Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Elections
Following State of the Union, President Obama Needs to Follow Through on Immigration Reforms
01 week ago
The President’s State of the Union address this week re-iterated some of his key themes on immigration—support for comprehensive reform, dismay that DREAM Act students and foreign students educated in this country have no way to legalize their status, and a belief that he’s done enough to the secure the border. More importantly, he framed these themes in context to America’s economic recovery, innovation and growth. However, while any mention of immigration in the State of the Union is welcome, it’s what the President didn’t say that may have more of an impact on how his administration is remembered this year on immigration—and how his vision is measured by voters in the coming election.
In the State of the Union address, President Obama repeatedly signaled to Congress that he would sign sensible bills to reform our immigration system, big or small. But he quickly noted that partisan politics would make it all but impossible to pass comprehensive reform:
The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.
There are plenty of bills that fit this description, from the DREAM Act to proposals offering green cards to foreign graduates in science and engineering to support for immigrant entrepreneurs, but they are just as likely to flounder in the sea of partisan politics as something grander and more comprehensive.
And while the president suggested that the ball was in Congress’s court, he didn’t mention that his Administration has moved forward on reforms that don’t require Congressional action. The Administration has become more aggressive in the last in year in fixing parts of our backward immigration system, such as overhauling immigration detention, a review of the Secure Communities program, a re-invigoration of the use of prosecutorial discretion, and attempts to promote streamlined adjudications and family unity. The latter, announced just weeks ago, has generated real excitement among immigrant communities.
Similarly, changes to the way government officials decide what cases should be prosecuted in immigration court—and what cases should be dropped—have given hope to millions of immigrants that they may be able to stay with their families, at least for a while longer. But there remains considerable uncertainty about how DHS will routinely exercise discretion, especially amidst reports that DREAM Act students and others who clearly fit the government’s low priority status are still being deported.
In the areas of detention reform and Secure Communities, however, the early enthusiasm about change has been replaced by wariness on the part of advocates who want to believe promised reforms will be made. They have been repeatedly disappointed by delays in the detention realm and a continued commitment to keep Secure Communities alive, a program that many believe undermines community safety and policing. A special task force voted out a series of necessary reforms and gave their report to Secretary Napolitano last September, but DHS has yet to announce how it will implement these recommendations.
Although these ongoing administrative reforms don’t fit tidily into the overarching vision of immigration policy the President laid out in the State of the Union, following through on them would have a lasting effect on both immigration enforcement and the consideration of benefits for those stuck in our broken immigration system. And the President shouldn’t abandon his larger vision. He has made significant strides in helping to reshape how people who don’t much care about immigration think about it and that will be critical when the time comes for comprehensive reform. But for those most directly affected by our immigration crisis, it is the most immediate details that matter most.
Photo by WhiteHouse.gov.
Romney Uses Restrictionist Code Words to Describe Immigration Policy
01 week ago
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney stole a page from the restrictionists’ playbook this week when he promoted the idea of “self-deportation” during a presidential debate. “If people don’t get work here,” Romney stated, “they’re going to self-deport to a place where they can get work.” Rather than initiate a constructive solution to our nation’s immigration problems, Romney is jumping in bed with immigration restrictionist groups who support policies that tear American families and communities apart, devastate local economies, and place unnecessary burdens on U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants.
Romney’s use of the term “self-deportation” is not at all surprising given his recent collaboration with Kris Kobach, the current Secretary of State of Kansas who continues to serve as chief legal counsel to the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), an arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
Kobach, the self-professed author of several state and local immigration-control bills, advised Romney on immigration during his 2008 presidential bid and has long-promoted the strategy of “attrition through enforcement”— the immigration-control strategy to drive away the unauthorized population by making their lives so miserable that they will choose to “deport themselves” rather than remain in the U.S.
“Attrition through enforcement” laws—like Arizona’s SB1070 and Alabama’s HB56—were explicitly designed to interfere with the everyday activities of immigrants and go far beyond denying unauthorized immigrants work. These laws deny access to housing, school, work, and even water and electricity to anyone who can’t prove legal status. The laws’ supporters have made it clear that making people miserable and encouraging them to leave the state is the intended consequence of their policies.
