The down payment's been paid, when will the goods to be delivered?

For years, all we've heard from those opposed to immigration and immigration reform is that until the government could prove that it was "serious" about border security and enforcement, no meaningful discussion of immigration reform was going to take place. The mantra of "we can't reform immigration laws until we control immigration, and we can't control immigration unless we control our borders" has been the guiding principle behind every obstructionist attempt to derail systematic reform. And attempts to appease restrictionists, by adopting "enforcement first" policies" have become the accepted framework from which all discussions were forced to start.

But most of those working for positive change have known all along that "enforcement first" is just a catch-22. It's an ever-moving target that was never intended to be reached. The ultimate goal of those opposed to reform has never been to "control" immigration...but rather to end it.

Yet despite these obvious facts, both the Bush and Obama administrations dived head first into the enforcement waters.

The last few years have been marked by hugely escalating enforcement budgets, increased apprehension, deportation and detention, increased use of local law enforcement, raids, and employer audits.

Programs like "Operation Streamline", "Secure Communities", "287G", "Operation Community Shield", and "Rapid REPEAT", (to name a few) have all been ramped up to locate, and remove the undocumented population. And while the human suffering caused by these and other programs has been immeasurable, no one can deny their effect on both illegal entry and presence.

So the question now becomes; At what point can we say enough is enough?

At what point will the forces that demand strict enforcement before any discussion of reform can begin, be content? Immigrant communities across this nation have paid the price, they've made their down payment on reform ...when do they finally see something in return?

A couple of new studies demonstrate just how effective and massive these programs and operations have become. Both examining just one aspect of enforcement ...federal prosecutions for immigration related crimes ... which have increased 459% in the last ten years.

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) and Warren Institute at the University of California at Berkeley recently released reports highlighting the dramatic increase in federal immigration prosecutions and the link to Operation Streamline, a DHS program which mandates federal criminal prosecution of all persons caught crossing the border unlawfully.

The Warren Institute report highlights the impact of Operation Streamline on immigration enforcement and the TRAC report shows that federal immigration prosecutions rose to record levels during fiscal year 2009 and how a shift in priorities has created the largest number of federal immigration prosecutions of non-violent border crossers ever.

The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during the first nine months of FY 2009 the government reported 67,994 new immigration prosecutions. If this activity continues at the same pace, the annual total of prosecutions will be 90,659 for this fiscal year. According to the case-by-case information analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), this estimate is up 14.1 percent over the past fiscal year when the number of prosecutions totaled 79,431.

Number Year-to-date	67,994
Percent Change from previous year	14.1
Percent Change from 5 years ago	139
Percent Change from 10 years ago	459
Percent Change from 20 years ago	973

The comparisons of the number of defendants charged with immigration-related offenses are based on case-by-case information obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Compared to five years ago when there were 37,884, the estimate of FY 2009 prosecutions of this type is up 139 percent. Prosecutions over the past year are much higher than they were ten years ago. Overall, the data show that prosecutions of this type are up 459 percent from the level of 16,219 reported in 1999 and up 973 percent from the level of 8,448 reported in 1989.
TRAC

While the TRAK report looked at record increase in all federal immigration prosecutions, the Warren Institute looked at the effect of just one Operation along the US/ Mexico border: Operation Streamline.

The Department of Homeland Security(DHS) began implementing OperationStreamline along the U.S.-Mexico border in2005. The program has fundamentally transformed DHS’s border enforcement practices. Before Operation Streamline began, DHSBorder Patrol agents voluntarily returned first-time border crossers to their home countries or detained them and formally removed them from the United States through the civil immigration system. The U.S. Attorney’s Office reserved criminal prosecution for migrants with criminal records and for those who made repeated attempts to cross the border. Operation Streamline removed that prosecutorial discretion, requiring the criminal prosecution of all undocumented border crossers, regardless of their history.

Operation Streamline has generated unprecedented caseloads in eight of the eleven federal district courts along the border, straining the resources of judges, U.S. attorneys, defense attorneys, U.S. Marshals, and court personnel. The program’s voluminous prosecutions have forced many courts to cut procedural corners. Magistrate judges conduct en masse hearings, during which as many as 80 defendants plead guilty at a time, depriving migrants of due process. Indeed, in December 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Operation Streamline’s en masse plea hearings in Tucson, Arizona violate federal law.By focusing court and law enforcement resources on the prosecution of first-time entrants, Operation Streamline also diverts attention away from fighting drug smuggling, human trafficking, and other crimes that create border violence
Assembly-Line Justice: A Review of Operation Streamline

• Immigration prosecutions make up 54 percent of all federal criminal prosecutions. The most prosecuted federal immigration crimes in FY 2009 were for immigrants caught entering the United States at an improper time or place, totaling approximately 40,000. Between 2002 and 2008, prosecutions for first time illegal entry in border district courts increased 330% from 12,411 to 53,697


• Illegal reentry of a deported alien accounted for nearly 22,000 prosecutions in FY 2009.


• In contrast, potential smuggling charges were brought less frequently. TRAC found 2,980 prosecutions for bringing in and harboring certain aliens, and 106 prosecutions for aiding and abetting an illegal entry.


• 85% of the prosecutions originated with Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accounted for 13% of the prosecutions.


• Before 2005, CBP voluntarily returned first time border crossers or formally removed them through the civil system. Federal prosecutions were used almost exclusively for individuals with previous criminal records or repeat crossers. Operation Streamline --instituted in Del Rio, Texas in 2005 and later expanded to other areas -- shifted this practice by eliminating prosecutorial discretion and requiring that all unlawful border crossers be prosecuted in federal criminal court and imprisoned if convicted, regardless of their immigration history.15 Those who are caught entering the U.S. illegally for the first time are prosecuted for misdemeanors punishable by up to 6 months in prison.


• Most Operation Streamline defendants are migrants from Mexico or Central America who have no prior criminal convictions and who have attempted to cross the border in search of work or to reunite with family in the United States.


• The link between Operation Streamline and federal prosecution rates can be seen in the judicial districts near these enforcement zones. The Southern District of Texas prosecutes the most immigration crimes, with 23,000 in FY 2009, up 22.1% from FY 2008.1819 The District of Arizona was second with 16,477, up 39.7% from FY 2008.

If we add the fact that President Obama's proposed budget for 2011 includes additional increases in spending along the border and for interior enforcement it becomes obvious that the enforcement juggernaut has far from reached it's end.

So we must now ask ourselves ... when in fact will the border ever be "secure" enough?

We have long heard about the failures of 1986 and how if only the laws were enforced, then we could start to look at reforming the dysfunctional and broken system that only feeds the growing prison-industrial complex.

Well, the laws have been enforced.

There's been a nearly 1000% increase in immigration prosecutions since 1990. In 2009 alone, the U.S. government had held over 440,000 people in immigration custody – more than triple the number of people in detention just ten years ago - and deported 387,000 immigrant workers, the highest recorded number in U.S. history.

So, how much longer are the "sins" of 1986 to hang over everyone's heads? Is there some secret magic number that needs to be reached? Is it a 2000% or 3000% increase in prosecutions? One Million in detention or deported?

How large a price must be paid by immigrant communities before there is a remedy? How many more mothers must be separated from their children? How many families torn apart? Communities terrorized? How many more lives destroyed and futures taken away?

When will the down payment paid in suffering and sorrow be acknowledge ... and the promise of reform finally be honored.?

I think it's fair to say ...NOW!!!!!!

Read More...

Summary only...

Immigration Reform is a Crucial Part of the Movement for Change

Yesterday, thousands of immigration reform advocates converged on Washington to demand that Congress and the Administration live up to their promises to take up reform, and repair our broken immigration system. And while news of this gathering of pro-reform advocates was overshadowed by the events surrounding the health care debate, it should be remembered that both of these causes are part and parcel of the greater struggle for change that brought so many together last November in the hope of setting a new agenda for the 21st century.

Despite what some claim, support for some sort of progressive immigration reform is not tantamount to calling for "open borders" , “unrestricted immigration" or as Lou Dobbs likes to claim, "importing half the population of Mexico into the US."

And while credible arguments have been made from both the left, and Libertarian right, that favor open borders and the total unrestricted flow of people, goods, and services between nations, most pro-reform advocates don't take this position.

Instead, we see our current "immigration problem" as a failure of our system to live up to its historical duty to allow for the reasonable flow of people from all over the world to come to this nation to make a better life, add vitality and diversity to our national mosaic, and join in the great American democratic experiment.

