Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Progressives
Washington Post Lists Treating “Immigrants as People” as “In” for 2012
01 month ago
You wouldn’t know it from listening to the ridiculous anti-immigrant rhetoric over the past year, but treating immigrants like actual human beings is a concept some hope catches fire in 2012. The Washington Post recently added “immigrants as people” on “The List: 2012”—their annual zeitgeist-inspired list of ins and outs for the new year. Granted, “peacock feathers” and “Margaret Thatcher” also made the “in” column, but dialing down the immigrant bashing—a message Republican presidential candidates clearly missed during previous debates—is an idea that GOP political strategists are now embracing.
Republican strategists are apparently growing nervous as GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, continues to alienate Hispanic voters. While Gov. Romney has flipped back and forth on his approach to immigration policy over the years, he announced this past weekend that he would veto the DREAM Act—a bill that puts undocumented students who were brought here by their parents on a path towards citizenship—if Congress were to pass it.
According to Mario H. Lopez, president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, Romney’s approach isn’t going to sit well with America’s fastest growing voting demographic—Latinos.
Romney’s tin ear on this topic, on immigration, will hurt him should he be the nominee, is hurting the Republican Party and is hurting every conservative who cares about passing conservative legislation in the future.
But Romney’s not the only one. In fact, anti-immigrant rhetoric has increased over the past few years—from Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s “beheadings in desert” to Republican Congressman Lamar Smith’s portrayal of immigrants as stealing jobs from Americans. More recently, however, GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachman said she would deport every undocumented immigrant in the country while former GOP contender, Herman Cain, “joked” that he would electrify the border fence as a deterrent for unauthorized crossers. Not exactly rhetoric that warms Hispanic voters’ hearts.
Nor, however, does the Obama administration’s immigration enforcement strategies. According to a recent Pew poll, an overwhelming majority of Latinos (59% to 27%) disapprove of the Obama administration’s deportation strategy, which hit an average of 400,000 since 2009—double the annual average of George Bush’s first term.
Perhaps people are just tired of the same failed enforcement strategies and constant immigrant bashing that’s plagued the immigration issue for the last several years. Poll after poll shows that most Americans—even those who consider themselves conservative voters—favor a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in America.
Maybe it’s time for those holding the microphone to take a step back and listen to what American voters really care about—comprehensive solutions to our immigration problems, not just more empty and hate-filled words.
How to Talk Turkey on Immigration: Redux
02 months ago
Washington, D.C. area schools participate in the Urban Debate program, which gives middle school children the opportunity to learn the art of debate. My sixth grader signed up right away. She was surprised to learn, however, at her first tournament that many people have no qualms debating either side of an issue, no matter how they personally feel about it. She also discovered that a few kids had no problems saying whatever they had to say to win. She was in tears because another twelve year old insisted that American lives were more valuable than others in a debate over U.S. military involvement abroad.
I didn’t have the heart to tell her that in the debate over immigration we see far worse nearly every day. The misinformation that is routinely spread and the disregard for human lives is common in the immigration debate. Whether it is politicians calling for electrified fences, schoolchildren herded in to gymnasiums to determine their legal status, or blatant misuse of statistics to scare the public, immigration is hardly a genteel topic.
This year in particular, as the Alabama law unleashes a civil rights crisis in that state, I can only imagine that there will be some very difficult conversations around the Thanksgiving dinner table. Although proponents of immigration reform are armed with more anecdotes and statistical information than ever, the increasingly preposterous stories coming out of Alabama will make some people shake their heads and say—it just can’t be so.
So what to do? We offer a list of tips for making the case, politely but firmly, for a rational immigration policy.
- Be prepared. The Immigration Policy Center’s (IPC) website contains numerous short fact sheets on immigrants and the economy, crime, unemployment, immigration reform and more. At a minimum, download your state fact sheet. And since Alabama is all over the news, check out IPC’s recent publications and blog posts that detail some of the absurd consequences of HB 56.
