is going to look like on a city government level. Comment! Discuss!
full article here
http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/10/the_federal_government_continues_to.html
by Seth Freed Wessler
Tuesday, October 12 2010
The federal government is expanding a troubled deportation program despite well documented flaws in it. Now, with news that it’s impossible to opt out of the program, immigrant rights activists are going back to the drawing board.
Last week Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, said that municipalities have no power to choose whether to participate in Secure Communities, a controversial program that checks the legal status of anyone booked into a local jail. The program has been criticized for indiscriminately shoving even lawful residents into deportation for petty offenses at best. Napolitano’s announcement comes as a shock to local advocates across the country who were previously informed that the program is optional and have mounted campaigns to convince localities to opt out.
Four counties have already voted to opt out of the program: Santa Clara, Calif.; Washington, D.C.; Arlington, Va.; and San Francisco. It appears they may have done so in vain. “What we have here is another set of conflicting statements from ICE as well as from DHS on Secure Communities,” says Arlington County Board Member J. Walter Tejada.
In September, Secretary Napolitano wrote a letter responding to a request for clarification from Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California. Napolitano’s letter confirmed that local governments have the power to opt out of Secure Communities. The announcement appeared to open new space for advocates and municipalities to halt the program’s expansion. But two weeks ago, the Washington Post quoted an anonymous government source who said the program was actually not optional. Why? Because Secure Communities relies on fingerprint data that all local law enforcement already send to the FBI, that the FBI then shares with ICE, there appears to be no way around the program.
Finally, Napolitano confirmed late last week that the program is not, in fact, voluntary. “We do not see this as an opt-in, opt-out program,” Napolitano told the Washington Post.
On the same day that Napolitano made her announcement, she proudly proclaimed that the immigration agency once again deported close to 400,000 people in fiscal year 2010. The department claims that a record number of those deported are immigrants convicted of crimes. But the government’s own data complicates the the picture. Those lumped into the category of “criminal alien,” the term used by ICE to refer to deportees with convictions, are often guilty only of not being a U.S. citizen.
secure_communities_100510.gifIndeed, close to 80 percent of all those deported as a result of Secure Communities had no criminal convictions at all, or were charged with some small infractions like traffic violations. Rather than focusing on immigrants with serious violent crime convictions, as the government says it intends to, the program is rounding up undocumented immigrants en masse, along with lawful residents who may only have minor convictions, often for drug possession. Many local advocates say that the program, which is now operational in over 600 municipalities in 32 states, is one of a set of untargeted tools leading to the indiscriminate deportations of non-citizens.
The program is just one part of a set of immigration programs that’s led to another consecutive year of record levels of deportations.
In a recent ColorLines investigation, I told the story of Shahed Hossain. Shahed lived in Fort Worth, Texas, with his family from the age of 10, but was deported to Bangladesh after a slip of tongue at the border—he told a border guard he was a citizen rather than a permanent resident. The case reveals how far off the rails our rapidly expanding deportation system has gone. But rather than acting to bring the immigration system under control, the Obama administration is further expanding its reach.
Advocates in the four counties where governments already voted not to participate in Secure Communities are now bewildered.
Jazmin Segura from Services, Immigrants Rights and Education Network (SIREN) in Santa Clara, says, “ICE is lacking transparency and there’s a lack of trust. They have been back peddling with a lot of things they’ve said. It’s another lie from ICE and it’s very frustrating.”
Segura says local advocates are exploring whether there are legal avenues to get out of the program, especially in light of the fact there is no legislated requirement for municipalities to participate. “There is no federal mandate for Secure Communities to be enforced. It’s something ICE is going on it’s own. So a lot of groups are looking into the legalities.”
Arlington’s Tejada says “at the very least, we want clarification on the part of ICE to specifically and unambiguously specify if there is an opt out. If so, how’s it works? And if not, why not?”
Tejada also suggests there may be other ways around the program. Secure Communities requires that local jails hold inmates identified by ICE until the agency can transfer that person to an immigration detention center. There remains some question as to whether local governments that vote to opt out of the program can simply go on functioning as if no ICE hold, or “detainer” were issued.