Our current immigration system is the result of laws and codes that have been cobbled together over the last fifty years. The current Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was originally written in 1952 and has been amended and rewritten numerous times over the proceeding years. With each change, various bits and pieces were added and others removed. This has left a Byzantine system of disjointed codes and regulations that are not only unresponsive to current immigration needs, but nearly impossible to navigate or enforce. Into this vacuum left by a web of disjointed and sometimes contradictory regulations, layers of further restrictions and punitive measures have been added over time in attempts to somehow make this unworkable system work.

Clearly, a system that allows for only 5000 unskilled workers to enter the country legally, out of a total of over one million new admissions a year, is out of touch with current immigration needs. Certainly any system that has wait times of up to twenty years to allow family members to join relatives legally present in the country is not living up to the spirit of its intent.

But after years of toxic and divisive debate, are the American people ready for a real and practical discussion of this issue? Or will they get bogged down, as in the past, in meaningless sloganeering and petty tribalism and xenophobia?

The answer depends not as much on the actions of the anti-immigrant right, who will inevitably try to turn all the collective fears and insecurities of the American public towards the immigrant population, but rather on the actions of those looking for truly rational, fair, and practical reform.

As we saw in the debate over health-care reform, the lack of meaningful immigration reform in the past has left a door open for opponents of any progressive agenda to use immigration issues in attempts to stall and block much needed change.

Those looking for meaningful immigration reform must see this as a new opportunity to now reinvigorate the debate. Immigration reform must become just one element of a comprehensive plan to revitalize a new 21st century America ... just one component of an aggressive plan to address not only the nation's economic health, but its future direction.

For us to accomplish true reform, we must acknowledge that current economic conditions put this issue in a precarious position and that increased blowback from the right is inevitable. But we must also remember that despite all the divisive rhetoric we heard during this past election cycle, or during the health care debate, the majority of the public rejected the calls to tribalism, dog-whistle appeals to racism, and simplistic slogans. They want meaningful and practical change, and are willing to listen, learn, and work towards that change.

If we are to be part of that change, and make immigration reform part of a new agenda for the 21st century, we will need to take the lead, and make the American people understand that fair, practical, and humane immigration reform is a crucial component of any real and meaningful change for the future.

Read More...

Summary only...

Time for a Reality Check

These have been heady times for those in the migrant-rights movement.

Starting back in November with the failure of anti-immigrant campaigns to resonate with the electorate, an apparent sea change was assumed to be taking place. Much ink and many pixels were expended speculating on the presumed death of the "immigration issue" as a motivating force in the US political scene.

From the left, the progressive blogosphere finally found the courage to voice pro-immigrant positions after nearly two years of bowing to the conventional wisdom coming out of Washington that immigration was a "third rail" not to be touched.

From the right, pundits and the chattering classes warned that to continue stoking the flames of anti-immigrant sentiments was like beating the proverbial dead horse, and would yield no rewards.

Over the following months things looked even brighter.

After starting a presidential campaign where each candidate tried their best to "out Tancredo, Tancredo" on immigration matters, one by one the Republican contenders who put their eggs in the anti-immigrant basket fell by the wayside. In the end, the only three standing were the party's only bona fide pro-immigrant candidate, and two candidates whose recent conversion to the anti-immigrant camp was questionable at best. With McCain's presumptive triumph, even Huckabee's and Romney's road to Damascus conversion to Tancredoism seems to have hurt them far more than it helped.

On the Democratic side, the top contenders were quick to finally pick up on these subtle cues - once it became obvious to even the least politically savvy that they need not fear the immigration boogieman.

To his credit, Mr. Obama was early to the pro-migrant party, and supported driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants even as his opponent waffled and tried to triangulate her position due to the nagging "third rail" fear that so haunted the DLC. He also came out early and pledged to take up comprehensive reform within the first one hundred days of his administration and voiced strong support for the DREAM Act. But lately, even the ever cautious Mrs. Clinton has spoken out against immigration raids, and promised to curtail them, voiced tepid disapproval of the great wall project, and vowed to join Obama's pledge to give the nation real reform within one hundred days of taking office.

All of this has been music to the ears of those in the pro-migrant movement.

In both the tradition media and blogtopia, pro-migrant voices have started to break through.

To varying degrees, both NCLR's Janet Murguia and "Democracy Now's" Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez managed to issue live smack-downs on anti-immigrant powerhouse, Lou Dobb ( In Murguia's case, on Lou's own show). They called him out not only for his misleading and unbalanced presentation of the issue, but also his embrace of some of the most virulent racists engaged in the anti-immigrant movement. If this was not clear evidence that David could smite the anti-immigrant Goliath …. nothing was.

On the web, pro-migrant, Latino, and human-rights blogs and web sites are proliferating and finally gaining long deserved attention and recognition. Outreach and cooperation between the traditional pro-immigrant activist organizations has reached a near fever pitch as they attempt to put together the large-scale, organized, effort that will be essential in moving meaningful reform in the new, more immigrant-friendly, atmosphere all anticipate is just around the corner.

At least that's what we've all been telling each other for the last few months

But just today, once again reality strikes us in the face:

House OKs seizing vehicles from illegal immigrants

A bill that would allow police to seize cars from illegal immigrants was approved by the House Thursday.

Bill sponsor Rep. James Mills (R-Gainesville) repeatedly told House members Thursday the measure would protect Georgia citizens from the "epidemic" of illegal immigration. "The state of Georgia's door is being kicked down," Mills said. Immigrants are coming from "Iraq, Iran, Irania(sic), Jordan. We don't know where they're from," Mills said.

The measure passed 104 to 51, and will move to the Senate for consideration.

The bill would allow police to seize any vehicle involved in a traffic violation or accident if it's driven by an illegal immigrant. That includes rented and leased vehicles if the owner knew, or should have known, the driver was an illegal immigrant. It also includes bank-owned cars if the interest-holder actually knew the driver was an illegal immigrant.

The bill prompted a healthy floor debate. Some legislators asked how police would be able to determine whether a driver was an illegal immigrant during a traffic stop. Some wondered if it would create an atmosphere for racial profiling of drivers who police think might be illegal immigrants.

The legislation is part of a package of about 10 Republican proposals introduced this legislative session aimed at discouraging illegal immigration in Georgia.

AJC

Week after week - month after month - states and municipalities around the country take up similar anti-immigrant measures. And with each one passed, the lives of millions of people are changed - undocumented migrants, legal residents, and anyone else who just happens to look "foreign" or rolls their r's just a little too prominently when stopped at a traffic stop, applies for a job, or tries to rent an apartment.

"The legislation is part of a package of about 10 Republican proposals introduced this legislative session aimed at discouraging illegal immigration in Georgia."

And herein lays the problem.

In some ways we have deluded ourselves.

By focusing on what seems to be the "big picture" of the failure of anti-immigrant policies on the national stage, we have lost sight of the most important fact.

As the late Tip O'Neil pointed out …All politics is local….and when it comes to immigration and migrant issues, it's on the local level that much of this battle will need to be fought.

Yet, as a new study shows, it is not the economics or demographics of a given state or city that will determine how rabidly anti-immigrant it's laws and ordinances will be …. It's what political party controls it.

Our analysis suggests that the restrictionist responses of local governments to undocumented immigration is largely unrelated to demographic pressures—whether it be the growth of recent immigrants, or the proportion of Spanish-dominant households. They are also unrelated to the political empowerment of Latinos, as places with large proportions of Latino residents and citizens are no more or no less likely to propose legislation whether it be restrictionist or pro-immigrant. Instead, we find that political factors are more important, most notably partisan composition and the politicization of national immigration reform legislation at the local level.

…One of the strongest explanations for restrictionist versus “pro-immigrant” proposals is the proportion of Republicans and Democrats in the county. Controlling for demographic characteristics, Republican areas are twice as likely to propose restrictionist ordinances, and half as likely to propose “pro-immigrant” ones.

Even stronger effects can be found for the actual passage of such legislation. Other factors, such as the growth of the Latino population and the size of linguistically-isolated Spanish-speaking households, were not associated with a greater likelihood of proposing or passing restrictionist legislation. Thus, demographic factors are not as important as political factors in accounting for ordinances passed by local governments related to unauthorized immigration, either pro or con.


… Cities in Republican areas are about twice as likely as those in Democratic areas to propose restrictionist legislation, and four times as likely to have passed such measures. On the passage of pro-immigrant legislation, Republican areas are about half as likely to consider or pass such measures (another way to say this is that Democrat areas are about twice as likely as Republican areas to consider and pass pro-immigrant measures).

Immigration Policies Go Local: The Varying Responses Of Local Governments To Undocumented Immigration

So while we have been working hard to change the hearts and minds of the US public, trying to counter the lies and misinformation proliferated by the anti-immigrant right, it comes down to mere politics as to whether the lives of millions are better or worse.

