8-5-2008
I don’t know about you, but one of the ways that a movie can become one of my all time favorites is by having a great line. The Usual Suspects is one of those movies. Most people like the film because of its incredible acting and one of the best plot twists of all time. I’m not one of those people; I love the film because of one simple line. That point in the film where Kevin Spacey who plays the role of Verbal Kent, who is under interrogation as law enforcement, explains the power of the criminal master mind Keyser Soze by simply stating that “[t]he greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.” I like that line and now I’m going to plagiarize Verbal Kent.
The greatest trick that the anti-immigrant movement has played on African Americans is convincing us that the anti-immigrant movement is no threat to us. I beg to differ. In fact I would like to make a modest proposal to Black America. That proposal is this: I believe that if there were not one immigrant or refugee in the United States we would still have an anti-immigrant movement. Why? Because the current so-called debate on immigration is not about coming to terms with the issue of migration; it is about who is an American and what will American look like. At its core anti-immigration is a national debate about civil rights, citizenship and national identity.
Beneath the irresponsible roar of Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly and other radio wannabes lays the underbelly of this so called anti-immigrant movement. It is a layer that they hope that African Americans don’t see. In fact, they are so worried that the key anti-immigrant organization - Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) - has created two front groups in an attempt to distract African Americans. The two groups are Choose Black America and the Coalition for the Future American Worker. Both “organizations” are staffed and/or received support by FAIR. While FAIR says that it cares about the welfare of Black Americans it has never used any of its resources to support one single piece of legislation seeking to lessen the economic plight of Black America. It has never returned the 1.2 million dollars that it has received from the anti-black Pioneer Fund, and refuses to hold accountable board members and staff that align themselves with individuals and organizations with ties to political extremists, including white nationalists.
Meanwhile, while lulling African Americans to sleep with Federation for American Immigration Reform and its constellation of organizations, they have systematically dismantled voting rights at the state level, supported armed vigilantes targeting brown skin people and are now in the mist of seeking to destroy the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. By using the racist term “anchor baby”, members of Congress, who are part of another FAIR front group called the House Immigration Reform Caucus, they were able to introduce into the present House of Representatives H.R. 1940. Sponsored by 103 Congressional Members, passage and implementation of H.R. 1940 would require eviscerating the 14th Amendment, a question of insurmountable import to black people who citizens’ rights have been historically guaranteed by this constitutional amendment.
While the debate on American identity is occurring on the backs of immigrants, I think it’s time that African Americans come to terms with the fact that an old enemy is undercutting the gains of the civil rights movement. The first step in fighting back is admitting that the anti-immigrant movement just might be the modern day face of white nationalism. Of course some of us will continue to believe the lies of FAIR, but that’s nothing new. The devil has always been able to buy souls on the cheap, apparently even ours.
Are African Americans Missing the Point on Immigration
Ecoploitation?
8-5-2008
During the first three decades of the 1900s their was an intense ecological movement in Germany. It was a movement of youth that promoted a return to the land and opposed industrialization's damage to the earth. They were called Wandervögel or in English "wandering free spirits". They practiced and idealized a lot of the same things as modern day environmentalists. But what ultimately became of this movement would horrify most of today's environmental activists.
Most of these nature-loving youngsters became Nazis. Yes, Nazis. The Nazi Party successfully recruited them by exploiting their message of benign 'Earth purity' into that of a murderous 'human purification'. Thus the 'Green Wing' of the Nazi Party was born and became one of the driving influences to the holocaust.
What does this mean for today's ecological movement? Does this mean that ecology and fascism go hand-in-hand? Definitely not, but it does means that we are vulnerable.
How do we make sure that people seeking social and ecological change are never exploited again?
One way is to recognize that healthy, earth-sustaining activities are a privilege and ensure that whatever cause we as individuals choose to support, whether it be animal rights, organic farming or nature preservation, we always keep the well-being of our fellow humans central to our work.
Signs that your environmental interests are being hijacked by a fascist:
1. You're encouraged by your local PETA supporter to be more concerned for the welfare of farm animals than that of the poor people who care for them.
2. Someone you know repeatedly implies that immigrants are bad for the environment.
3. Your neighbor annoyingly monitors everything you put in the recycling bin, but evades conversations on corporate waste.
4. You find yourself sympathizing with Hollywood celebrities (especially young, blond ones) who confront poor villagers over their life-sustaining hunting practices and then fly back to L.A. in gas guzzling private jets.
What to do:
1. Step away from the haters!
2. Remember that immigrants plant, pick and slaughter most of the food in this country. The better they are treated, the better they will treat your food.
3. Celebrities may be pretty, but they usually aren't so bright. Don't trust them to give you sound advice on urgent environmental issues.
4. Whole Foods may talk a good game, but it's still a corporation and only accessible by the super-rich. If you support local growers that make themselves available to everyday people, then you increase the chance that everyday people will have access to organic food.
On Neighbors and Immigration
Guest Blogger: Doug West - click on title to find original post
DWest@us.ci.org
7-28-2008
I was an eyewitness this week to some of the worst aspects of humanity: fear, distrust, defensiveness. It was a single incident that happened behind my neighbor’s house. Running behind the houses on my street is a walking trail that weaves through some woods and along a creek and a small lake. Several children, including my 3 sons, were playing at the edge of those woods, checking out the creek, throwing rocks in the water – typical kid stuff. I was in the backyard when I heard my neighbor, let’s call her ‘Liz’, talking to someone, in a tone of voice that clearly suggested she was annoyed or angry:
“Hey you – can I help you?…………Hello? What are you doing?......Leave………excuse me...GO!”
As she was saying this I looked up to see who she was talking to and saw a landscape worker, dirty, sweaty, his weed-whacker resting over his shoulder, standing just on the other side of her fence. He was standing there looking at the children, just watching what they were doing. I could see he was Hispanic and he turned his head to acknowledge her but then just smiled and turned his head away, not moving on like she wanted. I think this clearly upset her all the more as she got louder with each new question or command she issued, thinking he was purposefully ignoring or disregarding her.