- Be sympathetic. The evidence is mounting that most people who fear immigrants are really afraid of the change that immigrants represent. This is particularly true in states that have relatively little immigration, such as Georgia and Alabama. The number of immigrants is small, but the percentage of growth can seem huge. Try to figure out what is really irking your relative—are they angry that their favorite restaurant has changed hands? Ask them what they would do if that same restaurant closed. Are they afraid that there will be no jobs for Americans? Ask them if they believe immigrants, rather than lack of job training and job growth are better targets for their ire. Helping them to see that change can be positive and is rejuvenating many communities can help to reframe the conversation.
- Avoid the blame game. Don’t get trapped into arguments that start out, “well, those people broke the law.” Try to move the conversation forward by stressing that rather than focusing on punishing the past, you want to think about how we make the future better for everyone. I often say—because I believe it—“I can’t get the jobs back that may or may not have been lost in your community. All the economic studies show, however, that immigration is essential to further economic growth. So, if we want a better future for everyone, we have to find solutions that work right now.”
- Know your audience. There are issues you just shouldn’t touch and maybe immigration is one of them. But it might also depend on the way your present your arguments. A deeply religious person could be unmoved by your crisp economic analysis, but genuinely touched by the biblical call to aid the stranger. There are so many different reasons to support immigration reform—you don’t have try to list every one of them in one breath. Less, in fact, may be more.
- Be practical. You are not necessarily going to win your loved ones over with a single brilliant analysis. But you can ask questions that get them thinking differently. Ask them what the solution is from their perspective? Can we really afford to deport 12 million people? How can legalization be an amnesty when it requires people to register, pay taxes, stay right with the law and “earn” citizenship? Wouldn’t you rather have folks paying taxes at their full potential than being paid under the table and not paying their full share? These kinds of questions really do start the dialogue.
- Find common ground. The fact that most of us have an immigrant past—no matter how distant—sets the stage for a conversation. How was grandma or even great-grandpa treated when they came over from Italy, Germany or Ireland? What did they want for their future? Where would America be today without those immigrants who took a risk? The more people realize that they have a personal stake in keeping those opportunities alive for others, the more they might listen to your point of view.
- Find the exception to the rule. No matter how anti-immigrant someone is, they will have at least one friend or colleague who defies their stereotypes of immigrants. If you let people talk for a while, the story of that friend will inevitably come up. Start asking questions about that exceptional immigrant’s life.
- Have another piece of pie and a cup of coffee. Food is a universal facilitator of conversation. It’s much harder to yell at someone with pumpkin pie in your mouth.
Sooner or later, Urban Debate will probably tackle the question of immigration, but when it does, I want my daughter to be able to draw a distinction between arguments grounded in reality and compassion and those that are motivated by nothing but fear or a desire to win. There are legitimate policy debates to be had on the immigration question, but for many people, the conversation never gets that far. If you can get past square one, I’m convinced that most people will see that immigration reform is in the country’s best interests. And if that happens, then maybe next year’s feast will be a bit more pleasant.
Photo by moonrat42.
California’s Tuition Equity Law Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court
07 months ago
BY SUMAN RAGHUNATHAN, PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK
Proposals to increase educational access for students (particularly the undocumented) continue to advance in state legislatures nationwide, even as they are being upheld in the nation’s courts. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced and upheld California’s tuition equity law, the nation’s oldest and one of the strongest tuition equity models nationwide, by choosing not to consider a challenge to the law. California’s law, AB 540, passed a decade ago and was already unanimously upheld by the State’s Supreme Court last November.
California’s law allows all students who graduate from state high schools and have attended state schools for at least three years to pay in-state tuition rates at public universities and colleges regardless of their immigration status. The law was challenged in the courts by some U.S. citizen students for several years, yet was ultimately (and resoundingly) reinforced by the State Supreme Court. By denying without comment the request to review the law again, the U.S. Supreme Court sent a strong message that state tuition equity laws remain legally sound—and that it is a waste of time and legal fees to continue to challenge these laws in court. In fact, proposals to repeal existing tuition equity laws in four states (California, Kansas, Nebraska, and Utah) failed this year alone, according to the National Immigration Law Center (NILC).
Tuition equity laws ensure that cost is not a barrier for talented and motivated immigrant students by allowing them to pay in-state tuition rates at state universities and colleges, provided they meet a set of requirements. Out-of-state tuition rates are significantly more expensive, often by a factor of up to 400%—so allowing immigrant students to get an affordable college education often hinges upon them being able to pay in-state tuition.