Of course, on the grand scale, we've always known the true enemy.

From October of 2005 when Frank Luntz first published "Respect for the Law & Economic Fairness: Illegal Immigration Prevention" and laid down the Republican battle plan for its anti-immigrant campaign, the handwriting's been on the wall.

This has always been a debate rooted in political machinations and calculations. It plays upon the fear, racism and bigotry that permeate the US collective psyche …but it's not organic, springing from the roots of bigotry and discontent …but rather it's been manufactured and nurtured by one political party to be used as a weapon against the other by feeding upon the worst instincts of the American people and appealing to their inner demons rather than better angles.

Less than two years after Luntz's blueprint was published, the plan was in full effect.

As of July 2, 2007, no fewer than 1404 pieces of legislation related to immigrants and immigration had been introduced among the 50 state legislatures. Of these bills, 182 bills became law in 43 states. Four bills have been vetoed by the Governor.

State legislators have introduced roughly two and a half times more bills in 2007 than in 2006. The number of enactments from 2006 (84) has more than doubled to 170 in 2007.

Several states are still in session so there could be additional legislation related to immigrants later this year.

NCSL

Yet for many of us, the disappointments and disillusionment with politics as usual have prevented us from recognizing this clear red/blue divide on this issue. Surely, the Democratic Party' own inability to seize the moral high ground on this issue has not made it easy to see the clear lines of demarcation. Additionally, red state Dems like Heath Shuler, who so readily work in the anti-immigrant camp, cloud the distinctions.

But, when taken as whole … the path forward is clear.

If the pro-migrant movement is to accomplish anything in the long-term, it must start to address the anti-immigrant movement at the local as well as the national level.

We cannot be satisfied by what appears to be progress on the national stage. We can't be satisfied with the apparent growth of a fledgling pro-migrant ground swell. We can't be content with our own efforts to build a movement, or mobilize or give voice to the Latino community, or engage labor, or reach out to progressives. We must start to truly put together a real new majority, a majority made up of all those groups and so many more.

We need a new majority that can take over the statehouses, city councils, and mayors offices across this country, and not just replace the occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, or Congress. We need a new majority that can reclaim the liberal, humanitarian ideals that once marked the Democratic Party … take it over, and then drag it, screaming and kicking, into a new 21st century.

Because if we don't ...we'll just get more of this:

Read More...

Summary only...

More on Getting to the Root of the Problem

While the American people continue to be fed a daily dose of inflammatory rhetoric and simplistic solutions to the complex issue of immigration reform, that rely far more upon ignorance and bigotry than facts and practical proposals, the real-world problems that are the cause of the current worldwide migration remain trivialized or utterly ignored.

And while arguments over border walls, drivers licenses, and who can inflict the most pain and suffering upon the unauthorized migrant population, might make for effective sound-bites and attack ads in the circus that now passes for political campaigning, they do little towards addressing the root causes of the issue….or reaching any meaningful solutions.

While politicians, pundits and the media try to avoid the issue of root causation like the plague, any serious examination of the issue cannot ignore the United States' roll in fostering the very conditions that have driven millions of people in this hemisphere to uproot themselves for the uncertainty of life as unauthorized immigrants in the US.

Here is just one example:

Video link

Which is why any meaningful attempt to reform US immigration policy must go beyond the scope of the current debate and legislation and move towards addressing the policies that have promoted conditions that can only lead to social and political unrest and poverty in sender nations.

The US has power to do both great good and great harm throughout the third world with its economic and foreign policy decisions and we must start to look at the long term ramifications of these policies. Rather than allowing US business interests to dictate trade and economic policy, we need to view these policies in light of their long term effects on both foreign economies and our own.

…As long as US foreign and trade policy is based solely upon the interests of big business, this race to the bottom will continue. Until we begin to address the true causes for the mass migration of people who live in abject poverty in countries that have more than enough resources to provide a reasonable lifestyle for its entire population, we will never get a handle on the "immigration problem"

…(We must) address the root causes of immigration, and change US policy so that it doesn't foster and produce conditions that force millions of people each year to leave their countries of origin in order to simply survive. (We must) tie all future trade, military, and foreign aid agreements to not only worker protections both here and abroad, but also to their ability to foster economic progress for the working class and poor in sender nations.

Getting to the Root of the Problem: Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Working Americans

For those wishing to know more about US policies and practices in Latin America, pull up a chair, pop some corn, pour a cool one, and spend an hour or so seeing a different perspective on our relations with our neighbors to the south….a region that Richard Nixon once proclaimed "People don't give a shit about...." Even if you're not quite sold on Chavez as a modern day Simón Bolívar, the film has much to offer.

Video link

Read More...

Summary only...

Losing the war of words

Last week when speaking on the immigration, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said that "For the American people, and therefore all of us, it's emerged as the third rail of American politics, and anyone who doesn't realize that isn't with the American people."

For many in the migrant-rights movement these words mark a crucial turning point. As a leading voice in the DLC/centrist wing of the Democratic Party, Emanuel's comments telegraph a message that in order to further cement an almost guaranteed Democratic victory next November, the Democratic establishment is more than willing to pander to the right and throw immigrants under the bus.

Today, Democracy Corps, the Democratic centrist think tank published a full statement on their recommendations for handling the immigration issue going forward. Needless to say the group founded by James Carville, Robert Shrum and Stanley Greenberg, not only echoes Emanuel's sentiments, but expands upon them.

Having completed their polling and focus groups, they found that much of the misinformation and propaganda propagated by the Right over the last two years has found its place in popular opinion, particularly with those who identify as the all important independent swing-voters.

Although admitting that many of these opinions are "improbable" beliefs, and "impressions (that) conflict with the facts", these Democratic strategists advise that candidates take positions that pander to them.

As much as this says about the cynical and self-serving nature of the Democratic centrists, it also speaks volumes to our own inability to control this debate. We, as advocates for migrant-rights and meaningful reform of our immigration system, have allowed two years of a constant barrage of lies, distortions, misinformation and bigotry, to essentially go unchecked.

Where is our counter to Lou Dobbs, who daily spouts out "facts" that have little basis in fact? Where is our FAIR or Center for Immigration Studies, who publish reams of dubious research and studies to further their cause? Where are all our talking-heads to fan out across the airwaves to counter right-wing spin? ….all these things don't exist, and as such the American people have been fed a daily dose of xenophobia and misinformation for over two years now. And now we ask, "How come we're losing this battle for hearts and minds"

According to polling sponsored by Democracy Corps, pollsters Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found that Democratic voters are most concerned about war and health care … but for independents it was "illegal immigration" and dependence on foreign oil.

For Democratic voters, being bogged down and spending billions in Iraq is the top issue (38 percent), followed closely by leaders having done nothing about health care (34 percent) and the loss of American jobs to China and India (29 percent).

For independents, the top issue underlying the discontent is ‘our borders’ having been ‘left unprotected and illegal immigration’ growing – cited by 40 percent, with no other issue a close second. The second most mentioned issue is ‘America doing nothing about our dependence on foreign oil and about global warming’ (31 percent).

Democrats: Finding Their Voices As Agents Of Change, Democracy Corps, Stan Greenberg ,Al Quinlan, and James Carville

And it is these independents that the strategists are most concerned with. Willingly pandering to their greatest fears and misconceptions.

Immigration and Welfare Reform

Critical to the success of the ‘New Democrats’ in 1992 was Bill Clinton’s pledge in his presidential announcement a year earlier to “end welfare as we know it.” It featured centrally in his campaign…

The centrality of illegal immigration to the current discontent about the direction of the country may be taking us back again to a welfare moment. Just as many workers with moderate incomes, uncertain employment and health insurance could not understand why they were being taxed to subsidize the long-term idleness of those on welfare, many Americans are just perplexed that this country has lost control of the borders and winks at illegal employment, taxing the resources of local schools and hospitals and much more. Many of the voter responses to welfare were racist to be sure, as now with the response to illegal immigration, but many are not.

How can George Bush, they ask have us on a “terror alert,” and yet he is “not really interested in doing anything about a barrier between Mexico and the United States”? “Isn’t it amazing?” “We’re under a big threat, but he won’t do anything about the borders.” Voters think this is just a first responsibility of leaders who are supposed to be protecting the country. Based on their votes on ‘homeland security,’ ports and the 9-11 Commission, Democrats agree with that first principle.