Tejada nods in that direction. “There needs to be a clarification of the weight that a detainer carries. What is the local obligation to and weight of that detainer?”
Colorlines emailed the Department of Homeland Security asking for clarification but did not receive an immediate response.
Meanwhile, Secure Communities is rapidly expanding. At the end of September, the entire state of Texas activated the program. Today, the LA Times reports that Los Angeles is also moving forward with plans to bring county criminal jails into partnership with ICE.
Sarahi Uribe, of the National Day Laborers Organizing Network, which is part of a national campaign against Secure Communities, says groups “will continue to push for local governments to opt out of the program. These local governments went through democratic processes and held public hearings,” she says. “And now there being denied the right to opt out of something they never opted into.”
This article brings up a lot of questions about the transparency of ICE, its´goals and objectives, and the what the future of the immigrant rights movement is going to look like on a city government level. Comment! Discuss!
full article here
http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/10/the_federal_government_continues_to.html
by Seth Freed Wessler
Tuesday, October 12 2010
The federal government is expanding a troubled deportation program despite well documented flaws in it. Now, with news that it’s impossible to opt out of the program, immigrant rights activists are going back to the drawing board.
Last week Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, said that municipalities have no power to choose whether to participate in Secure Communities, a controversial program that checks the legal status of anyone booked into a local jail. The program has been criticized for indiscriminately shoving even lawful residents into deportation for petty offenses at best. Napolitano’s announcement comes as a shock to local advocates across the country who were previously informed that the program is optional and have mounted campaigns to convince localities to opt out.
Four counties have already voted to opt out of the program: Santa Clara, Calif.; Washington, D.C.; Arlington, Va.; and San Francisco. It appears they may have done so in vain. “What we have here is another set of conflicting statements from ICE as well as from DHS on Secure Communities,” says Arlington County Board Member J. Walter Tejada.
In September, Secretary Napolitano wrote a letter responding to a request for clarification from Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California. Napolitano’s letter confirmed that local governments have the power to opt out of Secure Communities. The announcement appeared to open new space for advocates and municipalities to halt the program’s expansion. But two weeks ago, the Washington Post quoted an anonymous government source who said the program was actually not optional. Why? Because Secure Communities relies on fingerprint data that all local law enforcement already send to the FBI, that the FBI then shares with ICE, there appears to be no way around the program.
Finally, Napolitano confirmed late last week that the program is not, in fact, voluntary. “We do not see this as an opt-in, opt-out program,” Napolitano told the Washington Post.
On the same day that Napolitano made her announcement, she proudly proclaimed that the immigration agency once again deported close to 400,000 people in fiscal year 2010. The department claims that a record number of those deported are immigrants convicted of crimes. But the government’s own data complicates the the picture. Those lumped into the category of “criminal alien,” the term used by ICE to refer to deportees with convictions, are often guilty only of not being a U.S. citizen.
secure_communities_100510.gifIndeed, close to 80 percent of all those deported as a result of Secure Communities had no criminal convictions at all, or were charged with some small infractions like traffic violations. Rather than focusing on immigrants with serious violent crime convictions, as the government says it intends to, the program is rounding up undocumented immigrants en masse, along with lawful residents who may only have minor convictions, often for drug possession. Many local advocates say that the program, which is now operational in over 600 municipalities in 32 states, is one of a set of untargeted tools leading to the indiscriminate deportations of non-citizens.
The program is just one part of a set of immigration programs that’s led to another consecutive year of record levels of deportations.
In a recent ColorLines investigation, I told the story of Shahed Hossain. Shahed lived in Fort Worth, Texas, with his family from the age of 10, but was deported to Bangladesh after a slip of tongue at the border—he told a border guard he was a citizen rather than a permanent resident. The case reveals how far off the rails our rapidly expanding deportation system has gone. But rather than acting to bring the immigration system under control, the Obama administration is further expanding its reach.
Advocates in the four counties where governments already voted not to participate in Secure Communities are now bewildered.
Jazmin Segura from Services, Immigrants Rights and Education Network (SIREN) in Santa Clara, says, “ICE is lacking transparency and there’s a lack of trust. They have been back peddling with a lot of things they’ve said. It’s another lie from ICE and it’s very frustrating.”
