Geraldo Rivera and the Zeitgeist of the New Nativist

Geraldo Rivera has written a book, entitled His Panic: Why Americans Fear Hispanics in the U.S., which deals in large measure with the current debate over immigration. I have read excerpts of the book as well as the positions advanced in the book but this is not meant as a review of Rivera’s book. Rather than reviewing the book, I am interested in exploring what the reaction to the book says about the opponents of immigration reform. Rivera was recently interviewed on National Public Radio. I am in complete agreement with at least two of the propositions set forth by Rivera. The first proposition is that much of the anti-immigrant animus is motivated by the changing demographics of America, to wit the growing Latino population in the United States. The second proposition is that the current wave of immigration is no different than previous waves of Italian, Irish, or Jewish immigration. As such, the arguments advanced today by nativists are remarkably similar to the xenophobic sentiments of yesteryear.

Amazon.com provides a nice forum for reactions to Rivera’s book. The discussion on Amazon is un-moderated and hence the comments are mostly unfiltered. The “book reviews” and the comment reactions to those reviews are open to anyone with an internet connection.

I anticipated that many of the “reviewers” had not read the book but would use it as an opportunity to rant on the issue of immigration. I was not disappointed. At most, half a dozen contributors on the Amazon site had actually read the book. The rest, mostly of an anti-immigrant persuasion, were merely using the book as the means to express their positions (such as they are).

What I found most interesting was how few of these people actually endeavored to deal with the issues raised by Rivera’s book. What they lack in substance they make up for in vitriol. The responses form an exemplar of the nativist sentiment. The comments are a road-map to the nativist community and its sources.

Every legitimate review (i.e., people who had actually read the book) garnered the same group of nativist respondents (who clearly had no interest in reading the book, let alone discussing its tenets). The most vocal and revealing commentators included Clarisa “Heather” McDonald, Zeezil, “stoptheinvasion”, JDunn58 and most self-incriminating, E. Baumgartner, of Jewish descent and from New York City. I will refer to this group as the nativists. Several rational people tried to inject reason into the debate, but as the old saw goes, you can’t reason with a madman.

In all of the comments, there was a tendency to ratchet up the number of alleged illegal immigrants in this country. Most respected commentators put the number of undocumented immigrants living in this country at between 8 and 12 million. Zeezil declared that “there are 28 million illegal aliens here,” a number which would indicate that more than half of the Hispanic population is here illegally, since the Census indicates that Hispanic citizens number 40 million. Clarisa McDonald argues as well that the country is experiencing an “invasion of 28 million illegal aliens.” Clearly, both Zeezil and Clarisa are getting their numbers from a similar source. What sources do Zeezil and Clarisa consult for their information?

Clarisa and Zeezil provide their sources and encourage others to do likewise. They share a common source of information: www.numbersusa.com with Roy Beck, Ann Manetes, Rosemary Jenks, www.fairus.org with Dan Stein, www.thesocialcontract.com and www.commonsenseonmassimmigration.com and www.proenglish.org, www.capsweb.org with Dr. Diana Hull, www.firecoalition.com with Jason Mrochek, www.wehirealiens.com, www.alipac.us with William Gheen, www.patriotunion.org with Xelan Bonn, www.grassfire.org with Steve Elliot, www.carryingcapacity.org and www.balance.org with David Durham. As for authorities on the subject the nativists, they recommend Governor Richard D. Lamm, Tom Tancredo, Dr. Albert Bartlett, Roy Beck, Terry Anderson, William Gheen, Jason Mrochek, David Durham, Dr. Diana Hull, Rosemary Jenks, Fred Elbel, Mike McGarry, Russell Pearce, Don Collins and David Pimental. No surprises here. Not exactly a list of unbiased sources of information, but well worth watching as sources of hatred.

Those readers who actually read the book and commented substantively on its positions were viciously attacked personally.

The most telling of these nativists, E. Baumgartner, was a Jew from New York, who quite freely disclosed his bigotries. When told that Geraldo Rivera is half Jewish (Rivera’s mother is Jewish), Baumgartner had no problems maligning his own kind. “Oh, he's half Jewish, well that fits. I'm Jewish and I can say that I'm sometimes embarrassed to be Jewish. A lot of Jews have no real loyalty to this country; they are only loyal to Israel. America is simply a place they live and work.”

Baumgartner makes no bones of his bigotry and unlawful discrimination.