At least ten other states have introduced bills to increase access to higher education for undocumented students by allowing them to pay in-state tuition rates while attending state universities and colleges.
Maryland and Connecticut both passed laws that make a college education affordable by allowing undocumented students and others who are not considered state residents to pay in-state tuition rates at state universities and colleges. Proposals in Oregon and Colorado came very close to passage: Oregon’s bill was short of only five votes in the State House after passing in the State Senate. Similarly, Colorado’s proposal was postponed indefinitely in the House after passing in the Senate.
The victories in Maryland and Connecticut bring the total number of states that have passed tuition equity laws to thirteen. And advocates and legislators in Colorado and Florida are determined to continue their work to expand educational access for immigrant and non-resident students—many are already preparing to re-introduce their tuition equity bills next year.
Business executives, educators, and immigrant youth are unanimous in their support for in-state tuition rates, particularly as a workforce development issue. The nation as a whole desperately needs college graduates, particularly high-technology industries: in fact, the U.S. is poised to be short of roughly 16 million college graduates as soon as 2025. Allowing promising immigrant students to fill that need for college-educated workers simply makes sense for America’s future.
Photo by Phil Roeder.
Will State Legislators Continue to Pull the Plug on Restrictive Immigration Measures?
011 months ago
While some state lawmakers continue to tango with restrictive immigration bills this week, others pulled the plug on measures they worried were too costly or politically risky. Lawmakers in Arkansas, New Mexico and Nebraska voted down (or anticipated the failure of) measures that would restrict access to preventative medical care, tuition equity and driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. Others, however, in Michigan, Georgia, Indiana and Arizona continued attempts to move costly enforcement laws. But a trend emerged from the states this week, a trend that has been brewing over the last few months—lawmakers are tired of the restrictionist status quo. They—like the folks in Texas, Michigan and Utah this week—want real solutions to our immigration problems that won’t financially or morally bankrupt their state.
Yesterday, a Senate committee in Utah narrowly passed SB 60, a progressive immigration bill introduced by state Sen. Luz Robles (D-Salt Lake City) as an alternative to state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom’s Arizona-style bill (HB 70). Sen. Robles’s bill allows undocumented immigrants to live and work in Utah after they’ve registered with the state. State Sen. Mark Madsen (R-Eagle Mountain), the swing vote, said he voted for the bill (which now advances to the Senate floor) because he wants there to be more to the discussion than just enforcement:
He said he wanted to make sure the debate Robles started — moving away from an enforcement-only, punitive approach to illegal immigration — continued to have a voice in the process. […] “I’m going to vote for this because I want to see robust discussion on this.”
In Nebraska this week, state Sen. Charles Janssen said he expects his Arizona copycat bill (LB 48) to die in committee since the majority of committee members believe immigration is a federal issue. The committee, like the hundreds of protesters who recently rallied outside the state capital, also fears the law could lead to discrimination.
Thousands also rallied outside the Texas state capital in Austin this week to protest the “dozens of bills that, if passed, would hinder economic development, stymie education and — above all — encourage racial profiling in the Lone Star State.” State Sen. Jose Rodriguez, for one, seems tired of towing the same restrictionist legislative line. Earlier this month, Sen. Rodriguez introduced SB 600, a bill that prohibits police from asking about the immigration status of a victim of or witness to a crime, highlighting the trust the El Paso police have with the Latino community. El Paso is counted as one of the safest big cities in the U.S.
An Arkansas House panel rejected a bill (HB 1292) this week that would further restrict undocumented immigrants’ access to state benefits (a restriction that already exists), except in the case of emergency. Gov. Mike Beebe raised concerns that the bill, which restricts access to immunizations, would risk the health of other students by allowing some to go to school without the proper vaccinations. Committee members also worried about the cost of implementation, the role of health care workers as immigration agents, and the overall “negative impact on the health of the state.” The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Jon Hubbard, said that many conservative bills have recently died in committee. “You just kind of take that and see what you surmise from that.” Another immigration bill (HB 1008) requiring citizenship for in-state tuition was tabled.