With a glance at the scene outside her fence, she had immediately turned to fear, distrust and defensiveness. Her words, tone and body language were conveying “You aren’t welcome here, I don’t trust you, what the heck do you think you are doing just standing there looking at the children?, and you better get out now.” Without a single word of dialog, the man was assumed to be, at best, an uninvited, unwanted person in the community and at worst, a dangerous threat. Because he was an immigrant, a laborer, he was most likely a criminal with ill intent. If he had been a white man dressed like an executive in a pressed business suit, I am certain he wouldn’t have received the same response – at the very least not in the same dismissive tone.
I can’t tell you how glad I am that I am somewhat conversational in Spanish. I could clearly see that he didn’t understand her so I walked over to help out. José Antonio Rio is part of the landscape crew that cuts the grass and does all the landscape work on the common areas in the neighborhood. He was easily 50-60 years old, had a warm, gentle smile and had been working a full day already, with dirt and bits of grass plastered to the front of his jeans. He’s from El Salvador and told me about how bad it had been there during the war, when so many women and children were slaughtered. He is a grandfather and was quick to point out that the grass around the rocks in the drain water ditch was getting too high and was dangerous for the little children who would trip if they couldn’t see where to step. He had been busting his tail keeping our community looking nice and was just taking a break before finishing his work (cutting the grass around those rocks) and meeting up with the rest of the crew. What a thank you.
To end the story, the three of us ended up having great conversation. When Liz found out he had a reason for being there and stopped assuming he was a threat to her property, herself or her child, you could tell she felt horrible at the way she had been talking to him. She even went up to the house and got José a cold cup of water and offered to do the same every time he came through.
Now, to her defense, Liz is a widowed single mom, new to the neighborhood, with a 9-year-old son. I am sure her life experiences and circumstances have encouraged or taught her to be protective. I’m not trying to condemn her at all. I’ve seen prejudice in different forms in my own heart at times, as much as I hate to admit it. It just showed me a glimpse of how hateful or distrustful we can be toward others – particularly whole groups of people who are ‘different’ than us, whether in culture or class.
Chicago's Hometown Heroes
7-23-2008
I was born and raised in the Chicago-area. I grew up going to Cubs games with my dad, and playing catch in the backyard. I spent most of my childhood in a suburb where one enjoyed the best of the city and ignored the worst.
The worst was the segregation, poverty, and police brutality. I heard about it, but I never saw it. It wasn't until I was a teenager that I learned about the deep divisions of my city. In some Chicago neighborhoods one can feel as if every step is scrutinized. Although I loved it here, I began to be uncomfortable in my city; uncomfortable with what my moving into the neighborhood meant for my neighbors (who were mostly African-American and Latino).
Any Cubs fan who moves away will probably tell you that the thing they miss most about Chicago are games at Wrigley Field, and that’s exactly what I was craving.
The funny thing is I don't even like baseball all that much. It can get kind of boring. And let's face it, if you're looking for superb athleticism you might want to try another sport. I was missing what happens once you walk into the stadium. The love of Cubs fans for their players is hard to explain, and I'm not sure most would want to understand it even if they could. There is one universal fact though, baseball fans love a good player no matter where they come from.
When I sat down at my first game of the season this year my heart swelled when I heard the crowd chanting Kosuke Fukodome's name (our star left-hander from Japan). Imagine arriving in a strange country with no friends and have 40,000 people rise to their feet to welcome you - every day. Kosuke may not have realized it, but in the hearts of Chicagoans he was one of us.
The same with Carlos Zambrano, who embodies the dreams of all the big farm boys pitching away in small towns across America. Then there's the story of Jim Edmonds...oh wait, he was actually born in America - well he used to be a Cardinal, so he’s actually the most foreign of all. And even though we needed some time to warm up to him, he's now loved like he's been a Chicagoan all along.
Most people who watch baseball understand that it's no longer a national pastime - it's an international pastime. It wouldn't be any fun without immigrants. Imagine turning on the game and not seeing Aramis Ramirez, Alfonso Soriano or Carlos Marmol step onto the field. What if all the immigrants disappeared from baseball? Would we even bother watching anymore? Now think about how we would feel if all the immigrants disappeared from our city and then our country.
We don't often like to admit it, but immigrants make this city and this country more vibrant. How would our lives change if we could transfer our loving embrace as baseball fans into other areas of our lives? What if we could take this love and bring it home or to our jobs or on our morning commute? What if we could look past an accent and block out the noise on Fox News and just see people for who they are? I think it would make this good city even better, maybe even as great as a summer day at Wrigley Field.
(Images gratefully borrowed from Wallyg's photostream (statue of liberty) and Chicago photogirl's photostream (Chicago skyline) at flicker.com/creativecommons)
Businesses Should Follow the Money Trail on Immigration
7-22-2008
(Image gratefully borrowed from Vinh Tran (on left) and WelcomingIdaho (at the bottom) at flicker.com/creativecommons)
Yesterday was hot and humid in Chicago. One of the things I like best about summer heat is that it gives me the perfect excuse to ingest one of Dunkin Doughnut’s Frozen Latte. Yesterday, while I was killing some time and sucking down my frozen latte, I decided to give in to another guilty pleasure and grab yesterday's New York Times.
As I was giving the front section a good look over, I noticed an editorial entitled Pushing Back on Immigration. In the editorial it is clear that business leaders are frustrated at their inability to secure a workforce and with the federal government’s unwillingness to create rational migration laws in the United States. The NYT editorial congratulated employers around the country who have banded together to defeat local and state-level anti-immigrant legislation.