How can we be paying out government benefits and all this money when we are so financially strapped? Here, responses range from just sheer amount of money the country is paying for their support – “it taxes everything … twenty fold” – to the improbable belief that many are on welfare or food stamps and induced to say here. Some of these impressions conflict with the facts, but many speak concretely about hospitals that can’t deny health care and schools that must cope with the children and special language needs. For others it is more basic: “I’m self-employed “and couldn’t afford health insurance for a year. “We can’t afford to do anything because we’re paying for health insurance. They just go in and get it free.” The discussion of benefits leads to some pretty ugly responses, “Send the people back that don’t have [papers]. Our country has been too kind. I’m sorry.”

And with all the problems with jobs and the economy, how can you give over sectors of the American economy? Some do say that “tons of illegal immigrants in this country” are “doing a lot of jobs that nobody else wants to do.” But that is almost always contested in the groups: “I got boys that can’t find jobs, and I know high school kids that can’t find jobs because” the immigrants are willing to work many more hours for less. “Where is our jobs program for kids in [town] to dig those things out?” They think, not implausibly in some cases, “Let’s get control of what’s coming in and then there are jobs for our people.” With underlying worries about being forced to work at Wal-Mart, they think the illegal immigrants who work hard and for less “are driving the service industry out of our country.”

The voters most angry about the issue are those with a high school education, African Americans and those in rural areas, both black and white. This is also the top frustration for voters who want to vote Democratic for president but hold back from supporting our leading candidates. For all these target groups, their second frustration is ‘losing American jobs to China and India’ – part of a more general and poignant critique, why are our country’s business and political leaders not standing up for American workers and employees and more broadly, America.

Voters want control of the borders and workplace and recreating an immigration system that works and oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants – positions supported by about two-thirds of the country. For them, that is the starting point, the common sense of the issue. If political leaders do not start there, they are not likely to be heard on other steps. But it is possible to build on those points to a progressive direction and comprehensive reform because people hold other views related to the issue.

• Many people talk about the impracticality of expelling the current ‘illegals’ and indeed, their importance to the economy: “The thing is that you can’t necessarily ship all of them out of here.”

• Despite comments about welfare and benefits, most talk about the immigrants as workers, indeed, hard workers with good values. They talk about business owners who describe them as “the hardest workers that my brothers have hired.” One woman in Colorado observed, “I had that honor, and I will actually say, it’s an honor because these people outworked every American citizen at this sweatshop that I worked at, except me.”

• Some recognize that you have to help the children: “The children shouldn’t have to suffer.”

• People are looking for a system not that excludes immigrants but regularizes the system to put people on a lawful basis. Instead of wasting money building a fence – “It’s just stupid. If we had a reasonable immigration policy we wouldn’t have the illegal immigration problem.” Others recognize the economy needs them but “we need some system in place” to make sure we are dealing with lawful people, not terrorists. While opposed to the impact on the service industry, one woman acknowledges: “People that come to this country have the right to come for a better life.” A majority of the country – unlike many in the world – believe legal immigration is positive for the country.

When we tested a comprehensive proposal in a bi-partisan poll for NPR, we got (44) percent support for a plan to increase enforcement on the borders and work place and deny most government benefits but recognizing we cannot expel 12 million, creates a path for citizenship for the law abiding – a big change in status with opportunities for fuller integration into America. That is likely a presidential issue that could gain further support with public debate. When we tested a plan earlier without the reassurance on benefits, the plan got only 39 percent, suggesting how challenging this issue will be for ordinary candidates without the full platform available at a presidential level. Even with the reassurance on control and benefits, 40 percent
of Democrats and a majority of African Americans favored the tougher Republican alternative that provided no path to legalization. This is a real wedge issue that Democrats need to get right.

But Democrats can get this right – genuinely attacking Bush for losing control of immigration, specifically, failing to manage the borders and no longer enforcing laws at the workplace. Democrats favor greater control and enforcement at the borders and restored penalties on employers for employing illegal workers. They would deny most government benefits, which is current law in almost all cases. Recognizing we can’t expel 12 million workers, Democrats accept some kind of legal status for those who are working, pay taxes
And are law-abiding – putting our values at the heart of the reforms that will further open up our society.

Voters are determined to vote for change and they want leaders who will work for the middle class, putting the interests of the public and country first, after the Bush years when leaders did not see the average person, when greed of executives and the self-interest of politicians determined our unfortunate course. That is the framework for Democrats to articulate their critique and progressive vision. The country wants to vote for change.

As anyone even vaguely familiar with the studies and research on immigration and its effects on both the economy and society can see, most of the "concerns" voiced in the focus groups are based upon misinformation and in some cases ignorance. From "welfare" and taxes to health costs and job loss, most if not all the opinions voiced by the focus group subjects were either blatantly false, or badly misinformed. But that really doesn't matter. People believe what they hear, and when they hear these "facts" spouted off day after day they become as good as real. It's the "big lie" theory of propaganda played out daily by right-wing politicians and their media allies.

As long as we, as immigration reform advocates, continue to fail at the crucial mission of shaping public opinion, we will continue to open the door for the kind of deception and self-serving pandering we now see coming from the DLC Democrats. We can rile against them all we want on matters of principle, but we know we are fooling ourselves if we actually believe that politics is currently moved by principle. It's moved by opportunity and power. And until we harness our own power to move this debate in a more positive direction we will continue to face defeat in the realm of public opinion, and with that abandonment by those who should be our allies.

There is one other important factor that needs to be taken into account when discussing the Democratic abandonment of meaningful immigration policy. Study after study shows that the Latino population will become the most important electoral demographic within the next few years. In states like New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Colorado, and Florida they may hold the key to 2008 victory.

But this power also seems to be going untapped. With the vicious Republican attacks on immigration issues, common wisdom has it that the Democratic Party will naturally be the beneficiaries of the Latino abandonment of that party. But should Latinos accept the DLC version of "Republican- lite" immigration policies? If this move to the right by the Democrats goes unchecked, what option does that leave? Latinos, and all other groups that contain large immigrant populations, need to come together and send a strong message that they will not be taken for granted. Their votes will not be won so cheaply. The Rahm Emanuels and James Carvilles of the world need to know that they should not be so quick to paint red states blue if in fact they expound views that are no different from their red state opponents.

We need to start to fight more effectively, we need to start to harness our power and direct it at countering the years of lies and propaganda promoted by the Republican Right. We need to let our Democratic "friends" know that they must hold true to the principles of equality, justice, and human-rights on which their modern party was founded …and if they fail that task…they are no better than their opponents....and should be given the same electoral consideration.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Word

An anonymous poster left a comment in one of my recent posts on immigration reform meta issues that has left me grappling for an answer. He/she raised a point that in some ways goes to the heart of the pro-immigrant movement's current inability to break the apparent right-wing stranglehold on the "immigration debate."

Having brought this issue to the national forefront for use as a possible electoral wedge, the restrictionist forces behind the immigration debate have had the opportunity frame the issue from the start in a way that has left the pro-immigrant movement struggling to find its voice in opposition to their policies. They quite frankly seem to be shouting us down at every turn.

They have managed to deflect criticisms of bigotry and racism by simply denying them and claiming instead their concern for "the rule of law", they brush off claims of xenophobia by stating opposition not to immigration, but rather "illegal" immigration.

This has left those of us in the pro-immigrant movement to try to come up with an effective counter. And it seems that thus far we have not been able to find the words or phrases that can neutralize their carefully crafted spin.

As my anonymous friend said:

The word for what abolitionists fought was "slavery." The word for what South Africans fought was "apartheid." Words for what the civil rights movement fought (and fights) include "racism" and "discrimination." Those words convey a clear, one-word enemy. A wrong that needs correction.

In one word, can you say what the wrong is that needs correction in our fight for immigrants?

We all agree that calling the problem "immigration," or the "immigration problem," or even "the illegal immigration problem" misses the point. There is a problem from our point of view, but we have not distilled it down to one word. We have not offered a substitute for the framing of this issue as the "immigration" issue.

Immigration is what people do to come here. The problem is really what we do to people who come here.

What is the word for that?

The word for what abolitionists fought was "slavery." The word for what South Africans fought was "apartheid." Words for what the civil rights movement fought (and fights) include "racism" and "discrimination." Those words convey a clear, one-word enemy. A wrong that needs correction.

In one word, can you say what the wrong is that needs correction in our fight for immigrants? What if we could invoke that word when we speak on this subject? Would it make it more clear where we are coming from?

To move in this direction, I have at least tried to stop referring to this issue as the "immigration" issue. I try to use the word "immigrant" and not "immigration" where possible when talking about the issue in general - because the "immigrant" word personalizes the people we are fighting for. I also use the phrase "immigration bureaucracy" when I'm talking about the problem. But if I'm really looking for a one-word enemy to call out by name, "immigration bureaucracy" fails the test by being two words, and the phrase is not as crisp or to the point as "slavery," "apartheid," "racism," or "discrimination."