Segura says local advocates are exploring whether there are legal avenues to get out of the program, especially in light of the fact there is no legislated requirement for municipalities to participate. “There is no federal mandate for Secure Communities to be enforced. It’s something ICE is going on it’s own. So a lot of groups are looking into the legalities.”
Arlington’s Tejada says “at the very least, we want clarification on the part of ICE to specifically and unambiguously specify if there is an opt out. If so, how’s it works? And if not, why not?”
Tejada also suggests there may be other ways around the program. Secure Communities requires that local jails hold inmates identified by ICE until the agency can transfer that person to an immigration detention center. There remains some question as to whether local governments that vote to opt out of the program can simply go on functioning as if no ICE hold, or “detainer” were issued.
Tejada nods in that direction. “There needs to be a clarification of the weight that a detainer carries. What is the local obligation to and weight of that detainer?”
Colorlines emailed the Department of Homeland Security asking for clarification but did not receive an immediate response.
Meanwhile, Secure Communities is rapidly expanding. At the end of September, the entire state of Texas activated the program. Today, the LA Times reports that Los Angeles is also moving forward with plans to bring county criminal jails into partnership with ICE.
Sarahi Uribe, of the National Day Laborers Organizing Network, which is part of a national campaign against Secure Communities, says groups “will continue to push for local governments to opt out of the program. These local governments went through democratic processes and held public hearings,” she says. “And now there being denied the right to opt out of something they never opted into.”
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
21 Reasons to push for the DREAM Act
http://www.buzzfeed.com/flaviaisabel/20-good-reasons-to-risk-deportation-for-the-dream-1nzi
Humanizing this movement is crucial....
Humanizing this movement is crucial....
DREAM Act
Over 20 undocumented youth risk arrest, deportation, stage sit-in at congressional offices on Capitol Hill
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
For Immediate Release - Press Release
Juan Escalante
dreamactmedia@gmail.com and media@thedreamiscoming.com
Washington, D.C. Today, July 20th, over 20 undocumented immigrant youth from all over the country are risking arrest and deportation as they stage sit-ins at various congressional offices in Washington D.C. in order to urge congressional leadership to take action and pass the DREAM Act, a narrowly-tailored, bipartisan bill which would grant immigrant youth a path to citizenship. According to recent surveys by First Focus, 70% of the American public supports the DREAM Act.
They are holding sit-ins in the offices of the following elected officials: Senator Menendez, Senate majority leader Reid, Senator Feinstein, Senator McCain, and Senator Schumer.
Erika Andiola of Arizona states, “My parents sacrificed everything for me so I could pursue the American Dream. To deny my dreams is to deny the dreams of my parents. I’m doing this for them.” Andiola is a graduate of Arizona State University and holds a bachelor of arts in psychology.
After two months of coast-to-coast actions, including dozens of sit-ins, civil disobedience actions, and protracted hunger strikes by both undocumented youth and community members, they have decided to bring the cause of their lives to Washington D.C. The immigrant youth participating in today’s action hail from Illinois, Virginia, New York, California, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, and Michigan.
Rosario Lopez of North Carolina states, “We have nothing to fear anymore except inaction. Our spirits grow stronger every day.” Lopez is a graduate of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, holds a bachelor of science in biology, and aspires to pursuing a PhD. In June, she participated in a 13-day hunger strike in front of Senator Hagan’s office.
Jose Torres of Texas states, “The DREAM Act is the critical first increment in a longer process of immigration reform. We’re here to fight for our dreams and the dreams of our communities.” Torres is a graduate of the University of Texas. He holds a bachelor of arts in business administration and aspires to attend law school.
At least 65,000 undocumented immigrant youth graduate from high schools every year, and many of them struggle to attend institutes of higher education and the military. The DREAM Act will grant youth who traveled to the United States before the age of 16 a path to citizenship contingent on continuous presence in the country, good behavior, and the attainment of at least a two-year university degree or a two-year commitment to the armed forces.
###
The DREAM is Coming project is a collaboration between multiple organizations, including the New York State Youth Leadership Council, the Immigrant Youth Justice League, Dream Team Los Angeles, Kansas Missouri Dream Alliance, Arizona Dream Act Coalition, the Orange County Dream Team, University Leadership Initiative of Texas, Virginia DreamActivist, and DREAMActivist.org.