What isn’t mentioned in the editorial is that the political action committees (PACs) of these same businesses have been some of the most enthusiastic financial supporters of the very same Congresspersons who have blocked meaningful immigrant legislation.
Consider Home Depot’s PAC; they gave $130,500 in campaign contributions to anti-immigrant politicians, more than 17% of its total donations. Ironically, these same elected politicians took Home Depots money with one hand, and with the other they introduced anti-immigrant legislation that directly attacks Home Depot – and the business community at-large - because of its supposed neutral stance on immigration.
Home Depot is not alone. Almost 2600 political action committees gave campaign contributions to anti-immigrant members during the 109th Congress (2005-2006), according to a comprehensive analysis of Federal Elections Commission records conducted by the Center for New Community.
As I sat there with my creamy frozen latte, I realized that even the milk industry was not immune from mistakenly financing individual members of Congress who, as a block, are responsible for creating the very labor shortage that the dairy industry currently faces.
All told, fifteen of the PACs closely tied to the dairy industry’s interests have contributed over $400,000 to anti-immigrant campaign coffers. In addition, when one adds the amount given by all agricultural related interests, the number sharply rises to millions of dollars. These anti-immigrant members of Congress have received campaign contributions from a surprisingly wide range of dairy industry sources, including Select Milk Producers PAC, United Egg Association EggPAC, and the Dairy Farmers of America Inc. DEPAC to name just a few. How did this happen?
While members of the business community tend to view congressional members as individuals, nearly a quarter of the House of Representatives have joined together to act as a bloc. Under the umbrella of the House Immigration Reform Caucus (HIRC), over 118 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have opposed virtually ever piece of key legislation aimed at relieving present labor shortages. In addition, HIRC members have increasingly placed the administrative burden of verifying the legal status of employees onto businesses themselves, forcing companies into acting like immigration enforcement officers.
The House Immigration Reform Caucus is led by Brian Bilbray, from California’s 50th Congressional District. Before his election to Congress, Bilbray was a lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and today continues to serve as co-chair of it s National Board of Advisors. The Federation for American Immigration Reform has a long history of accepting funds and associating with political extremists, including some folks with ties to white supremacist organizations. As Bilbray took over the HIRC in January of 2007, the California congressman announced plans to “work closely” with groups, such as FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies – a FAIR spin-off, to seek their input on legislation.
If business is really serious about encouraging realistic solutions, perhaps they might start by not financially supporting those who promote policies that can be fairly described as both inhumane and anti-business. Perhaps it’s time for them to put their money where their mouths are.
Do We Really Want Change?
By Sarah Viets
7-21-2008
Have you ever broken up with someone because they rarely stood on their own? Or because they stimulated you, but the tone of their words muted the sound of your voice - their words and thoughts towered over your every word.
I have. Then I promised myself I’d never date a replica of my past. I made a vow to meet someone who would challenge me and get me to see the world and myself through a different prism. I was so tired of making all the decisions, no matter how serious or trivial they were. Tired, tired tired…
But then life goes on and my previous experiences are remembered as a small and insignificant part of my past. I meet someone new and his/her personality appears to contrast a familiar face. But then I notice something. I’ve ended up exactly where I once was. Ugg! Who put a magic mirror above my bathroom sink?! Why do I continue to not see situations as they are; is my mirror permanently distorted?
Worse yet, I desire that familiar voice of the one who is responsible for my solace and despair.
I say I want change and want to try something new. I want to break away from the only experiences I’m most comfortable in. But when it comes down to it, my actions contrast my ideals. Instead, of choosing what I desire, I merely choose a different shade of a previous color.
I live in an age of change - an era that thrives to see and experience unfamiliar paths. The internet connects us to new ideas and people across the globe, allowing me to sit in my living room and download new movies and foreign rhythms and beats.
While the present moment rings of opportunity, the opportunities we choose are not optimistic.
People may claim they’re adaptable and “open-minded,” but the only people and ideas we believe are merely echoes our own. People really don’t seek anything different, just a larger exposition of what they already proclaim to know. And if somebody challenges a point of view, people don’t question the roots of a personal position. We respond in defense by clinging to our ideals while not knowing what the opposing side actually represents. We become loyal and rigid, keeping our feet locked in place. We don’t second-guess our original stance. Re-thinking previously stated opinions are defined as wavering weak assessments and not evolving conclusions.
At the same time, we present ingrained opinions; we don’t hesitate to say why someone is wrong. Individual interpretations based on personal experiences possibly explain unfamiliar patterns.
While I obsessively shuffle through a friend’s friend-list on facebook, search on-line for that Icelandic band I heard at a friend’s house, or play chess with cyber friends from who knows where, am I really taste-testing unaccustomed flavors?
With that said, do people prefer subconsciously pre-determined opinions? And if so, is the inability to feel grounded in undetermined conclusions an individual problem or a social phenomenon?
Looking at current events, debates about immigration reform usually present solutions that aren’t any different from the past. Proposed state-wind ballot initiatives and city council ordinances that try to address problems with immigration are masked as new and innovative approaches, but they’re not.
Kind of like old policies that either banned slavery, implemented “gradual” emancipation, or held tight to their slave auctions and enacted the Fugitive Slave Act. In fact, for more than 100 years, colonies and states couldn’t decide what to do. So they began to use their borders (like states and city ordinances) as a way to advance pro-slavery positions. Even more, there were over 20 different local and state wide policies that limited where black people could work, live, and who black folks could marry.
But states could never really decide what to do to. One minute they might pass some law to protect husbands, wives, daughters and sons running away from the south, and then the next minute they might protect segregation.
It was a HUGE mess. So much that the south declared itself independent from the north (the Southern Confederacy) so they could assert their strong support for buying and selling moms and dads like a piece of cattle.
Now, I know bringing up history is like bringing up a bad relationship that you’re trying to forget. But how can anyone learn from his or her mistakes unless they draw lessons from old mistakes?