And in New Mexico, a Senate committee recently passed SB 151, a bill which bars individuals from asking for proof of immigration status within 200 feet of emergency rooms, school, health care clinics, and other key community gather places, as well as SB 152, a bill prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from accepting federal funds to enforcing federal immigration laws. The Senate also rejected two bills this week that would bar undocumented immigrants from obtaining drivers license—a law that has been on the books since 2003.
While some state lawmakers reject the enforcement-only approach to immigration, others—like state Sen. Russell Pearce, author of Arizona’s SB 1070—continued to sink their state in restrictionist quicksand. This week, state Sen. Pearce introduced an immigration omnibus bill (SB 1611) that would force schools and hospitals to ask for proof of citizenship, landlords to evict undocumented immigrants and the state to issue special birth certificates denying undocumented immigrants “Arizona citizenship.” Critics complained that state Sen. Pearce is trying to rewrite the “core values of the country” while the already financially strapped business community fears an even bigger dent in their pocket books.
Michigan also introduced an Arizona-style enforcement measure this week, HB 4305, amidst concerns of racial profiling and a new report from the Michigan League for Human Service detailing how the law would hurt Michigan’s economy. And in Georgia, state Sen. Jeff Mullins added yet another Arizona-style bill to the state’s pile, SB 104 which specifically targets day laborers. The Georgia Municipal Association and the Association County Commissioners, as well as the ACLU and other advocates, worry the bill would “assure a tremendous negative impact on Georgia’s economy and people.”
And finally, the Indiana Senate passed enforcement law SB 590 this week by a 31-18 vote. The bill now goes to a Republican-led House for further consideration. Indiana Attorney General, Greg Zoeller, however, as well as a city, business, religious and education leaders, clearly want an alternative to this restrictive measure. They recently signed the Indiana Compact which calls immigration a federal issue and stresses the economic role immigrants play in Indiana.
Although states continue to consider “get tough” immigration measures, many city, business and civic leaders emerged this week with a message—’there are better solutions to immigration than the status quo, so let’s find them.’ Enforcing our laws is important, but it’s not a solution by itself.
Photo by rogue3w.
State Compacts Reframe Approach to Immigration, But Will Legislators Listen?
011 months ago
Rather than allow immigration restrictionists to define how their state deals with immigration, business leaders, elected officials, community activists and faith groups in Utah and Indiana have taken an important step in reframing their state’s approach by signing “state compacts”—declarations of principles to guide the state’s immigration discussion. And they’re not the only folks standing up to costly state enforcement legislation. Some progressive legislators are proposing their own immigration measures which add much needed revenue to the state’s economy. Sadly, legislators like Utah state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom are ignoring these efforts and are instead moving forward with harsh, anti-immigrant legislation in an attempt to look tough and grab headlines.
This week, the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns—which includes 120 Indiana mayors—added their names to the list of city, business, religious and education leaders who think Indiana’s copycat enforcement bill, SB 590, is a bad idea. Much like Utah’s compact, the Indiana Compact calls immigration a federal issue, stresses the importance of family unity and the role immigrants play in Indiana’s economy, and states that “Indiana’s immigration policies must reaffirm [their] global reputation as a welcoming and business-friendly state”—a message the Indiana Senate clearly did not receive. The state senate passed SB 590 by a 31-18 vote this week. The bill will now be taken up by the House.
Greg Zoeller, Indiana’s Attorney General, also signed the compact this month, stating that all Hoosiers must “be realistic about assuming federal enforcement responsibilities when the methods of doing so might be constitutionally suspect or fiscally impractical.” And nothing could be more real than the bill’s $5 million price tag—the price affixed to the bill by the governor’s office.
And earlier this month, Utah state Sen. Luz Robles introduced an alternative to enforcement-only legislation, SB 60, in an effort to add “order and accountability” to Utah’s immigration policies as well as additional revenue to the state. Her bipartisan bill would “create an accountability-card system that would allow employers to hire undocumented immigrants, give them a taxpayer identification number and bring them out of the shadows.” According to a recent fiscal note, SB 60 would generate $11.3 million in revenue in the first six moths and $20 million the following year. The bill, which passed a committee hearing this week, requires a federal waiver before it could be enacted.
Whether or not SB 60 passes Utah’s Senate, the bill represents the sentiment of many who have signed state compacts—instead of enforcing our way out of our immigration problems, why not do something proactive that supports job growth, business, family unity and the state’s economy?
The Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform (AZEIR)—a coalition of businesses, farmers, manufacturers, contractors and service providers—educates other states about the negative impact of SB 1070. The group, which suggests some economically responsible alternatives, asks a similar question:
Arizona’s S.B. 1070 reflects the demand that government do “something” to deal with the problem. However, “do something” shouldn’t mean “do anything” and “do anything” shouldn’t mean “do the first thing that comes to mind.” Government should act but do so intelligently and consider the economic and social ramifications of their efforts.
While Arizona-style enforcement measures may linger in state houses across the country, the impact of state compacts and alternative measures continue to grow, representing the many voices who would rather see jobs and businesses grow in their state rather than scant resources go to waste on measures that don’t actually solve the problem. State legislators should engage in the state compacts and do some soul-searching on the issue before they move forward with irresponsible legislation that will ultimately hurt their states.
Photo by hebedesign.
Progressive Immigration Measures Pick Up Steam at the State Level
011 months ago
By SUMAN RAGHUNATHAN, PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK
As the list of state business leaders, law enforcement, and conservative lawmakers who realize that anti-immigrant efforts are costly, misguided, and destructive to state economies continues to grow, a number of state elected officials are putting their weight behind progressive, solutions-based approaches to immigration policy. A group of progressive state elected officials affiliated with Progressive States Network—State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy, with members in 34 states and counting—have been at the forefront of advancing pragmatic and progressive state approaches to immigration which expand opportunities for all residents, both immigrant and native-born, while strengthening communities and state economies.
Numerous tuition equity bills have already been introduced in state legislatures this session, echoing broad popular support for efforts to integrate undocumented young people into communities and local institutions, despite the recent failure of the DREAM Act in Congress. The DREAM Act, a bipartisan effort to grant legal status and the option to eventually apply for citizenship to undocumented young people, is now being partially resurrected via tuition equity bills gaining momentum in Connecticut; Colorado; Maryland; Massachusetts; Nevada; and Oregon, where progressive state legislators, working closely with immigrant rights and student organizations, introduced a bill (HB 2939) with broad student and community support today.
Colorado, whose State Legislature nearly enacted a tuition equity bill in 2009, now appears to be close to passing a proposal introduced in the Senate by newly-elected Senator Angela Giron (D) (alongside companion legislation in the House introduced by Representative Joe Miklosi (D), a longtime supporter of tuition equity). In fact, some Senators state legislators are now considering changing their 2009 votes to pass the bill. According to The Denver Post:
[…] Democrats this time may have 18 votes—the number needed to pass a bill in the Senate. The 2009 measure failed on a 16-18 vote, and Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, was one of five Democrats who voted against it.
Carroll now says she’s rethinking her position. She said she opposed the 2009 bill partly because it did not appear to comply with federal laws governing benefits to illegal immigrants. But the legislation this year, Senate Bill 126, has been written in a way that may conform with federal law, Carroll said.
This shift is probably at least partly due to the increasing power of the state’s Latino electorate, which granted close victories to Senate and Gubernatorial candidates who voiced their opposition to anti-immigrant rhetoric and proposals.
Oregon’s bill, introduced in the state House by Representatives Michael Dembrow (D) (himself a Community College professor) and Chris Harker (D), makes particular sense for the state, where a full two-thirds of funding for the state university system comes from student tuition fees. Tuition from undocumented college and university students would play a crucial role to infuse the state’s higher education system with important funding—a reality in many other states.
As states confront historic budget deficits, why would responsible state legislators reject a chance to bring tuition dollars from undocumented students into the system? Out-of-state tuition fees, which many states force their undocumented students to pay to attend higher education institutions, can be as much as three times in-state tuition rates—which mean many undocumented immigrants are effectively priced out of a college education.
Some states already understand this financial reality. Ten states have already passed tuition equity laws, including Utah where conservative state legislators reconsidered their efforts last year to repeal their tuition equity law upon learning doing so would deprive the state’s university system of at least $1.5 million in desperately-needed tuition fees.