It’s troubling that a serious Presidential candidate would adopt the code words of extremist immigration control organizations and propose that making people’s lives miserable so that they’ll leave is an acceptable policy goal. By using the term “self-deportation,” Romney is making it clear that he is on board with restrictionists groups’ strategy to force all unauthorized immigrants to leave the U.S., regardless of the time they have spent here, U.S. citizen family members, and their years of tax contributions.
Doesn’t this country deserves to hear more detailed and thoughtful approaches from politicians and policy makers—approaches that offer a way forward rather than divisive and punitive so-call “solutions” to unauthorized immigration?
Photo by Gage Skidmore.
Advocates Call Romney’s Relationship with Anti-Immigrant Hawk “Political Suicide”
02 weeks ago
As if Mitt Romney’s repeated promise to veto the DREAM Act wasn’t alienating enough, advocates warn that Romney’s continued relationship with famed anti-immigrant hawk Kris Kobach is killing future support from Latino voters, especially in key states like New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Florida. Kobach, co-author of Arizona and Alabama’s extreme immigration enforcement laws, appeared in South Carolina Monday night to spin for the Romney campaign following the GOP debate.
Following Kobach’s endorsement of Gov. Mitt Romney last week, the Romney campaign issued a statement accepting Kobach’s endorsement and supporting his leadership on extreme immigration enforcement last in Arizona and South Carolina. Now, however, with Kobach actually appearing on Romney’s campaign trail, advocates say Kobach will damage Romney’s image among Latino voters.
Dee Dee Garcia Blase of the grassroots Republican Latino group Somos Republicans said “Romney committed political suicide” when he welcomed Kobach’s endorsement. Outspoken immigration advocate Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) called Kobach’s affiliation with the Romney campaign “appalling” and characterized Kobach as the “Dark Lord of the anti-immigration movement” on a teleconference. And earlier this month, Hispanic Leadership Fund’s Mario Lopez said Romney’s approach to immigration was hurting him as a candidate and the Republican party in general.
As previously reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Kris Kobach has built a long and varied career out of attacking immigrants—first in the Bush Administration targeting legal immigrants from Muslim and Arab countries and later as the architect of city ordinances and state laws targeting unauthorized, mostly Latino immigrants.
But the addition of Kobach to Romney’s campaign is just the latest in Romney’s hard line on immigration. Romney again indicated yesterday that he would veto the DREAM Act should it come up in Congress, arguing that “aiding those eligible under the DREAM Act”—a bill that puts undocumented students who were brought here by their parents on a path towards citizenship—“would only encourage more people to enter the country without documentation.”
Appearing tough on immigration may not hurt Romney during the GOP primary, but come general election time, many wonder how Romney plans to win the Latino vote. Matt Barreto of the University of Washington said that Romney will not win the presidency without at least 40% of the Latino vote, a vote Congressman Luis Gutierrez believes Romney will not receive given his current approach to immigration.
“There is no route to the White House that does not go through a Latino neighborhood. Any winner in either party needs a significant proportion of Latino voters. When you say you want millions of us to leave the country … we will vote against you.”
When it comes to immigration, American voters have established that they want solutions not smears. Politicians, however, continue to read from a different playbook written by a narrow group of voters and commentators.
Photo by Gage Skidmore.
Is the Romney Campaign Embracing Anti-Immigrant Extremism?
03 weeks ago
Today, Mitt Romney’s campaign heartily accepted the endorsement of renown anti-immigrant activist, Kris Kobach. As Mitt Romney emerges as the leading contender for the GOP nomination, he and those he affiliates with will garner closer scrutiny, making it critical for Romney’s campaign to understand who Kobach is and why his policies engender such strong emotion.
Kobach and his anti-immigrant cronies are behind much of the draconian anti-immigrant legislation wreaking havoc on the business and economies of Alabama and Arizona. They are driving an extreme ‘attrition through enforcement” immigration agenda that is bad for business and seeks to make life in America so unworkable for the foreign-born that they will pack up and leave. However, the strategy is backfiring and this experimental legislation is driving state economies deeper into recession, locking them into long and costly legal battles, and diminishing state reputations and business opportunities.