I know it’s easy to say slavery was bad, that our old relatives were off their rockers, but at one moment and time, they weren’t. It was socially acceptable to protect slavery and hunt for runaway slaves, kind of how the Minutemen (a modern anti-immigrant group on the border) hunts for immigrants on the border.
(and here's a picture)
We desperately need new ideas - we need change. But new non-traditional ideas should be examined with caution, unfamiliar views should at least be considered before firmly rejected. That’s what makes our country beautiful: the ability to challenge and adapt our American constitution.
Maybe its time to re-define what it means to be a Citizen. Maybe its time to re-think what it means to be American.
(picture gratefully used from www.dneiwert.blogspot.com)
NumbersUSA, Don't Treat Me like a Fool
By Sarah Viets
7-10-2008
Boyfriends and girlfriends and husbands and wives sometimes lie to each other. They say they’re faithful and would never dream of cheating, but that’s not always the case. Instead of being honest, they lie and say, “No, I didn’t, I couldn’t, you mean too much to me, and there’s nothing I’d ever do to jeopardize what we have together.” But then again, sometimes it’s easier to believe a lie rather than dig for the truth. I know I’ll never forget the day an old boyfriend lied to my face, and boy did I feel like a fool.
Kinda like Numbers USA, a national anti-immigrant rights organization. The organization says they want to improve “community quality of life,” they say they’re fighting to increase my weekly pay, but do they?
Just like people believe their loved one’s sweet lies, NumbersUSA’s mission makes sense, but only on the surface.
NumbersUSA’s website says they aim to “reach for these honorable goals of economic justice, community quality of life and environmental sustainability.” Even more, Roy Beck, NumbersUSA’s executive director, says he’s fighting for “working people,” like janitors, housecleaners, and motel maids, and knows how hard it is to raise a family on less than $30,000 a year. And he blames weak immigration laws for low paying jobs.
But why does Beck target flimsy immigration rules for thin wallets, high medical bills, and hamburger-helper dinners, and does he have an alternative motive?
What type of organization is NumbersUSA and who’s the guy in charge?
In the 1990s, Roy Beck attended and spoke at the Council of Conservative Citizen’s (CofCC) annual conference. And for those unfamiliar with CofCC, the organization use to call themselves the White Citizens’ Council when it was socially acceptable to wear white-hooded sheets over your head and demand racial segregation.
In the 1980’s, Beck’s good friend John Tanton (founder of Federation for American Immigration Reform, FAIR) asked and received over a million dollars from the Pioneer Fund. Tanton used the money to financially support FAIR and create more anti-immigrant organizations, like NumbersUSA.
But the Pioneer Fund isn’t your average national foundation fighting world hunger. The Pioneer Fund gives money to scientists who study racial IQ differences. To put it another way, they help researchers prove that white people are biologically superior to African Americans to explain black crime and high poverty rates in African American communities.
(After working in a non-profit organization, I’ve learned that foundations only give money to those who support their mission. In other words, NumbersUSA’s goals match the Pioneer Fund’s mission.)
Currently, NumbersUSA is looking for community leaders - like business owners, social workers, CEOs, politicians, or anyone who works for an environmental, civil rights, or religious organization - to build relationships with local newspapers. Roy Beck wants reporters and editors to print NumbersUSA’s mission on the front page of every newspaper, and he needs journalists to trust NumbersUSA activists so newspapers publish his personal agenda.
So far, the organization has received over 500 emails from interested applicants and will fly over a dozen qualified supporters (who can donate 4 hours a week and commit 1 year) to their first two-day training conference on July 24-25, 2008 in Washington DC. But infiltrating 12-24 local newspapers in towns across America isn’t enough. NumbersUSA will hold another training session this September.
But just like loved ones say they’d never cheat, NumbersUSA says weak immigration laws are responsible for America’s financial crises. Why? Since its no longer socially acceptable to argue for racial segregation, anti-immigrant organizations, like NumbersUSA use immigration as a way to racially divide American families. They use the immigration debate as a way to hide how they really feel about dark-skinned immigrants.
And as an avid reader of my local paper, all I have to say is this:
NumbersUSA - don’t lie to me.
You bet I’m upset that two of my closet friends had to declare bankruptcy or why I can’t find a job. You bet I want answers. But you can’t spoon-feed me your knee-jerk response. I know the answer is more complicated than you claim, so don’t use me for your own personal interests. I’m not a fool.
I may be from a small hick town where I learned how to drive on dirt roads, but I’m not stupid. So don’t insult my intelligence.
Smell Something Burning? It’s Probably Arizona
By Eric K. Ward
7-8-2008
Did you ever play the “If I had lived during [insert appropriate historic period here] I would have . . .” game? Back when I was a kid my friends and I would sit in a tight circle often with popsicles juice running down our fingers while we discussed how each of us would have reacted to the Great Chicago Fire, escaped the Titanic, survived in the Land of the Lost, or ran bootleg rum from Canada, though I’m sure we didn’t even know what rum was.
As we grew older the game changed and took on even more significance. It was no longer made up of fantasies of how I would have invested in Disney and made it rich. Instead, I thought about how I might imagine myself reacting to important moments in U.S. history. Actually it was just one moment that fascinated me, the one called the Civil Rights Movement. “Would I have been able to keep my cool desegregating a lunch counter?” “Could I have worked up the courage and registered to vote knowing that I might get a visit from the Klan that evening?” Would I have left the comfortable confines of college to spend my summer in a place that very well might cost me my life?”
Of course I was always full of bravado about what I “would have done” if given the chance, but I made these boasts from the comfort of the present - a nice place to explore “what if?” and “what may?” I don’t think I’m alone in this and I still think many still wonder what they might have done had they been in places called Selma, Montgomery, Jackson and Boston.