Also this year, some states are trying to move wage enforcement legislation in an effort to improve wage levels and workplace safety standards for all workers and allow state governments to target employers seeking to cheat workers out of their wages while not paying into state payroll tax systems. Progressive legislators in Nevada and Maine have already introduced bills to get to the heart of efforts to exploit immigrant workers while leveling the playing field for all members of the labor force. This is a win-win solution for states who want to recoup tax revenue while doing right by their workers.
Bottom line: for legislators who want to develop concrete, solutions-based approaches to state immigration policy, pro-immigrant legislation is the smart option—and also the one that makes the most political sense.
Photo by joinash.
Legislators in Key States Stand Up for DREAM
01 year ago
Today, a group of concerned state legislators from Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Texas and Utah joined forces to stand up for the DREAM Act. On a conference call this afternoon, these local legislators explained how DREAM would benefit their local communities and urged their senators—Sens. Snowe and Collins (R-ME), Sen. Brown (R-MA), Sens. Cornyn and Hutchison (R-TX), and Sen. Hatch (R-UT)—to pass the bill. Unlike certain state legislators who have proposed enforcement-only solutions to our immigration problems, these legislators are dedicated to common-sense immigration policy—policy which focuses on in-state tuition for immigrants and policies that help grow their state’s economies.
State Representative Diane Russell of Maine calls DREAM a common sense solution to an immigration problem:
Passing the DREAM Act is a great example of a common sense proposal. It expands opportunity for all our residents—a goal that I know resonates with many Maine voters, including my colleagues in the U.S. Senate. We should not be punishing young people for their parent’s decision to come to this country illegally. That said, we do need to find a realistic way to bring those young people into the fold and onto the books without “getting ahead of the line.” The DREAM Act is precisely the kind of common sense policy that would do so that is good for Maine’s economy, its residents and our communities.
Luz Robles, a State Senator from Utah, calls the DREAM Act a great economic opportunity for Utah:
The country will agree that criminalizing children is not the way we run our country, it doesn’t reflect our culture or who we are as a nation…Any individual in this country who wants an opportunity to continue to grow and be a taxpayer should get that opportunity and that’s what the DREAM Act does. It recognizes that they’re here and it recognizes that they’re a great source of revenue for our states. More importantly, they are the future of this country.
And Representative Jessica Farrar of Texas asks her Senators—Cornyn and Hutchison—why they would want to walk away from the DREAM Act when it provides so many opportunities:
I’m very concerned because education promotes assimilation and provides opportunities for students … I want to ask Sens. Cornyn and Hutchison—who are opposed to the DREAM Act—why they walk away from the opportunity to develop medical researchers, entrepreneurs, scientists and educators?
These state legislators are just the latest in a growing list of DREAM Act supporters who continue to beat the drum for reform. Today, the White House hosted a conference call with faith leaders who discussed why passing the DREAM Act is the right thing to do. To date, faith leaders, business leaders, academics, leading economists, the Administration (including the military, DHS, Commerce and Education) and even conservative voices have thrown weight behind this bipartisan legislation. While some Congressional members continue to spin the DREAM Act as “back door amnesty” and push other fear-filled myths, more and more voices are joining the fight to give these students a shot at the American DREAM.
Photo by Slightlynorth.
Congressional Leaders Challenge Progressives to Keep Pushing for Immigration Reform
01 year ago
In front of more than 2000 progressive bloggers and activists Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid and several other keynote speakers urged progressives to “finish what we’ve started” and keep beating the progressive drum for change. After enumerating major Democratic legislative victories this year (health care, financial regulation, and an economic stimulus plan to name a few), Congressional leaders acknowledged the legislative priorities that lie ahead—especially immigration. While Republicans continue to stall immigration reform efforts in Congress and with harsh anti-immigrant legislation brewing in other states, immigration has emerged as a national hot button issue. And with mid-term elections around the corner, progressives want to know that Democratic leadership is actually going to lead.