The Romney campaign needs to understand that while these anti-immigrant initiatives have served to advance Kobach politically and financially and are supported by the extreme anti-immigrant movement in America, virtually all of them have ended up being costly failures for which taxpayers ultimately foot the bill. Romney touts his pro-business bona fides, however these anti-immigrant policies are anti-business and are should be taken from the state to the federal level or allowed to take hold in other states.
Being anti-immigrant and pursing costly, anti-business policymaking does not appeal to a majority of Americans and will do nothing to repair our economy and bring our nation together.
In the world of political campaigns, the more support you get the better. But it’s important to remember that you are judged by the company you keep. The Romney campaign should carefully consider the impact of embracing extremists and what those budding relationships signal to a range of audiences who are weary of anti-immigrant posturing.
Photo by Gage Skidmore.
As Iowa Caucuses Approach, Signatories of Iowa Compact Hope to Reframe Immigration Debate
01 month ago
Exhausted by the base immigration rhetoric prevalent in the GOP presidential debate, a group of concerned Iowans is seeking to reframe the issue in anticipation of the Iowa Caucuses next month. Last week, business, faith and city leaders in Iowa signed the Iowa Compact—a list of five principles meant to guide how people discuss immigration. Signatories of the compact, which is modeled after Utah and Indiana’s Compact, urged politicians “to stop playing politics on the issue” and said that state level fixes, like enforcement-only legislation, do “not address the root problem of immigration” but instead hurts economies and communities.
Similar to other compacts, the Iowa Compact includes five guiding principles: 1) Immigration is a federal issues; 2) Local law enforcement needs to focus on serious crimes and avoid policies with negative economic and humanitarian consequences; 3) Immigration policies should help families stay together: 4) Immigrants are beneficial to Iowa’s economy; and 5) Iowa needs to welcome immigrants.
And with the Republican primary caucuses less than a month away, Compact signatories hope GOP presidential candidates take notice. Lori Chesser, chairwoman of the Iowa Immigration Education Coalition, believes “there has not been enough thoughtful discussion in the debates” thus far. The mayor of Perry, Iowa, Jay Pattee, agrees:
During the Republican presidential primary season, the rhetoric on immigration has reached a new low. This type of debate is not only extreme and divisive, but it serves as a distraction from a genuine policy debate.
Other signatories, like those in the business and law enforcement community, also want to send the message that Congress’s inability to reform our broken immigration system is hurting state economies and what’s worse, has given rise to enforcement-only immigration laws which put law enforcement officers at odds with communities.
According to Perry, Iowa’s police chief Dan Brickman, “the lack of federal action on immigration reform has put his officers in an awkward spot at a time when they can’t afford to take on additional responsibilities or alienate their residents.” Nearly 40% of Perry’s population is Hispanic.
Martha Willits, chief executive of the Greater Des Moines Partnership, said foreign-born workers are crucial to Iowa’s economy since, according to the group, the state’s primary population growth comes from minorities.
We know from our business partners that work force is a critical issue, particularly finding workers with the right skills … We want to keep foreign-born students who are trained at our universities and intern in our businesses. But we can’t because of our makeshift laws. We need comprehensive reform.
Other signatories include the CEO of Banker’s Trust, the oldest and largest independently owned bank in Iowa, and the Iowa Nursery and Landscape Association, who relies on immigrants for workers.
Hopefully, communities across the U.S. will realize that immigrants are vital to their state’s economic prosperity and enact policies that welcome them, like in Dayton, Ohio, rather than bash them in debates and drive them from the state through anti-immigrant legislation.
Univision News Poll: Obama Holds Advantage with Latino Voters
02 months ago
Despite increasing criticism over his administration’s record number of deportations and stubbornly high unemployment rates, President Obama is well situated to repeat his strong performance with Latino voters in 2012. That’s according to a new Univision News poll.
Obama leads the top three Republican presidential candidates among registered Latino voters in the 21 states with the largest Latino populations, according to the poll. Latino voters prefer Obama over Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry by two-to-one margins. The president is up 65 percent to 22 percent against Cain, 67 percent to 24 percent against Romney, and a whopping 68 percent to 21 percent against Perry.