In Arizona, like the tattered pages of an old paperback, the wondering is long over. With over 181 bodies recovered in the deserts in 2007, fifty five pieces of anti-immigrant legislation to be submitted in 2008, and a local Sheriff who resembles Bull Connor (a southern police officer and KKK member in the 1960's) more than Wyatt Earp, Arizona is becoming to immigrants rights, what Mississippi was to the 1960s civil rights movement—a defining moment in which each of us will be called to either embrace inhumanity or redeem the soul of America.
While I still wonder what I might do, others are acting. From day laborers in Phoenix, Arizona, who face down the Sherriff and his posse because they know that work is not a crime, to community members in Flagstaff, Arizona who were detained last weekend for “disturbing the peace” because they dared to honor the very meaning of the 4th of July by joining the annual 4th of July parade.
Kaitlyn Fahrenbruch a spokesperson with The Coalition to Repeal took part in the 4th of July Parade with seven others to deliver a declaration of their own (click to watch video). “Our goal is the repeal all anti-immigrant laws; federal, state and local,” says Fahrenbruch “We were marching in the defense of freedom for all people to live, love, and work anywhere they please” she said. Is the message extreme? Maybe it seems extreme to me, but then I remember English King George didn’t take it very well when he was told a similar message about us celebrating American Independence each year on the 4th of July.
Beyond the debate on the economic pros and cons of immigration, I think The Coalition to Repeal has realized something that I had forgotten. That hundreds of people dying in the desert each year is extreme, children coming home to empty kitchens where parents have disappeared is extreme, beings jailed for seeking work is extreme. Asking that each individual in our society be treated with basic human decency is not—it is as American as apple pie. It’s what we have been seeking since 1776.
What would I have done had I lived in the 1960s? I guess I don’t have to wonder anymore. Arizona, here I come!
Employer Sanctions, Border Security is Anti-Civil Rights
By Sarah Viets
Some folks vehemently believe US borders are weak and feeble. They believe porous borders threatens American security, strains American social services, declines US wages, and fosters unemployment. Now, I can either create a counter argument for each claim, or I can change how people debate immigration.
I choose the latter. But, it's also important to address American's hearts and minds. Each of us is frustrated by the direction of our country. And each of us desperately desires an alternative to our current status quo.
But blaming immigrants for old problems confuses me. Inadequate social services, educational resources, low wages, and high unemployment are not new problems. Broken borders aren’t responsible for each specific problem.
The amount of money spent on education, roads, bridges, levees, and health care has been declining for years, a decision made by elected politicians, like mayors, city councilpersons, senators, and house of representatives. They decide what programs to fund and what departments to cut. But that's not the only reason.
When largely unionized industries, like textile and steel mills and automotive industries moved outside American borders, so did high paying jobs with health care and pensions. In it’s place, low paying American service jobs replaced industrial work. Large malls, new hotels, restaurants and large retailers filled American landscape and replaced $2,000 monthly paychecks. In other words, American employers paid minimal wages at American's expense.
In result, real wages (American's income) stayed the same while the cost of living increased. To put it another way, every time light bills, monthly food budgets and gas prices went up, American paychecks stayed the same. If bi-weekly pay stubs increased with the cost of gas, minimal wages would exceed $10.00 an hour. Even more, Americans pay more health care bills and receive shaky pension plans unparalleled to previous decades.
None of these points are new information. In fact, you probably skipped them. (I don't blame you, it's depressing).
So, complaints about new immigrants are actually fights for resources. For instance, a fight for resources argues that there aren’t enough resources to feed the entire globe. Therefore, strict border enforcement and employer sanctions are needed to fight and maintain what little resources there are.
However, while this argument is justified, why should we reserve American resources specifically for Americans? Is it because we're citizens? If so, this argument says Americans deserve jobs and resources over people who aren't American.
These questions strike me as odd. And they're why I label strict border enforcement and employer sanctions as anti-civil rights, and here's way:
Civil rights are "the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality..." At the same time, some definitions say rights are only guaranteed to citizens. However, I would argue that "legal, social and economic equality" should apply to all human beings, not just citizens. But if I say only citizens should enjoy "the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality..." and not all human beings, regardless of citizenship, then I'm also defining who has a right to life. (Particularly since the majority of immigrants come to our country for jobs.)
Let me put this another way, if a human being doesn't have access to basic human needs, they'll die. For instance, if I give one-person milk, a nice juicy steak or chicken, a house, English and math school books, the ability to call their grandparents and brother or sister for money or a babysitter, and a reason to get up in the morning, or in other words, a J-O-B, while at the same time, limiting or prohibiting someone from working, nagging and fighting with their parents or family siblings (everybody has family drama!), buying their kids clothes and making their favorite meals gives one person more of a right to live than another.
But I don’t have more of a right to live simply because my birth certificate reads, “Born in the U.S.A. I don’t deserve my dad’s burnt hamburgers, writing tons of papers so I can graduate college, or building a family, like my mom and dad did, more than the next guy.
This is why I refuse to support any policy that says I have more of a right live and experience life more than the next person. I refuse to vote for any law that weakens my American identity. I refuse to support any policy that defines who should and who shouldn't aim for the American Dream. Even more, I refuse to blame immigrants for under funded schools and why my friend (who is an American citizen) had to declare bankruptcy because of insane hospital bills.
I have a better idea, instead of targeting immigrants, why not demand higher wages, better health care and education reforms? Why? If we clamp down on immigration, our current problems won't go away. It's not like our resources will suddenly increase if we advocate strict enforcement.
Even more, why delay American prosperity? Immigration reform organizations, like Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR), Numbers USA and Americans for Better Immigration, say strict employer sanctions and strict border security will increase wages and employment and improve our education and health care systems. But what they don't tell you is that immigration policies don't guarantee higher wages and employment, and educational and health care improvements. Their idea is a big fat theory with a bunch of holes.