I have heard our friends and allies use the words "isolationism," "xenophobia," or other words. Are these the words, then? Are these the one-word enemies?

If so, between the two, I'd pick "isolationism," because it describes the policy instead of just the emotion behind the policy. But I wonder whether it's exact enough. Lots of policies fit under the isolationism umbrella, however, many of them applicable to how we interact with people outside this country. We are fighting primarily for people in this country. Maybe "xenophobia" is the better of the two after all.

Is there an even more compelling noun that describes the policies we fight, on behalf of our immigrant neighbors? Is there one noun that truly isolates what it is that we are really against - or for?

While neither a noun nor what we are fighting, "welcoming" is a word that has been used with a measure of success, and the word still reverberates today. Just by using the word in public, I think we have pushed the boundaries of the debate in our direction. And we also gave people the courage (or at least a common vocabulary) to express with one voice what some in the city were already feeling and saying in other ways. But "welcoming" is not the enemy.

"Invisibility" is a word that I saw Univision use once, and that word conveys the idea of being physically present but nonetheless outside of society. Or to say it another way, with apologies to Shakespeare, "to be here but not to be - estar pero no ser - that is the question."

"Excommunication" is a word that seems to capture the spirit of unjust exclusion, and it has the added benefit of calling religion to mind, which is a frame that favors our position.

But I suspect that you think these words fall short. We may truly be at a lack for words, or more accurately, at a lack for the one word.

Please tell me I'm wrong. In one word, tell me what we're fighting. And then tell everyone.

As much as we all recoil at the notion of engaging in "framing" and "spin" when it comes to an issue that effect the lives of so many, sometimes when engaged in a war of words for hearts and minds, he who can present his case in the simplest and most easily digested terms holds the advantage .... perhaps it's time for us to search for "that one word"

Read More...

Summary only...

DREAM Act Resurrected: Time to Take Action.

One would think that a bill that would allow 60,000 high school graduates a year the opportunity to pursue higher education could garner pretty widespread support in Washington, particularly given our President's commitment to educational excellence and leaving no child behind.

And if these graduates came from a segment of society which the right-wing continually claims under-performs academically and eventually becomes a burden on society, one would think winger politicians would be falling over themselves to support legislation that would enable these ethnic scholars to become more productive members of society, even if to only supply more to the tax base.

OK .. just kidding .

We all know that wingers see 60,000 immigrant kids yearning for an education and say:

"No way, your American dream ends right here, we don't care that you were raised and schooled in this country, we don't care that despite all odds, you've succeeded, we don't care that you're just as 'American' as the next kid."

…all they see are "illegal aliens"

Each year approximately 2.8 million students graduate from United States High Schools. Some of them will go on to college, join the military, or take other paths in life, hopefully all becoming productive members of society, But for approximately 60,000 of them these opportunities will never be available , not because they lack motivation, or achievement, but because of the status passed on to them by their parents. They cannot attend college, or otherwise live a full lifes. Children that grew up on American soil, respected the laws of this country, and want nothing more than to be recognized for what they are, Americans….despite the "sins of there fathers."

But it doesn't have to be this way

A simple little bill, written by Sen.Dick Durbin(D-Il), can change the situation.

At seven pages long it's got a few simple provisions that would allow thousands of kids who've worked hard and played by the rules to qualify for the exact same rights afforded every student in the nation. … the right to continue their educations and make a better life for themselves and there families.

Wingers call the legislation "just one more shamnsty" bill, because it allows those who have lived here most of there lives, and know no other home, a conditional reprieve from arrest and deportation. It allows them a chance to temporarily shrug off the yoke of their parents "misdeeds" and provides them an opportunity to prove themselves "worthy" of their adopted home.

The DREAM Act would provide a path to legality for persons brought illegally to the United States by their parents as children, or whose parents attempted to immigrate legally but were then denied legality.

To qualify, the immigrant student would have to meet certain requirements:

• Proof of having arrived in the United States before reaching 16 years of age;



• Proof of residence in the United States for a least five (5) consecutive years since their date of arrival.



• Having graduated from an American High School, or obtained a GED.



• "Good moral character," essentially defined as the absence of a significant criminal record (or any drug charges whatsoever).

After meeting the above requirements students would be eligible to apply for a temporary six year "conditional" residence permit which would allow them to live legally in the United States, obtain driver's licenses, attend college as in-state residents, work legally (including obtaining a social security number), and apply for special travel documents which would allow for travel outside of the country for limited amounts of time.

During the six years of conditional status, the eligible immigrant would be required to either:

1. graduate from a two-year community college,


2. Complete at least two years towards a 4-year degree, or


3. serve two years in the U.S. military.

After the six year period, an immigrant who meets at least one of these three conditions would be eligible to apply for legal permanent resident (green card) status. During their temporary time, immigrants would not be eligible for federal higher education grants such as Pell grants, though they would be able to apply for student loans and work study.

If the immigrant does not meet the educational or military service requirement within the six year time period, their temporary residence would be revoked and he or she would be subject to deportation.

During the six years, the immigrant must not commit any crimes other than those considered non-drug related misdemeanors, regardless of whether or not they have already been approved for permanent status at the end of their six years.

Being convicted of a major crime or drug-related infraction would automatically remove the six year temporary residence status and he or she would be subject to deportation.

If the immigrant meets all of the conditions at the end of the 6-year conditional period, he or she would be granted a permanent green card with the same rights as a permanent resident alien, including the right to apply for U.S. citizenship.

It's a simple enough bill. No hundreds of pages of legal-speak and loopholes like most immigration related legislation.

The qualifications are simple and cut and dry, The "benefits" and obligations easily understood. You can read a copy here to see for yourself.

Wingers are already gearing up to fight this bill. Their spin machine of obfuscating rhetoric is ready to go. Numbers USA has already sent out hundreds of thousands of action alerts to oppose the legislation. Michele Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Relly and Lou Dobbs are already spreading their foul bile and propaganda.

But there's not much to debate here.

One either sees these children raised and schooled in America as future Americans …or sees them as nothing more than the products of their parents "misdeeds" who must be punished the rest of their lives as such.

Call your Senators Now (call between 9am and 5 pm)

Or e-mail your Senator

Better yet, Fax you Senator now

THE SWING VOTE LIST

The following Senators have not yet committed on the DREAM Act

If any of these are your Senators, contact them through the direct channels provided above.

If not, phone them by contacting the Senate switchboard at 202-224-3121


Alabama: Shelby
Alaska: Murkowski, Stevens
Arkansas: Pryor
Colorado: Allard
Georgia: Chambliss, Isakson
Idaho: Crapo
Indiana: Bayh
Iowa: Grassley, Harkin
Kansas: Brownback,Roberts
Kentucky: McConnell
Louisiana: Landrieu
Maine: Collins
Michigan: Stabenow
Minnesota: Coleman
Mississippi: Cochran
Missouri: Bond, McCaskill
Montana: Baucus, Tester
Nebraska: Nelson (Ben)
Nevada: Ensign
New Hampshire: Sununu
New Mexico: Bingaman, Domenici
North Carolina: Burr, Dole
North Dakota: Dorgan
Ohio: Brown, Voinovich
Oklahoma: Coburn
Oregon: Smith
South Carolina: DeMint
South Dakota: *Johnson, Thune
Tennessee: Alexander, Corker
Texas: Cornyn, Hutchison
Utah: Hatch
Vermont: Sanders
Virginia: Warner, Webb
West Virginia: Byrd, Rockefeller
Wyoming: Enzi, Barrasso

and let them know;
you support the children,
you support education,
you support fairness,
you support opportunity,
you support the Dream Act.

TALKING POINTS
1) SUPPORT the Durbin DREAM Act Amendment to the Defense Authorization (H.R. 1585)

2) Each year, thousands of immigrants who graduate from high school and who have grown up in the United States are unable to pursue their dreams of going to college because they lack legal immigration status.

3) This amendment would provide deserving undocumented immigrant students with an opportunity to apply for legal status and to continue their education.

4) Children who were not old enough to make their own decisions when entering the United States should not be held responsible for their parents' actions. They should be given an opportunity to go earn legal status and contribute to this country.

5) Providing these children with the opportunity to come out of the shadows and maximize their potential will strengthen the nation's economic foundation and remedy a clear injustice in our immigration system.

For more information see: National Immigration Law Council

Read More...

Summary only...

More Movement Meta

I believe the last round of negotiations on Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR), the so-called "Grand Compromise", provided a huge wake-up call for the immigrant-rights community. We found out just how badly the right-wing had out flanked us both in Washington and in the media and that any hope for meaningful CIR was now in the distant future.