To read the personal stories of the DREAMers, visit www.thedreamiscoming.com/meet-the-dreamers/
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
For Immediate Release - Press Release
Juan Escalante
dreamactmedia@gmail.com and media@thedreamiscoming.com
Washington, D.C. Today, July 20th, over 20 undocumented immigrant youth from all over the country are risking arrest and deportation as they stage sit-ins at various congressional offices in Washington D.C. in order to urge congressional leadership to take action and pass the DREAM Act, a narrowly-tailored, bipartisan bill which would grant immigrant youth a path to citizenship. According to recent surveys by First Focus, 70% of the American public supports the DREAM Act.
They are holding sit-ins in the offices of the following elected officials: Senator Menendez, Senate majority leader Reid, Senator Feinstein, Senator McCain, and Senator Schumer.
Erika Andiola of Arizona states, “My parents sacrificed everything for me so I could pursue the American Dream. To deny my dreams is to deny the dreams of my parents. I’m doing this for them.” Andiola is a graduate of Arizona State University and holds a bachelor of arts in psychology.
After two months of coast-to-coast actions, including dozens of sit-ins, civil disobedience actions, and protracted hunger strikes by both undocumented youth and community members, they have decided to bring the cause of their lives to Washington D.C. The immigrant youth participating in today’s action hail from Illinois, Virginia, New York, California, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, and Michigan.
Rosario Lopez of North Carolina states, “We have nothing to fear anymore except inaction. Our spirits grow stronger every day.” Lopez is a graduate of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, holds a bachelor of science in biology, and aspires to pursuing a PhD. In June, she participated in a 13-day hunger strike in front of Senator Hagan’s office.
Jose Torres of Texas states, “The DREAM Act is the critical first increment in a longer process of immigration reform. We’re here to fight for our dreams and the dreams of our communities.” Torres is a graduate of the University of Texas. He holds a bachelor of arts in business administration and aspires to attend law school.
At least 65,000 undocumented immigrant youth graduate from high schools every year, and many of them struggle to attend institutes of higher education and the military. The DREAM Act will grant youth who traveled to the United States before the age of 16 a path to citizenship contingent on continuous presence in the country, good behavior, and the attainment of at least a two-year university degree or a two-year commitment to the armed forces.
###
The DREAM is Coming project is a collaboration between multiple organizations, including the New York State Youth Leadership Council, the Immigrant Youth Justice League, Dream Team Los Angeles, Kansas Missouri Dream Alliance, Arizona Dream Act Coalition, the Orange County Dream Team, University Leadership Initiative of Texas, Virginia DreamActivist, and DREAMActivist.org.
To read the personal stories of the DREAMers, visit www.thedreamiscoming.com/meet-the-dreamers/
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Time for a More Radical Immigrant-Rights Movement
full article here: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=time_for_a_more_radical_immigrantrights_movement
By David Bacon, July 2007
Like the civil rights movement four decades ago, the political upsurge in immigrant communities makes a profound demand -- not simply for visas, but for freedom and equality. It questions our values. Will local communities share political power with newcomers? Will workers be able to organize to turn low-paying labor into real jobs? Will children go to school knowing their teachers value their ability to speak two or three languages as a mark of their intelligence, not their inferiority?
Those who fear change are right about one thing. Once we answer these questions, we will not be the same country. Social change requires a social movement. Rights are only extended in the United States when people demand it. Congress will pass laws guaranteeing rights for immigrants as it did for workers in 1934, or African Americans in 1966 -- when it has no choice but to recognize that movement's strength.
In the South of the 1960s, courageous civil rights activists stopped lynching and defied bombings, while registering people to vote and going to jail to overturn unjust Jim Crow laws. They won allies, from unions to students to artists, who helped give the civil rights movement its radical, transformative character. They led our country out of McCarthyism.
Workers in unions, immigrants included, need labor law reform and enforcement. Many May Day marchers demanded not just legal immigration status, but the right to organize to raise their poverty-level wages. Immigrant janitors sitting in the streets of Houston, hotel housekeepers enforcing living wage laws in Emeryville, CA, and meatpacking workers organizing against company terror tactics at Smithfield Foods in Tarheel, NC, are as much a part of the immigrant rights movement as those marching for visas.