But battles for educational reforms, employment, increased wages, and adequate health care do.
Why make life harder than it is? The clock is ticking, with no room for mistakes.
Attacks against Immigrants attacks Black America
By Eric K. Ward
I’m African-American and my family moved to California almost a hundred years ago after a lynching took place outside their hometown in Kentucky.
I’m also undocumented, or in the current anti-immigrant vernacular, “illegal.” I don’t have the necessary documents to prove my identity. Therefore, within four years, I won’t be able to vote, have access to social services, or receive state identification to travel.
Let’s start from the beginning:
In May 2006, I lost my passport and Social Security card at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (I don’t have a driver’s license because of a visual disability). When I went home to Chicago, I learned that in order to receive a state identification card, I needed to obtain a certified copy of my birth certificate, which allows me to apply for a Social Security Card to replace my passport.
Later in the week I contacted the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder and was told that in order to receive my birth certificate, I needed to present a copy of my passport, or driver’s license, to verify I was, in actuality, Eric K. Ward.
Since it was obvious, after twenty minutes of discussion, that I didn’t own a driver’s license, a passport, or a social security card, they told me to fill out the proper forms in front of a notary public in Chicago. I quickly opened the phone book and had a co-worker drive me to a notary public. But when I got there, the notary public said I needed a passport, social security card, or driver’s license to receive an official notary seal.
Lucky for me (when I’m in a pinch) I can become very persuasive. And since I had a number of newspaper articles with photos documenting my identity, the notary public accepted my articles with somewhat dubious satisfaction. Next, before anyone could change their minds, I walked next door to the Post Office and happily mailed my documents to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder and went on with my life.
Four weeks later my birth certificate arrived!
But when I arrived at the Post Office to pick it up, the attendant asked me to produce a passport, driver’s license and, most ironically, a copy of my birth certificate to obtain my birth certificate. After waiting an hour and pleading with two supervisors, I‘m proud to say that I now possess a certified birth certificate!
I wish I could say everything went smoothly from this point on, but the adventure only began and came to a screeching halt within a week.
A few days later I headed to the Social Security Administration to obtain a replacement social security card. But when I got there, the Social Security Administration said I needed more than just a copy of my birth certificate. They said I also needed a passport, driver’s license, or state identification card to prove my identity.
But since I went to the Social Security Administration to obtain a new copy of my social security card so I could get a new passport, the Social Security Administration didn’t know what to do with me. So, they told me to head across town to the Illinois Secretary of State’s office to get my social security card. But when I arrived, the Illinois Secretary of State’s office said I needed my social security card to obtain any official document to prove my identity.
Now I’m stuck in a Catch-22 and I’m not alone in this predicament. Almost nine percent of African Americans (18 or older) are unable to document their citizenship. * Roughly 2 million African Americans, eleven million native born citizens, and nearly twice as many low income Americans than citizens with higher incomes don’t have a social security card, driver’s licenses, passport, birth certificate or proof of naturalization. *
In 1950, Sam Shapiro, now Emeritus Professor of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, conducted a case study for the journal Population Studies, and also found that, due to segregation barring black children from being born in white hospitals, one-fifth of African Americans born between 1939-40 were never issued birth certificates.
When you correlate Shapiro’s figures to the 2000 US Census Data on African American Population by Age, Shapiro’s figures show that by 2010, nearly half-a-million elderly African Americans born before 1941 may loose their right to vote and access to federal services. Remember, this is only for African Americans born before 1941!
Most recently, Tim Vercelloti, a professor at Rutgers University, found that 5.7% of African Americans are less likely to vote in states that require voter identification. And let’s not forget, voting is a right African Americans struggled to secure for all American citizens.
If U. S citizens don’t have the “required” documents to prove their identity, an increasingly large portion of U.S. citizens will be denied access to social services and the right to vote at the federal, state, and local level.
For example, in 2006, officials in Maricopa County, Arizona denied almost 5,000 US citizens the right to vote because they didn’t have the “required” documents. In 2005, The Draft Reduction Act denied anyone re-applying for Medicaid who didn’t posses the same “required” documents. And by 2010, the Federal Election Integrity Act (passed in 2006) will deny all American citizens the right to vote if they’re can’t produce the “required” documents.
What are the “required” documents? You guessed it: a passport, birth certificate or proof of naturalization.
Why is this happening?
Strict ID requirements that target immigrant and refugee communities also target African Americans, poor, and elderly communities. Federal, state, and local laws that attack undocumented immigrants and refugees threaten Americans’ voting rights, the right to travel without fear of imprisonment, and access to social services.
Anti-immigrant activists say strict ID requirements are a necessary burden that folks should be happy to shoulder in the fight against “illegal” immigration. But that’s pretty easy to say when you’re not African American, poor, or a member of the elderly community.
As African Americans we should be deeply concerned about the ongoing attack on immigrants and refugees. Why?
We know what it’s like to be second-class citizens---and it’s about to happen again.
Who You Calling Illegal, Pilgrim: Children of Men review
By Walidah Imarisha
“As a struggle for the rights of immigrants and against discrimination emerged, Haitians and Dominicans began to coalesce, but the Irish were a bit stand-offish. Immigrant rights activists were at first perplexed until they uncovered that the Irish were being encouraged by Irish American politicians to keep themselves separate from other immigrant groups because it was likely that a 'special' deal could be cut for them. To put it another way, the Irish were being trained to become and accept becoming white,” Bill Fletcher, a civil rights and labor activist, said in “Another Side to Race and Immigration,” in ZNet’s July 30, 2007 issue.