Crafted in hopes to find a "sweet spot" that would calm the far-right, give business interests what they wanted, and appease those concerned with immigrant rights, the Compromise ended up to be nothing more than a gumbo of concessions to business and the restrictionst wing of the Republican party.

Despite the fact that a majority of Americans believe that the immigration system is severely broken and that those who have come here improperly deserve to be given the opportunity to stay and continue leading productive lives, a vocal and influential minority within the Republican Party managed to hold CIR hostage. They garnered concession after concession until the bill presented was an unworkable mess of restrictions, punishments and business concessions. All these concessions made in a vane attempt to appease this minority so that they would allow the "amnesty" that the vast majority of the American people want anyway.

As has happened time and again, when the closed doors were finally opened, and the super-secret compromise legislation revealed, many in the immigrant-rights community decided to play it safe with a "wait and see" strategy before endorsing or opposing the bill. This, in the hope that they might "work to make it better" through the amendment process.

And just as in the past, the amendment process was not meant for them, but rather those demanding greater and greater restrictions, and in the end, the bill received tepid support from a few organizations and outright opposition from others, and was killed.

Yet, this didn't stop the far-right for taking sole credit for its demise.

Lou Dobbs crowed about how "we the people have stopped the illegal alien amnesty bill", restrictionist Republicans gloated over the bill's failure, and Rush thanked his listeners for killing "shamnesty".

Yet, even though the bill was a train wreck from the start and probably never had any real chance of passing despite all the bravado from the Whitehouse, the grassroots campaign launched by the restrictionist movement was impressive to say the least. Over 700K e-mails and faxes flooded the Capitol in opposition to the legislation.

An effort like this is only possible because the ant-immigrant movement has a firm grip on much of the traditional and emerging new media.

Along with their legion of talk radio propagandists, they have Lou Dobbs' daily hour long cavalcade of hate on CNN, Pat Buchanan posturing as NBC's resident immigration expert, and a full roster of immigrant bashers occupying the seats over at FOX News to dominate the traditional media.

On the Web the ant-immigration movement is broad and far-reaching also.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and its affiliate organizations, The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and Numbers USA dominate. CIS, through its "studies and research", and Numbers USA, through their legislative "analysis," provide talking points and misinformation spread throughout the web and the main stream media. Numbers USA alone has a membership of 447,000 and played a large roll in orchestrating the restrictionist grassroots effort last spring. This web presence is magnified by the hundreds of blogs and other web sites that take their cues from FAIR and the other more traditional lobbying efforts.

So where does that leave the immigrant-rights movement?

Right now … in the dark.

We have no true counter to this restrictionist effort.

In the traditional media, print journalism does manage to get to the truth sometimes, and there is the occasional positive piece on TV. On the web there is a disjointed community of web sites and blogs trying to reach an audience, but in general nothing comes close to the coordinated effort put on by the right.

In my last post I discussed the lack of a coordinated message and unified goals as one chief stumbling block for the movement. But there are others.

Even if a set of goals and messages were formulated, we have no effective means to disseminate them. Sending a lone representative from the NCLR off to face Lou Dobbs on his home turf, or writing op-eds in hopes that they sway public opinion don't constitute an effective media strategy.

Along with a unified message we need a strategy.

We need infrastructure.

We need tools.

We need coordination.

We need to reach the point where not only is our message getting heard, but the opposition's message is being debunked or vilified. We need to be able to ensure that every time a CIS "study" is quoted as fact, it can be countered. We need to make it possible that when a restrictionist pundit or expert quotes the same old Borjas study on the adverse effects of immigration on those at the bottom of the economic ladder, it can be countered with the newer Peri study that debunked it. But that kind of information needs to be not only readily available, but but people need to know it's out there. But most of all, we need to be willing to confront some of the uglier aspects of this debate and not let the underlying racism and xenophobia that motivates some, receive a free pass out of fear WE will look too confrontational.

I'm not an "old media" guy so I can't really make too many suggestions as to how to crack that nut.

I do know that as much as I give credit to anyone willing to face down Dobbs or Buchanan, our official spokespeople have not done too effective a job when dealing with them. We need spokespeople willing to be as confrontational as our opponents, who won't be bullied or badgered, and are willing to call our opponents out when they mislead or misrepresent the truth or rely on jingoistic rhetoric or fear mongering. And most of all; They can't be afraid to call a minuteman a racist …because he is one.

But that said, much of the work to be done is in the new media and the web.

The web is where much of the misinformation used by our opponents emanates. Google up "immigrant taxes", "immigrant crime" "immigrant disease" or any of a myriad of other hot-button topics and I guarantee the CIS or some other restrictionist think tank or web site will come up to supply an endless stream of bogus studies and talking points. Those "facts" then swirl around the right-wing echo chamber from the blogs to talk radio to the MSM…. Eventually becoming accepted fact by the public.

The web is also where restrictionist advocacy and organizing takes place. Number USA being the most prominent site. Between its legislative analysis, candidate rankings, and on-line lobbying efforts, it’s a one stop shop for restrictionist action. But there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other websites and blogs raising money, influencing elections, lobbying legislation.

We need to do much better in this respect if we are to ever move our cause forward.

We have no strong "think tank" web presence like CIS or the Heritage Foundation etc.

We have no centralized or organized lobbying effort on the web.

We have no new media echo-chamber to magnify and disseminate information.

The broader Progressive blogosphere IS building those kinds of tools. But as of yet the immigrant-rights community has not reaped any benefit from it.

A few things could be done to rectify this situation in a relatively short span of time.

One would be to set up a central "think tank" type website that could aggregate the academic studies, reports, papers, demographic data, and everything pertaining to immigration and immigration reform. Then make sure that all advocacy groups, lobbyists, media people, bloggers, and anyone else who addresses this issue knows not only about the site, but how to easily find what they need.

Another thing that could easily be done would be to start to tie all the various pro-immigrant websites and bloggers together with a centralized set of tools for such things as contacting representatives, e-mail campaigns, voter registration, etc. Then start coordinating efforts and campaigns across the web to lobby for reform through these tools.

Out-reach to the already existing Progressive blogosphere is a must. They already have an existing infrastructure. But as of yet, most traditional immigrant-rights advocacy groups and organizations have virtually ignored this rapidly expanding movement. And quite frankly, in their ambivalence, have lost ground rather than gained in the last year as more and more reactionary populist ideas have made there way into Progressive discourse. From the Daily Kos to the Huffington Post, the pro-immigrat message is just not getting through.

Start a coordinated effort to use as much New Media as possible. Create viral videos through You-Tube, tap into social networking sites like Myspace, start reaching out to the blogoshere, all of this would be a good start.

Last year, through an uncoordinated effort of Spanish language radio, Myspace, websites, posters and flyers, the movement managed to put millions in the streets. With coordination one can only imagine what could be accomplished in the future.

But as I posted in my previous post, none of this can happen until all the hundreds of organizations and advocacy groups, large and small, start to work together and truly become a unified front.

Read More...

Summary only...

The immigration issue: two years out.

This October will mark the second anniversary of the publication of "Respect for the Law & Economic Fairness: Illegal Immigration Prevention", by Republican spinmeister, Frank Luntz.

Intended as a blueprint for winning the 2006 midterm elections, the 25-page memo laid out a strategy to provide cover for Republican candidates hampered by waning poll numbers. Luntz'a plan was to blame "illegal aliens" for all the nations social and economic ills, enabling a shift of attention from an unpopular war, unpopular economic policies, and an unpopular President.

Cleverly framing the issue in reactionary populism, Luntz's strategy pitted hard-working, tax-paying, "real Americans" against shiftless "illegals" looking for a free ride at the nations expense.

Of course with hindsight, we now know this strategy failed politically, polarizing and fracturing the Republican party. But Luntz's handiwork has had a lasting effect on national discourse and led to a level of societal toxicity that could have lasting effects well beyond his political machinations.

By December 2005, Congress passed the first in a series of "immigration reform" measures aimed at whipping up the electorate… the punitive, enforcement-only, Sensenbrenner Bill (HR4437). … a bill so vile it brought millions into the streets the following spring to oppose it.

In the following two years, three other major pieces "immigration reform" legislation have been proposed, two in the Senate, last years Kennedy-McCain Bill (s. 2611), and this years "Grand Compromise" (s.1639). With the reintroduction of the STRIVE ACT about to take place in the House, a third now joins them.

But each of these legislative efforts has been highly flawed. This in large part due to the work first done by Luntz in 2005. Having set the tone and timbre of the debate early on, every successive piece of immigration legislation in the last two years has moved further and further to the right.