At the fifth annual Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas this weekend, Democratic leadership rallied the progressive voice to keep doing what they’re doing—holding Congress accountable and moving the progressive agenda forward. A large part of that progressive agenda is immigration reform—an issue that many progressives feel the Administration has yet to throw its full weight behind. In a Q&A forum, progressive bloggers and activists held Speaker Pelosi’s and Sen. Reid’s feet to the fire on the immigration front. With Congressional Republicans blocking comprehensive immigration reform (CIR), many wondered about the viability of passing the DREAM Act this year. Here’s what Democratic leadership had to say:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):
There is a difference of opinion on how we go forward on [the DREAM Act]. We are committed to comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). We don’t want to take one piece and leave the rest of the undocumented behind. We need to secure [the] border, enforce laws, stop the exploitation of workers, and provide a path to legalization. If we take off rosier pieces, it will diminish the prospect for CIR. Others have a different view, but that’s a debate we’re having. Arizona also shouts out for the need for CIR which supports all the things I mentioned. We know what our values are as a country. We continue to meet with business and evangelical communities, not our usual allies, but who both understand the need for CIR. We need to keep the heat on for when the time is right to pass CIR, which will be soon. We’re all cosponsor of DREAM Act, but we don’t want to diminish the support for CIR.
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV):
We’re still working on CIR. We’re not finished after this work period before Congress goes out. We still have a lame duck session, so we’re not giving up. No one has worked harder on immigration then me. I’ve got the stars to show it. We spent more time last session on immigration than any other issue.
Those people screaming the loudest, the Senators from Arizona, won’t let us move on immigration. I believe we need CIR. We need to take care of our borders, get a guest worker program that includes more than just AgJobs, bring people out of the shadows, get right with the law, pay taxes, and get to the end of the line…which for some is thirteen years long. Remember, more than half of these undocumented immigrants have American children. We can’t do what Rush Limbaugh wants us to do. There’s no way we can ship them back to somewhere else. This is not amnesty, it’s fairness.
I’ve worked really hard to push for CIR. I’m working with Durbin and Lugar. But I’m not going to the DREAM Act unless I’ve got the 60 votes. I won’t disappoint all those young men and women if I don’t have the votes. So that’s the story.
So where does that leave us? A dose of political reality is never fun to swallow, but both leaders paint a pretty clear picture of an uphill battle for immigration reform of any kind this fall. The upcoming recess and elections, the lack of votes for CIR, and the questionable number of votes out there for the DREAM Act are all sobering reminders that the work isn’t over. The difficulty of immigration reform is also a strange reminder of just how much Congress has accomplished this year, despite overwhelming obstacles. That Republicans and some Democrats are digging their heels in on immigration could mean that progressives haven’t yet found a way to make this issue click for other political interest groups. Despite more and more involvement by conservatives, evangelicals, and law enforcement officials, immigration remains an issue that doesn’t get a lot of bipartisan support. While progressives may chastise their leaders for not doing enough, it was probably pretty fair of Pelosi and Reid to challenge progressives as well.
Photo by wellsy.
Enough is Enough: State Legislators Fight Arizona Copycat Laws with Progressive Immigration Policies
01 year ago
Tired of restrictionists introducing “get tough” anti-immigration legislation in their states, state legislators are pushing back with progressive immigration policies of their own. On a telebriefing yesterday sponsored by the Progressive States Network and the National Immigration Law Center, state legislators from Arizona, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Utah discussed what they are actively doing to push back on the recent uptick in statewide anti-immigrant legislation. From public education campaigns to health, wage protection and enforcement legislation, these state leaders are fed up with the status quo.
With less than a month until SB1070’s enactment date (July 29), Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema is on a campaign to educate local police about the economic and legal realities of enforcing SB1070. While some claim that the Arizona law will help crack down on border violence, Rep. Sinema wants others to realize that SB1070 does nothing to address violent crimes but instead impedes local law enforcement’s ability to keep communities safe.
SB1070 is a very difficult issue to address in Arizona because the perception of many people in the state is that SB1070 addresses border violence. Some individuals have expressed initial support for it, but once folks understand that border violence is not actually addressed whatsoever by this legislation, we see support begin to drop.
What we’re working towards in Arizona—in anticipation of the law’s implementation—is to help law enforcement understand the jeopardy they are placed in—being faced with law suits if they enforce the law and lawsuits if they don’t enforce the law. We’re really seeking to try to find opportunities to help others in the country avoid SB1070-like measures and try to stop copycat legislation across the country. Instead, we want to focus on the kinds of measures that actually help interdict the criminal activity we see happening in border regions.