Latinos could play an even greater role in the 2012 election than they did in 2008. That’s because forecasters agree that it’s going to be a much tighter election. Four years ago, 6.6 million Latinos voted, but next year a record 12.2 million Latinos are set to vote — a 26 percent increase from 2008, according to projections from the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund.
“Simply put, they are the fastest-growing voting group in the nation,” Matthew Jaffe and Jordan Fabian wrote in a story for Univision analyzing the study.
Although Latinos prefer Obama, it’s not because they think he’s done a great job. Instead, like much of the rest of the country, they’re just not moved by any of his potential opponents in the GOP.
Below are some of the findings from the poll, as explained Jaffe and Fabian in “Univision News poll: Obama holds advantage with Latino voters, leaving GOP with uphill battle”:
- Rick Perry faces an especially tough uphill battle to court Latino voters. Among Latinos, Texas Gov. Perry is the best-known GOP candidate. But he has the worst favorability rating of the top three GOP hopefuls: negative 22 percent.
- Who are these guys? Latino voters don’t know much about the Republican candidates. Over half — 53 percent — have no
opinion of or have never heard of Cain, for instance. It’s worth noting
that the poll was mostly conducted before the evening of Sunday Oct. 31,
when allegations of sexual harassment were leveled at Cain dating back
to his time as head of the National Restaurant Association. - Still no compelling jobs plans. Latino voters are currently more worried about the lack of jobs and the
failing economy than immigration reform. According to the
Univision News/Latino Decisions poll, among all voters nationwide, 74
percent said the most important issue in how they will pick a candidate
to support will be jobs and the economy, while only 10 percent said
immigration reform. Among Latinos, 65 percent said it was jobs and the
economy, with 23 percent saying immigration reform. - Speaking badly about immigration will still hurt candidates. Ultimately, it’s clear that even when economic views are set
aside, hostile statements on immigration damage a candidate’s support. Meanwhile positive statements about immigrants increase support.
Predictably, this trend is far stronger among Latino voters, but it is
still present among the general electorate. - On the DREAM Act: Among Latinos, the majority in favor of the bill is a massive 84 percent
to 11 percent, while a significant majority of the general electorate
also backs the measure by 58 percent to 28 percent.
The Univision News/Latino Decisions poll is based on phone interviews in
English and Spanish with 1,000 Latino registered Latino voters
conducted between Friday Oct. 21 and Tuesday Nov. 1 in the 21 states
with the largest Latino populations in the United States.
Arizona’s SB1070 Champion, State Senator Russell Pearce, Loses in Recall Election
02 months ago
Arizona state senator Russell Pearce, the leading force behind Arizona’s SB 1070 and other anti-immigrant legislation, was defeated in a recall election Tuesday. Fellow Republican Jerry Lewis—a moderate on immigration issues—won with 54% of the vote. Citing Pearce’s narrow anti-immigrant agenda and the damage SB 1070 inflicted on the state, a group called Citizens for a Better Arizona began the recall effort back in January. Today, many in Arizona and across the U.S. celebrate Pearce’s defeat as a victory for practical solutions over extremist rhetoric and anti-immigrant proposals. Pearce is believed to be the first Arizona state legislator to face a recall election.
At the time of its passage, SB 1070 was the most far-reaching immigration control law passed by a state. Most of the law was declared unconstitutional by the courts and never implemented, and Arizona suffered a huge blow to its tourism industry and its reputation. Rather than backing down, Pearce turned his attention to even more extreme anti-immigrant legislation—including the elimination of ethnic studies programs in schools and denying birthright citizenship to the children of unauthorized immigrants.
Pearce’s anti-immigrant agenda continues to cost Arizona’s economy. After SB1070 passed, major groups and associations cancelled events and conventions in the state. The Center for American Progress (CAP) estimated that Arizona would lose as much as $141 million in the food, lodging, and entertainment industries. Arizona was eventually forced to spend $250,000 for a marketing campaign to help improve its image after SB 1070 was enacted. At the end of February 2011, Arizona had already spent more than $1.5 million defending SB 1070.