In an attempt to find the "sweet spot" in Republican politics that would appease the restrictionist wing of the party and their followers, who have been the subjected to an unprecedented propaganda campaign, while still leaving enough concessions to make the business wing happy, every imaginable kind of "compromise" and concession has been put forward..

The list of compromise proposals is long. Touchbacks, triggers, more guestworkers, heavy fines, English-only, Z Visas, Y Visas, more walls, conditional status, the merit system, are but a few. All of them having no real purpose except to reconcile the two opposing factions within the Republican Party.

The Democrats have faired no better on this issue.

While almost universally accepting the notion of "comprehensive reform", what is meant by that catch-all term seems to vary greatly from one Democratic politician to the next. Very few have been willing to step beyond the confines of the debate as currently framed and propose the sweeping kind of reform called for.

Nothing is mentioned addressing the neo-liberal free-trade policies that have been the root cause of much of the inter-hemispheric migration taking place today.

None seems willing to counter the talking points of the extreme far-right that are clearly based on xenophobia and ethnocentrism.

None will step up and tie immigration reform to a broader policy of workers rights for all US workers, whether native or foreign-born.

None seem willing to close the loopholes in immigration policy that have allowed unscrupulous employers to game the system in regards to work visas and manipulate US labor markets to the detriment of both foreign and native-born workers in certain sectors.

They have forgotten the very roots of their party… A party built on the sweat and sacrifice of working people of all nation origins, races and creeds.

Now content to triangulate positions based upon some misguided belief of where the "magic middle" exists on any given issue, the Democrats have conceded the field to the opposition on immigration reform as just they have on many other important issues.


This lack of strong Progressive and Liberal voices has allowed for national polarization. As the debate has unfolded over the past few years, the bulk of the discussion has been dominated by voices from an increasingly unfriendly traditional media. From right-wing talk radio personalities to TV news commentators and pundits, a constant flow of anti-immigrant rhetoric has proliferated. The list of prominent anti-immigrant voices is long and a daily barrage of misinformation and propaganda from Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and FOX news has managed to poison any meaningful national discussion.

Even in the "New Media," which has increasingly become dominated by a rapidly growing Progressive internet presence, strong pro-reform voices have not come to the forefront.

While Progressive bloggers have had exponential growth in both numbers and political influence over the past few years, the immigration reform community has not benefited from this explosive growth.

This in part is due to the very lack of cohesive message that plagues the movement in general.

Like the broader Democratic Party, Progressives and Reformers have been all too willing to accept an ever moving target, determined by those opposed to any sort of reform, when considering what immigration reform should and shouldn't look like.

Thus far the reform movement has yet to become any more than a loose confederation of groups and advocates, often with agendas at opposition to one another. The movement is yet to put forth a cohesive set of goals and expectations beyond the vague concept of "comprehensive reform".

In order for any large scale movement demanding reform to be effective, a firm set of unified goals and expectations must be set.

Rather than always reacting to what legislation has been presented to us, the movement must define a firm set of goals as to what true immigration reform should be, then take those goals and march with them. These goals, once set, should become the cornerstone on which meaningful reform is built and should be presented to our political leadership to become the bedrock on which policy is crafted.

The time is now for those who truly want to advance the cause of immigration reform to come together and begin the hard work of crafting just such policy.

Policies that will address what future immigration should encompass.

Policies that will ensure that not only the immediate concerns of those here today are addressed, but also the concerns of those who will follow in the future.

Policies that look at the global realities of how US economic and foreign policy decisions effect and contribution to worldwide migration.

Policies that will ensure that all workers, both US and foreign-born are treated with dignity and economic justice.

Unless we, as Progressives and reformers, begin this needed dialogue amongst ourselves and start the hard work of reaching consensus, will forever be playing catch-up behind the likes of Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan as they continue to frame the national debate with the words of Frank Luntz and the Republican spin machine.

Read More...

Summary only...

Immigration Reform: Shame on all of us for we have failed

Twenty-one years ago, at the height of his political power, Ronald Reagan moved through Congress the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. It granted amnesty to the roughly 3mil undocumented immigrants and promised increased border security and stricter enforcement of employer sanctions. We now know that that law was not only highly flawed, but set the stage for today's current immigration debate.

Today as the Senate prepares to vote on the current immigration reform bill, we are once again at a crossroads. …and once again we are about to take a path that will most assuredly lead to problems of even greater scope and scale than were ever caused by IRCA.

But before going into detail as to how great a mistake we are about to make, we need take to look at just how we got to this place


The rumblings about immigration began long before the 2004 Presidential race. Prior to being thrust into reality by the events of September 2001, a newly elected President Bush had made "immigration reform", in the form of a greatly increased guest worker program, a cornerstone of his new administration's policy agenda.

Back-burnered by world events, the issue lay dormant for a few years as a growing current of anti-immigrant sentiment grew in the right-wing of the President's party. Shortly after salvaging the 2004 election with a combination of wedge issues and personal attacks, the Republicans went looking for a new wedge to divide the Democrats and bring out the party faithful. Newly appointed Democratic Chairman, Howard Dean, warned at that time that immigration would be the next great wedge.

With a highly unpopular war, record federal and trade deficits, wage stagnation, a growing health care crisis, and an under-funded and failing education system, only a wedge issue of epic proportions could save the Republicans from sure defeat in the next election cycle.

And so the "immigration crisis" was born.

To the Democrat's delight the wedge has blown up in the Republican's face and divided the party as never before. Exposing the fragility of the coalition first put together by Nixon's Southern Strategy and honed by Reagan with the inclusion of the Christian Right and Reagan Democrats, the immigration issue, fueled by nativist xenophobia on one side and corporate greed on the other, has cleaved the party down the middle.

But in so doing, it has now left the nation equally divided and put us in a position where one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written is about to leave the Senate.

But now it is no longer solely a Republican problem. Democrats, through their inability or unwillingness to stick to the liberal and progressive ideals on which the modern party was built, are now equally culpable in enacting legislation that will manage to not only virtually enslave millions of current and future immigrants in a system of second-class citizenry, but also attacks the very working Americans who have long been the backbone of the party.

The greatest failure of the Reagan legislation, contrary to popular opinion, was not its lack of enforcement and employer oversight, or an amnesty that sent a message of permissiveness to a world anxious to take advantage of our perceived weakness.

In the years following the legislation there was no great rush to the border by all those "waiting for the next amnesty." In fact, the numbers of undocumented immigrants remained stable at around 3.5 mil for nearly ten years, until the mid-nineties, when border crossing soared.

The same is true of border enforcement. In the 21 years since the bill was enacted the number of border patrol agents has increased from 3,243 in 1986 to 11, 106 today. Spending on border security has gone from $700 mil to $2,792 mil.

Additionally with the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 hundreds of miles of border walls and fences were built along the most heavily populated and traveled illegal entry routes, yet with all this added man-power and spending, the number of border apprehensions went down from 1,692,544 in 1986 to 1,188,977 currently, while the undocumented population soared to 12 mil.

This is because the true flaw in the Reagan legislation was that it never changed the fundamental dynamics of illegal immigration because in didn't make the needed and fundamental changes in the legal immigration system.

Reagan essentially asked for a "do-over" and got it without changing the rules of the game. There were no quota changes, no changes in the number green cards issued, no change in processing of paperwork, no changes in the path to citizenship for those qualified, no provisions made for any further immigration. Basically 3mil undocumented immigrants...many of them refugees from Reagan's Dirty Wars in Central America were made legal essentially over night ...then business was resumed as usual....without addressing why there were 3 mil undocumented immigrants here in the first place.

And we are about to repeat the same situation again. In fact, outside of the roughly 3mil green cards that will be used to alleviate the backlog that was caused by our current failed system...once it's been cleared up, there will be 200,000 less green cards available on a yearly basis then there are even today…. and we all know what that will lead to....in five years or ten...we'll be right back where we started.

Additionally, we will end up with 12 million people in the perpetual limbo of the Z visa system where they will pay continual fees to remain in legal status while never being able to convert to LPR status (green card holder) due to the constraints of a merit system intended to keep them on the margins of society while favoring the kind of high-skilled workers already stressing certain sectors of the native –born workforce through the various temporary worker programs already in place such as the H1-b visa program.

These perpetual Z workers will never become citizens, never fully join society, never have a voice in the political system, and never achieve the rights all workers deserve to organize and demand fair treatment due to the fact that their very ability to stay in the country will hinge upon their ability to remain employed. If they get fired …and are not re-employed within sixty days …they lose all rights and privileges. … no matter how long they've been here.