State Sen. Joe Bolkcom of Iowa is trying to leverage state wage enforcement legislation to address the rampant exploitation of all Iowa workers by unscrupulous employers. According to Sen. Bolkcom, the current wage protection laws in Iowa are weak.
We have focused on expanding and improving wage/hour enforcement law. This legislation really targets those employers who would take advantage of any Iowa worker—including newcomers. Essentially, it’s a zero tolerance law for unscrupulous employers that protects every worker and ensures that we don’t become a state where people are taken advantage of—whether they’re new to the state or have been long-term Iowa workers. Essentially our approach to fighting off really bad anti-immigrant legislation is to say that all Iowa workers deserve protections from wage theft, from law-breaking employers. It’s the best way to strengthen workers, their families and Iowa’s communities.
State Sen. Luz Robles of Utah has prioritized quality, accessible and affordable health care for all children in Utah. After President Obama signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP) back in 2009, Sen. Robles continues those efforts by introducing health amendments to benefit legal immigrant children.
It’s always more cost effective to provide adequate coverage to these children than it is to be dealing with children who are uninsured for that five year period. That’s our message throughout the session. It’s important for us to have all the children in Utah covered.
State Sen. Daylin Leach of Pennsylvania has introduced an advanced community policing bill which essentially bars local law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration laws.
Local police are supposed to stop street crime, which becomes more difficult to do if people in the neighborhood you’re policing or patrolling don’t trust you because they fear you’re going investigating their immigration status. They’re less likely to cooperate with you or give you the tips you need. In fact, a number of police chiefs have made that point that the obligation contained in the Arizona law would undermine their ability to do what they have historically been charged to do.
These are just a few examples of how frustrated state legislators are pushing back on anti-immigration legislation and restrictionists in their states. Although immigration advocates anxiously await the Department of Justice’s soon-to-be-filed federal lawsuit against SB1070, anti-immigration measures in other states unfortunately show no sign of slowing. One can only hope that as the economic, political and legal consequences of anti-immigration laws begin to unfold, that communities—and the legislators who represent them—begin to understand the costly damages these measures will have down the road.
Photo by altnav.
Restrictionist Front Group Still Pushing Green Xenophobia
01 year ago
In a new report, Progressives for Immigration Reform (PFIR)—a front group for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)—regurgitates an argument as tired as it is flawed: that immigration hastens the destruction of the environment in the United States. Specifically, the report claims that immigration-driven population growth is increasing the nation’s “ecological footprint” and exceeding the country’s “carrying capacity.” This is a faulty line of reasoning that overlooks the degree to which destruction of the environment is a function not of population size, but of how a society utilizes its resources, produces its goods and services, and deals with its waste.
In other words, the PFIR report fails to mention that a few people can pollute a lot, or a lot of people can pollute a little. Even in countries with similar standards of living, there is no direct, one-to-one relationship between population size and environmental degradation. For instance, according to the World Resources Institute, the United States is home to 30% fewer people than the European nations of the EU-15, yet produces 40% more greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide and methane. In fact, U.S. emissions of GHGs on a per capita basis are more than double those of the EU-15. The production of GHGs in the United States is not the result of population size, but of the degree to which we as a society rely upon fossil fuels, power plants, industrial processes, and automobiles that actually produce GHGs.
The pseudo-environmentalism of the PFIR report is actually a variety of “green xenophobia” which offers no useful guide for the formulation of effective policies on immigration or the environment. The PFIR report represents the latest attempt by a web of anti-immigrant groups allied with FAIR, and its founder John Tanton, to co-op progressive rhetoric in a dubious attempt to persuade political progressives that immigrants are to blame for environmental destruction, African American unemployment, and a host of other socioeconomic problems.
However, blaming immigrants for pollution won’t fix the dysfunctional U.S. immigration system, reduce the U.S. economy’s dependence on fossil fuels, or improve the emissions systems on automobiles. The PFIR report itself casually mentions at the end that its rather limited approach “does not explicitly address any number of critical issues” such as the environmental impact of pollution, the over-exploitation of resources, “the human assault on biodiversity, or environmental justice.” The PFIR report is little more than environmental window dressing for the anti-immigrant movement.
Photo by ashley.adcox.