Shot: Pan across a cage full of people, being watched over by military personnel and police with machine guns and dogs. They’re all refugees/immigrants, called “fugees” in this context. We see a tall black man, then right next to him a very small old white woman. The white woman is speaking German, and if you understand German, you know she’s complaining about being put next to a “schwartze” (German for black). The depth of this scene, that a white woman fugee is more worried about being next to a black man fugee than the fact that the military and police are going to put a bullet in her head. This is a powerful statement about the dialogue about immigration today, that it can never be severed from a discussion of race. And if you don’t understand German, you would have missed it.
That is the only mention of race at all in Alfonso Cuaron’s 2006 science fiction/dystopic release Children of Men. And again, if you don’t speak German, you didn’t get it. The film, set in London in 2027, looks to a future where humans aren’t reproducing: the last baby was popped out 18 years before. The world is falling to pieces, the economy is at an all time low.
An innovative, daring but ultimately disappointing exploration of and reflection on immigration policies as they stand today, Children of Men runs screaming from having any dialogue where it links race and immigration. Without the discussion of race, we end up with this film, which has so many gaping holes we could drive a mack truck through them.
It is never explained why so many fugees are coming to England. There is no discussion of the world outside of England, except for this ad shown on the subway: “The world has collapsed; Only Britain soldiers on.” Soldiering on means lining up fugees and shooting them in the street. Because the film refuses to discuss race overtly, we’re left to fill in why so many people are trying to get into England: that in a global economic collapse, the third world would be the hardest hit, and would flock to the centers of capital, i.e., countries that have benefited from white supremacist patriarchal capitalism. But to say that clearly would mean acknowledging the exploitation of the third world by world superpowers. It would mean talking about race, and as important, power.
“Recognizing the racialization of immigration should help one understand that much of what we’re witnessing is a scapegoating of Latinos for much larger forces and factors that are underway in US society… the restructuring of capitalism that has been underway and that immigrants are the victims rather than the source,” says Bill Fletcher.
In the end, this story in the film is not, and can not, be the story of fugees and their struggle to get free and have self-determination, because to tell their story would be to tell the story of racism. The fugees, pretty much throughout the film, regardless of the country they originated from, are faceless, nameless, powerless, voiceless and usually grotesque stereotypes, like the Middle Eastern fugees riding horses screaming “AllahuAkbar.”
It is not even the story of Kee [Clare-Hope Ashitey], an underage black fugee prostitute who gives birth to the first baby born in almost two decades, and is trying to escape both government repression and the exploitation of her baby as a symbol by the “revolutionary” pro-Fugee organization called the Fishes. The reality is that for any young black immigrant sista to stay alive on the mean streets of London as a sex worker, she’s gotta have some pretty baaaad survival instincts and intuition of her own. But if they showed that, they’d have to talk about why young immigrant women of color are so disproportionately forced into sex work, and a whole lotta other subjects Cuaron was clearly not willing to touch. So she becomes a mindless automaton, being told by someone else what to do.
And that someone else is, predictably, the male hero, and predictably a white man: Theo, [Clive Owen], a white former radical on his journey to find something to believe in again, and finds it through helping Kee reach the Human Project, a group of scientists who will supposedly take care of her and also help the world repopulate. This film is told through Theo’s eyes, and the movie ends, not when Kee reaches the Human Project. We don’t even know what happens to Kee at the end of the movie. The movie ends when Theo dies, because the film was about Theo’s journey, and when that journey is over, the credits start to roll.
That is because ultimately Children of Men replicates the same conversation that this nation and the world are having about immigration. Regardless of whether it’s the left or the right, we are listening to u.s. born white men’s voices, interpretations and perceptions about immigration. The voices, power and self-determination of people of color, are lost in the sauce, and instead wer’re left simply waiting for a great white savior to come tell us what to do. The true failing of Children of Men is that it was an opportunity to reframe the debate, and truly put immigrant populations and people of color at the center of the discussion, and finally allow those voices to be not only heard, but respected.
"The Nation," Advertising, and Bigots, Oh My!
By Eric Ward
Before I get to the point at hand, let’s set a few things straight. Before you accuse me of censorship you should know that I oppose any government interference that infringes on freedom of speech, curbs freedom of press, or restricts American’s ability to petition the government. Maybe it’s the civil libertarian in me, but I embrace the concept of free speech whole-heartedly. So, you may find it strange to hear that I’m pissed at The Nation for utilizing our First Amendment right to run a full-page advertisement sponsored by some bigots in the June 16, 2008 issue.
The Nation is part of a long line of venerable political magazines in the United States, like the right-conservative National Review to the left-liberal Mother Jones. The magazine is one of America’s oldest political rags and runs current political news stories and commentaries. Founded in 1865, The Nation made history when it took leadership against slavery to strengthen American identity by proclaiming itself an abolitionist newspaper. Nearly 150-years later, The Nation appears eager to jettison its past by selling America’s oldest political magazine to the highest bigot.
Nearly one year ago (May 14, 2007), The Nation allowed an organization called The Coalition for the Future American Worker (CFAW) to run a full-page advertisement that contained a plethora of misinformation to exploit and divide the African American community. Even more, The Nation failed to tell its readers that CFAW is really a front group for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national anti-immigrant organization that has accepted millions of dollars from a foundation that funds scientific research to prove that white Americans are biologically superior to African Americans.
Would The Nation accept a full-page ad by the Ku Klux Klan? Would The Nation accept a full-page ad endorsing domestic violence? Would The Nation accept an ad denying the Holocaust? If not, why should demonizing immigrants be any different?
The Federation for American Immigration Reform has very little to do with the national debate on immigration. Instead, FAIR repeatedly injects bigotry and racism into America’s national dialogue on immigration reform. For instance, FAIR does have an interesting history of accepting 1.2 million dollars from a racist foundation (the Pioneer Fund), employing a staff member who belonged to the reconstituted white citizen’s council (Council of Conservative Citizens), and has a board members who maintains ties to political extremists, including white supremacists.