Yesterday, Arizonans of all stripes decided they’ve had enough of Pearce’s self-promoting, anti-immigrant antics. Democrats and Republicans from business, faith-based, labor, and immigrant-rights groups supported the recall campaign. According to political analyst Chris Herstam, many Republicans believe that Pearce made immigration more of a priority than the economy, jobs, and education. Pearce’s replacement, Republican Jerry Lewis, took note. He focused his campaign on education and the economy and signaled a more reasonable approach to immigration:
“Certainly the immigration issue is important to many people including myself,” Lewis said. “We need to bring a civil tone to that discussion, a professional approach to solving it, an approach that is reasonable and won’t be … in the courts for years to come.”
While state legislators will undoubtedly continue to pursue costly state immigration laws, many, like Randy Parraz of Citizens for a Better Arizona, hope Pearce’s defeat will serve as a cautionary tale to other legislators. “This election shows that such extremist behavior will not be rewarded,” Parraz said, “and will be held accountable.”
Dishonest Data on Immigration Cripples Honest Debate and Sensible Lawmaking
03 months ago
For years, data produced by restrictionist, anti-immigrant advocacy groups have permeated politics and policy. Today is no different. What’s alarming, however, is the ease with which politicians and lawmakers are using this dishonest data to support their restrictive positions on immigration.
Take the recent passage of HB 56 in Alabama. Sponsors of the bill are using flawed data produced by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) to defend the passage of the bill. Using FAIR’s numbers, they claim unauthorized immigrants in Alabama use public services to the tune of $280 million a year. In the media, these supporters fail (as does the media reporting on it) to cite where the numbers come from. Passing them off as “official” state data, the average person would assume that these numbers were crunched by Alabama’s own legislature or government agencies. However, this is simply not the case. In fact, Alabama legislators failed to produce a fiscal note enumerating the fiscal impacts of HB 56, so the only fiscal justification they had for this bill was flawed data from FAIR.
Strikingly, during the last few debates among GOP presidential aspirants, more than one candidate referenced data by FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), another extreme anti-immigrant research group. Michele Bachmann recently quoted FAIR data claiming the costs of unauthorized immigration to the U.S. were $113 billion dollars per year, with $82 billion being shouldered by states. This is the same study Alabama officials pulled their state data from and passed off as official data.
Explaining the basic flaws in FAIR’s reporting is actually simple: they exaggerate the costs associated with unauthorized immigrants while vastly undercounting their contributions. What’s most appalling about their “economic” analysis is how they include the costs of educating the U.S.-born children of immigrants and never credit back the productivity of these children when they grow into contributing adult citizens. FAIR also adds unsubstantiated costs derived from unsupported assumptions about the children of unauthorized immigrants. For example, FAIR assumes all children of unauthorized immigrants are using ESL programs and free and reduced price lunch programs. Finally, to exaggerate the costs as much as possible, FAIR vastly underestimates the contributions that immigrants make as consumers, workers, and taxpayers. This formula allows FAIR to make it look as if unauthorized immigrants cost more than they contribute.
Another recent reference to restrictionist data came from Mitt Romney and his staff, who quoted a CIS study which claims almost half the jobs created in Texas under Governor Perry went to unauthorized workers. Fortunately, these numbers were challenged by FactCheck.org, which noted that the report has been debunked in the Dallas Morning News by Pia Orrenius, an economist and immigration expert at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas—and by a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation who wrote an analysis critical of the CIS study.
No one is arguing that the drastic increase in unauthorized immigration over the past two decades is not an appropriate debate topic or that policy changes aren’t needed. However, we will never achieve real solutions unless we demand intellectual honesty, rather than pandering and platitudes, in debates on immigration. The data and research put forth by anti-immigrant groups, whose only solution is to deport them all, cannot be the basis for honest policymaking or policy discussion.
Photo by jypsygen.
On Immigration, Some GOP Candidates Prefer Hostile Rhetoric to Policy Solutions
03 months ago
Over the weekend, Republican presidential hopefuls Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann made it clear that they were willing to increase their anti-immigration rhetoric in order to court voters. In the process, both confused the right to free speech with the responsibility of free speech, turning what should have been a debate on immigration policy into cheap and insensitive anti-immigrant rhetoric.