A coalition that can fight for these demands has its roots in immigrant rights groups, local unions, church congregations and college campuses. The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, representing Wal-Mart, Marriott and other corporate giants, will not fight for these demands. Nor will the rightwing Manhattan Institute. But many national organizations will. The AFL-CIO and most unions in the Change to Win Federation will support these demands. So will the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, the Mexican American Political Association, and the American Friends Service Committee.
National groups can provide resources, but to build a movement on the ground, we might study the experience of the young activists in the south in the 1960s, and the radicals in the industrial workplaces of the 1930s. Could students be organized to go to Hazelton, Tucson and Prince William County, to provide support for communities challenging raids and local anti-immigrant laws? Could civil disobedience be as important to their tactics as it was to those who sat in at lunch counters or organized illegal unions at the Ford Rouge plant?
Immigrant communities don't need another bad Congressional compromise. They need a freedom agenda. It can be a program like the Freedom Charter of South Africa's anti-apartheid movement -- a vision to fight for. It can be a bill in Congress, like Sheila Jackson Lee's, forcing politicians to consider an alternative to guest workers and more raids. And it can be a mobilizer, drawing people to picket lines in front of the ICE detention centers holding their family members. There people can sing new Spanish or Arabic words to the old anti-slavery anthem: "Let my people go."
By David Bacon, July 2007
Like the civil rights movement four decades ago, the political upsurge in immigrant communities makes a profound demand -- not simply for visas, but for freedom and equality. It questions our values. Will local communities share political power with newcomers? Will workers be able to organize to turn low-paying labor into real jobs? Will children go to school knowing their teachers value their ability to speak two or three languages as a mark of their intelligence, not their inferiority?
Those who fear change are right about one thing. Once we answer these questions, we will not be the same country. Social change requires a social movement. Rights are only extended in the United States when people demand it. Congress will pass laws guaranteeing rights for immigrants as it did for workers in 1934, or African Americans in 1966 -- when it has no choice but to recognize that movement's strength.
In the South of the 1960s, courageous civil rights activists stopped lynching and defied bombings, while registering people to vote and going to jail to overturn unjust Jim Crow laws. They won allies, from unions to students to artists, who helped give the civil rights movement its radical, transformative character. They led our country out of McCarthyism.
Workers in unions, immigrants included, need labor law reform and enforcement. Many May Day marchers demanded not just legal immigration status, but the right to organize to raise their poverty-level wages. Immigrant janitors sitting in the streets of Houston, hotel housekeepers enforcing living wage laws in Emeryville, CA, and meatpacking workers organizing against company terror tactics at Smithfield Foods in Tarheel, NC, are as much a part of the immigrant rights movement as those marching for visas.
A coalition that can fight for these demands has its roots in immigrant rights groups, local unions, church congregations and college campuses. The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, representing Wal-Mart, Marriott and other corporate giants, will not fight for these demands. Nor will the rightwing Manhattan Institute. But many national organizations will. The AFL-CIO and most unions in the Change to Win Federation will support these demands. So will the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, the Mexican American Political Association, and the American Friends Service Committee.
National groups can provide resources, but to build a movement on the ground, we might study the experience of the young activists in the south in the 1960s, and the radicals in the industrial workplaces of the 1930s. Could students be organized to go to Hazelton, Tucson and Prince William County, to provide support for communities challenging raids and local anti-immigrant laws? Could civil disobedience be as important to their tactics as it was to those who sat in at lunch counters or organized illegal unions at the Ford Rouge plant?
Immigrant communities don't need another bad Congressional compromise. They need a freedom agenda. It can be a program like the Freedom Charter of South Africa's anti-apartheid movement -- a vision to fight for. It can be a bill in Congress, like Sheila Jackson Lee's, forcing politicians to consider an alternative to guest workers and more raids. And it can be a mobilizer, drawing people to picket lines in front of the ICE detention centers holding their family members. There people can sing new Spanish or Arabic words to the old anti-slavery anthem: "Let my people go."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)