Thru front groups, like CFAW, FAIR is committed to turning Americans against one another. FAIR and its ilk can’t be satisfied by dividing conservatives, they have to split liberals as well. You would think that after twenty years of sustained attacks on liberals by conservatives during the so-called “Culture War,” The Nation would have learned a valuable lesson. Perhaps it has, but I think the wrong one.
The Nation should want its readership to have proper information to make informed opinions, particularly when it comes to advertisements that serve to promote racism and bigotry. Instead, The Nation has decided to show its readership that if someone is trying to divide and confuse your country, the best thing to do is assist racists’ in their effort while making a buck too.
This June, The Nation ran another one page ad sponsored by FAIR, twice! This time, along for the ride, are four other organizations (American Immigration Control Foundation, Social Contract Press, NumbersUSA and Californians for Population Stabilization). Each organization claims to be concerned about immigration, but seem more comfortable associating with organized racism. This time rather than just allowing these bigots access to The Nation’s Black progressive audience, The Nation decided to expand access to progressive environmentalists as well. Once again, instead of giving readers the tools to defend themselves against a racist assault, the magazine hides behind its advertising policy. Unbelievably, The Nation attempts to cover its own derrière by telling those of us committed to one America that they have no control over what type of advertisements are published. Here’s what The Nation says: On page 27 readers will find an ad paid for by America’s Leadership Team for Long Range Population-Immigration-Resource Planning. Needless to say, we disagree with the ad’s premise and politics. Our ad policy can be found at www.thenation.com/mediakit/policy/.
Instead of writing a flimsy excuse, The Nation should have used the valuable editorial space to tell its readers that the groups running the ads have relations to political extremists including white supremacists. Here’s what The Nation failed to tell its readers:
• American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF) executive director John Vinson has spoken often to the white nationalists Council of Conservative Citizens. AICF has also
utilized funding from the white supremacists/eugenics Pioneer Fund.
• Social Contract Press editor is Wayne Lutton, who is also on the advisory board of the
white nationalist Council of Conservative Citizens.
• NumbersUSA executive director Roy Beck spoke to the white nationalists Council of
Conservative Citizens and writes for the racist Social Contract Press.
• Californians for Population Stabilization is funded by the white supremacists/eugenics
Pioneer Fund. One board member also attempted to recruit vigilantes to help overturn
affirmative action in Missouri.
Is this information left-liberal readers of The Nation would most likely like to know? Probably. Is it information readers will get from The Nation? Not likely. The Nation is too busy making a buck off of suffering immigrants.
Somewhere along the way, The Nation has forgotten the most important lesson of the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech for us regular folk). While even bigots have the right to free speech, none of us are required to build their platform.
Immigration Strengthens our American Identity
By Sarah Viets
Over the last few years, the topic of immigration has filled our hearts and minds. Is it good for our country? Who benefits from the flow of immigrant labor? What about our schools, our local hospitals? What about our jobs?
All we hear is how little money we have for education, how much our health care plans have increased because the state must pay the tab for uninsured patients, like undocumented immigrants, or how American businesses prefer to hire immigrants because they work at a low wage.
How can any of these concerns strengthen, preserve, and protect what it means to be an American?
Being an American means to inspire the people you love to hold onto their dreams. It means to stand tall and let go of your fears. It means hope, aspiration, optimism, perseverance, freedom, and liberty. Being an American means to take what you’ve been given, and transform it into something unimaginably new.
None of here, as citizens, has succeeded on our own. We are who we are today because of the support of our family, friends, schools, and jobs. That’s what being an American is all about. It’s not about protecting “number one,” it’s about looking out for each other, no matter where we come from.
Our American strength - our individual courage - comes from each other, not just from ourselves.
What makes us strong is our ability and courage to challenge ourselves. What makes us strong, like our ancestors, is our willingness to plunge into the unknown, to see hope in unpredictable futures.
There are three different reasons why most of our ancestors left their family and friends and everything that defined who they were: they were fleeing religious or political persecution, they were looking for jobs to feed their families, or they were stolen from their homeland and used as slaves to help build our nation. And in each of these reasons, is a contradiction in what we stand for. At the root are two different meanings about what it means to be an American.
What defines who we are, what defines our great nation in my mind, were the two actions that followed.
Some people persecuted thousands of families who already lived here. And some stayed strong and remembered their history, their painful past, and created and fought for a brighter future. They stood tall and side-by-side with something unfamiliar. And the fact that our ancestors remained hopeful in times of darkness shows how much strength we have hidden inside ourselves.
New cultures, customs and people may seem foreign, at odds with who we are. But opening ourselves to new challenges and the unknown is what makes us strong; it’s what makes us American.
So today, just like our ancestors, we have two choices:
We can sit back and blame the rise of healthcare costs, low wages, the environment, population growth, and our under funded public schools on undocumented immigrants, or we can open up our American hearts and minds and fight to preserve human dignity for all people, no matter what language they speak, the house they worship in, or the national flag of their homeland.
I’m not saying this is going to be easy, change never is. We prefer the familiar. We prefer our mom’s home-style cooking when we’re not sure where our next meal is coming from. The idea of opening our homes - our country - to someone we don’t even know when we barely have enough time and money to support ourselves seems unreasonable. It doesn’t make sense.
But every time we do, our country doesn’t die. We become stronger.
So when you ask yourself, what immigration can do for you, how can immigration strengthen who I am, my American Identity, think of what makes you strong. Think of what makes you proud to be an American.
They said any white man who didn’t own property couldn’t participate on Election Day.
They said black men and women must remain slaves, that there was no room or need for them to participate in the American dream. They said Mexicans, Asians, or any person without white skin must stand on the sides, not front and center. They said women must stay home and not participate in American Democracy.
But every time America opens her doors, every time each one of us steps outside our comfort zone, every time we open our hearts and souls to an idea we’re unfamiliar with, we become stronger. We become honorable.
We become an American.