But, perhaps the most insidious aspect of this legislation is the new temporary worker program which will serve no purpose outside of supplying a perpetual supply of little more than indentured servants to a corporate system all too willing to exploit foreign workers to keep the wages of all workers artificially low.

These are only the most glaring faults of the legislation, but anyone whose read through it can attest to the hundreds of loopholes, infringements on basic rights and protections that will not only apply to immigrants but all US citizens, capitulations to business interests and lack of protections of workers both immigrant and native-born.

But who is to blame for this monstrosity?

It's easy to blame the politicians, the corporate boogiemen, the opposition party, DINOS, RINOS, the DLC, Bush, special interests, and lobbyists.

But the only ones we can really blame are ourselves. The liberals, the progressives, the left, the unions …. All of those who are supposed to be the conscience of the Democratic party.

WE had an opportunity, after twenty one years, to right a wrong, to fix a broken system, but instead we sat back either relishing the meltdown of the opposition party, or spent the time infighting.

As we have done so many times in the past, we have allowed our small differences to divide us. Those concerned with the human rights issues surrounding immigration reform fight with those advocating for H1-b visa reform. Those who favor guest worker programs as a path towards citizenship fight with those who oppose the plans on the grounds they are exploitive.

We have allowed those who first brought this issue to the forefront to frame the debate. We argue in the language of the Republican right and corporate wings. We argue in the language of Lou Dobbs, Tamar Jacoby, Tom Tancredo and George Bush. "Open Borders", "willing employers" "amnesty", "rule of law", "xenophobe" "anchor baby", "Mexican invasion", "English only", "Nation of immigrants", "Jobs Americans won't do"...this is how we have argued this debate….and shame on us for doing so.

These are their words … not ours. These terms were not part of the Democratic lexicon. They were spawned in the think tanks and PR firms of the Manhattan Institute and Frank Luntz.

We could have held firm to our values and beliefs as liberals and progressives.

• We could have focused on workers rights and workplace enforcement of labor laws.



• We could have focused on addressing the root causes of migration and demanded changes to trade agreements and foreign policy to guarantee a change of the conditions in sender nations.



• We could have worked to change the quota system to ensure that it reflected our true labor needs as opposed to those imposed by corporate interests.



• We could have demanded that all new immigrants were guaranteed the same worker protections and rights afforded all workers to end the exploitive practices that lower wages for all.



• We could have ended all the exploitive guest worker programs that lower standards for all workers.



• We could have fixed the legal immigration system so that it worked for all Americans and those wishing to become Americans.

But instead we dropped the ball. We allowed ourselves to lose sight of our core beliefs and got caught up in a Republican cat fight.

We could have led on this issue - instead we followed. And now we will reap what we have sown.

To those who sat back and watched the Republican melt-down in glee, I say shame on you.

To those who allowed themselves to be blinded by the faux populism of the Republican right, I say shame on you.

To those whose rigid adherence to humanitarian concerns allowed them to lose sight of the bigger picture, I say shame on you.

To liberals, progressives and Democrats, I say shame on us…shame on us all.

Read More...

Summary only...

This week's upcoming immigration fight

The Senate spent most of today's afternoon session on little more than a series of long-winded speeches in attempts to set the stage for this weeks upcoming immigration fight.

Tomorrow morning the main event should resume with a series debates on proposed amendments and voting.

With the defeat of the Vitter (R-LA) amendment to strike title VI from the bill by a vote of 29-66 and the Dorgan (D-ND) amendment to kill the Y-visa program by a vote of 31-64 during the first week of debate, it's appearing as though the bill's opponents will not be able to muster the needed votes to kill this legislation in the Senate.

Having tested the two most controversial aspects of the bill, the earned legalization provisions that have been characterized as "amnesty" by the right, and the guest worker program opposed by those on both sides of the debate - and failed on both accounts - it looks highly unlikely that opponents will be able to stop the bill on lesser grounds.

Not surprisingly, the World Street Journal reported this past weekend that business interests have now moved their lobbying efforts over to the House.

In a further sign that passage is expected, business lobbyists and others seeking changes in the bill already were starting to make their cases in the House, which would take up the issue after Senate passage. The Bush administration was pushing hard for a top business priority: increasing the number of laborers who would be allowed in each year under a new temporary-worker program.

WSJ

The same is true of those on the left looking to modify the legislation. The Mexican American Political Association (MAPA) has advised that while still working to make the Senate bill more palatable through the amendment process, it is now the House that should become the center of focus.

The debate on and the amendments to the "grand bargain" in the Senate will continue this week, but shortly the debate will move to the House. In reality, this is where we will have more leverage. The main focus of our attention should be on the House Subcommittee on Immigration, chaired by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren.

Link

Yet with that said, there are still many important amendments to be considered by the Senate, and they will be taking up 14 of them in the next few days...some the bill's architect, Jon Kyl (R-AZ), characterized today as deal breakers.

This weeks upcoming amendments

Those highlighted in red are highly troubling and should be opposed by all looking for meaningful progressive reform

1. Grassley 1166 - This amendment would broaden the restriction on judicial review of visa revocations. Currently, judicial review of visa revocation is already severely restricted. Judicial review is, however, permitted in the context of removal proceedings if the revocation is the sole ground for removal.


2. Cornyn 1184 - The amendment severely limits who would be eligible for legalization programs. Makes anyone who is inadmissible under 212(a) ineligible for the legalization program. This is virtually the entire undocumented population. Also makes ineligible anyone unlawfully present for one year or more and subsequently reentered. Significantly expands class of “Aggravated Felony” crimes and makes them retroactive. Gives the AG unreviewable discretion to use secret evidence to determine if an alien is ‘described in’ the national security exclusions within immigration law. Adds new grounds of deportability for convictions relating to social security account numbers or social security cards and convictions relating to identity fraud


3. Dodd-Menendez 1199 - amendment would undo damage in the compromise that makes it more difficult for the parents of U.S. citizens to obtain a visa. The compromise would place a limit on the number of visas for parents at roughly half the current usage. The amendment retains the limitation but raises it to 90,000 visas per year or roughly the current usage.


4. Menendez-Hagel 1194 - to extend the date for those eligible for back-log reduction green cards from May 2005 to Jan. 2007 to ensure that the entire family backlog already in line to become legal permanent residents will get addressed. The current bill would essentially toss out all applications filed after May 2005. Also calls for increased quotas in all categories (family based, employment based, and asylum/refugee) of green cards set aside for back-log reduction.


5. McConnell 1170 - Each State shall require individuals casting ballots in an election for Federal office in person to present a current valid photo identification issued by a governmental entity before voting. Each State shall be required to comply with the requirements of subsection (a) on and after January 1, 2008


6. Feingold 1176 – to set up a commission on wartime treatment of European Americans of Italian and German decent during WWII and a commission to address the wartime treatment of Jewish refugees during WWII.


7. Durbin-Grassley 1231 - to require all employers seeking a Y worker to first attempt to recruit US workers. Removes exemptions for employers in occupations and areas that the DOL has determined there is a shortage of US workers.


8. Sessions 1234 - to deny Earned Income Tax Credit to Y and Z visa holders paying back taxes.


9. Sessions 1235 - to deny Earned Income Tax Credit to legal immigrants with less than five years in the US,


10. Lieberman 1191 - to improve treatment of immigrants seeking asylum and to establish clear standards for treatment of immigrants in detention.


11. Allard 1189 - to remove the supplemental schedule for merit-based points for Z visa holders that gives credit for past employment, home ownership and having medical insurance when applying for green cards. In essence would eliminate the majority of Z visa holders from eventually obtaining permanent residency.


12. Cornyn 1250 - removes the confidentiality protections for legalization applicants and orders the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to provide the information furnished in applications filed under section 601 and 602, and any other information derived from such furnished information, to any law enforcement entity, intelligence agency, national security agency, component of the Department of Homeland Security, court, or grand jury in connection with a criminal or civil investigation.


13. Clinton-Hagel 1183 - to ensure that the spouses and children of legal permanent immigrants can immigrant into the United States to be with their family members.


14. Obama-Menendez 1202 - to sunset the point system after five years. The Senate never had the opportunity to debate the system out in the open; the result is a proposal that would gut family-sponsored immigration

Call your Senators – 1-800-417-7666 in English or 1-800-882-2005 en Espanol

UPDATES:

Grassley (#1166) abolishing judicial review on visa revocations made by the Secretary of State. Agreed to by unanimous consent on 6/4/07

Allard (#1189) to remove the supplemental schedule for merit-based points for Z visa holders. Failed by vote of 62-31 on 6/5/07

Durbin-Grassley (#1231) to require all employers seeking a Y worker to first attempt to recruit US workers. Passed 71-22 on 6/5/07

Read More...

Summary only...