At rallies in Tennessee on Saturday, Herman Cain proposed that we “build an electrified fence” to keep out undocumented immigrants, and later, that we use “real guns and real bullets” to kill those people seeking to cross illegally. As if that wasn’t bad enough, Cain defended his insensitive comments by claiming that it’s “insensitive for [undocumented immigrants] to be killing our citizens, killing our border agents.” The next day, Cain said he was “only joking,” and that America needed a sense of humor.
Michele Bachmann, relying on discredited numbers from an immigration restrictionist group, told an Iowa audience that we need to build a border fence for matters of economic and national security, that illegal immigrants today weren’t like her Norwegian forebears who promised to protect the Constitution, and that it was time to take a stand for good old fashioned American values—implying that today’s immigrants don’t have that same regard for American values and are the lesser for it.
Bachmann insulated her listeners from any discomfort by saying that she was talking about policy, not people.
“It’s OK to talk about this issue,” said Bachmannn. “Some say it’s not OK to talk about this subject because that somehow means we are prejudiced or bigoted or biased against Hispanics. That’s not what I hear form the people of Iowa. They are tired of paying for other people.”
But a legitimate policy issue—what to do about illegal immigration—doesn’t mean that you can say anything you like. It’s not “OK” to talk about an issue in a way that inflames prejudice or suggests that human life is cheap. It’s not “OK” to use blatantly misleading facts to scare people into feeling like their very lives or livelihoods are threatened.
In other words, the Bachmann/Cain remarks of the weekend were just the latest example in how degraded the debate over immigration has become. It may be wishful thinking to say that candidates for public office have a responsibility to do more than pander to the lowest common denominator, but they do. And they have a responsibility not to feed anti-immigrant sentiment by justifying their remarks as either a joke or a defense of American values.
Immigration Tops Economy as Most Important Issue for Latino Voters
07 months ago
According to a poll released yesterday, “U.S. immigration policy” beat out “economy and jobs” as the issue most important for Hispanic voters. The poll, conducted by independent research firm Latino Decisions, asked 500 registered Hispanic voters to name the most important issues facing Hispanics. 51% of respondents said “immigration;” 35% said “economy and jobs;” and 15% said “education.” Pollsters suggest voters’ “direct and personal connection with the problems of the undocumented” as a reason immigration topped the economy—personal relationships that even “affect the political choices of a second or third generation of Latinos born here.” With reform efforts stalled in Congress, many are wondering what kind of political choices Hispanic voters will make in the upcoming 2012 election cycle.
Some—including the Administration—may be resting on the assumption that Democrats have a lock on the Latino vote given the continuous stream of anti-immigrant rhetoric from the political right. But a recent tracking poll, also by Latino Decisions, found Hispanic voters evenly split over President Obama’s performance on immigration—“48% said Obama is handling the issue well, while another 48% said he is not.”
“It’s clear that Latino voters are holding the [Democratic] party responsible for not making too much of an effort on immigration, but also the Republicans for preventing it,” said Gabriel Sánchez, a political science professor at the University of New Mexico.
Just last night, GOP candidates held a debate in New Hampshire in which they rattled off the same enforcement-only talking points immigration restrictionists have been using for months as an excuse not to reform our system. But the mantras of securing the borders first, “enforcing the laws on the books” and allowing states to legislate immigration law isn’t winning them any support among Latinos.
According to the poll, “55% [of Hispanic voters] think Republicans are constantly talking about securing the border as an excuse not to approve immigration reform” while “only 30% think border security is a legitimate concern.” Additionally, the poll found that “62% think the country is focusing enough resources on raids and deportations.”
Obviously, polls are not absolute indicators of how respondents will vote. Results will continue to fluctuate given a number of variables, but one thing is certain—no matter how many people you ask or how your phrase your question, voters want more from our leaders than just empty campaign promises or heated enforcement rhetoric on immigration. They want fair, just and plausible solutions that actually address our immigration problems.
Photo by RRRPhotos.