My brother-in-law owns 18 apartment buildings in the Chicago area. He will not rent to hispanics because of their [sic] repuatation. Most of his landlord friends feel the same way. He says, "as soon as Mexicans move in, they take a toll on the building. Their kids get involved in gangs or their kids have friends in gangs who visit and spray graffiti everywhere, crime goes up, etc". He continues, "also, if you have a few Mexican families in your building, it makes it a lot harder to rent to non-hispanics because they too know Mexicans reputation, so then you would get stuck and have to rent to more hispanics because you have to keep your building full. Of course though, with each new Mexican family, the building gradually turns into a mini-barrio and then your property value goes way down, this is why I won't allow even one hispanic tenant in any of my buildings".

So why are Mexicans so bad for the neighborhood? And is one really a bigot for making such generalizations? Not according to Baumgartner.

I wouldn't call it "bigotry", it's more like well grounded distaste for Mexicans (at least the one's in the USA). Every Mexican neighborhood here is a gang infested, graffiti scrawled, crime ridden garbage pit. If Mexicans were more like Asian immigrants, nobody would care one bit about their skin color. Do you see people complaining about Asians? Hardly ever. … … “Mexican parasites”…

Mexicans have been in the USA for more than 160 years and they still have the crappiest jobs, the highest poverty rate, the highest crime rate, endless gangs, highest teen [sic] pregancy rate, highest high school dropout rate (56% nationally). Mexicans will never be anything but an underclass, as they have always been. Sure a handful of Mexicans go to college, but overall, they are extremely low achievers. … “Have you ever been to a predominately hispanic neighborhood in the USA? They are all garbage pits. I can assure you that NOBODY wants to live near Mexicans, they are so dirty and their kids often get involved in gangs. That is the truth about your people. …

Well, now that we have that cleared that up, we can see that the problem is not illegal immigration but rather the presence of dirty Mexicans. What we need to check is not the illegal entry of Mexicans but the growth of the Mexican population. Perhaps we should deport all Mexicans, native-born, 5^th or 6^th generation, we need to get rid of all of “them Mexican parasites.” Is it unfair to lump nativists with the naked bigotry of Baumgartner? Not according to Rivera’s book. And on this point I have to wholeheartedly agree. One need not read too far into most nativist postings to see that their target is not undocumented immigrants but rather the Hispanic community as a whole. This is what bothers Lou Dobbs, Tom Tancredo, Michelle Malkin, and the rest of the nativist hacks. Bigotry: pure and simple.

If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to my RSS feeds. Or you can
get my posts delivered to your inbox directly, by subscribing to my feeds by email.

So Much for Family Values: Cheney Crony CCA Gets Contract to Mistreat Asylum Seekers

It is self-evident that despite a lot of rhetoric about “family values,” Republicans don’t give a sh*t about families. For starters, they have gutted every effort to provide basic health coverage to American children. The mindless Iraq war has forced long separations of service people from their spouse and children. Successive Republican administrations have made the rich richer and have made working families poor. And then there are the aggressive enforcement actions by agents of the Immigration and Custom Enforcement. (“ICE”) According to government statistics, ICE deported 276,912 persons in 2007. ICE’s more aggressive worksite enforcement strategy dramatically increased penalties against employ­ers, securing fines and judgments of more than $30 million while making 863 criminal arrests and 4,077 administrative arrests. Ever since Michael Chertoff, head of the Department of Homeland Security, (“DHS”) announced that ICE was “gonna get ugly” the immigrant community has gotten the worst of all possible worlds, gung-ho raids on workplaces, inhumane treatment and a massive wave of deportations. Not content to tear apart families, the Government took the extraordinary step of imprisoning whole families.

In a fit of patronage to Cheney cronies at the Corrections Corporation of America, (“CCA”) the Department gave CCA a fat contract to detain persons awaiting administrative adjudication of their claims for asylum or relief. The nominal reason for this was that many claimants did not appear for their hearings. Problem was that many of these claimants had families. So DHS decided to incarcerate not just the claimant but his or her whole family. The most infamous detention center is a prison in Taylor, Texas known as the T.Don Hutto Residential Center.

Hutto is one of two immigrant-detention facilities in America that house families—the other is in Berks County, Pennsylvania—and is the only one owned and run by a private prison company. The detention of immigrants is the fastest-growing form of incarceration in this country, and, with the support of the Bush Administration, it is becoming a lucrative business. At the end of 2006, some fourteen thousand people were in government custody for immigration-law violations, in a patchwork of detention arrangements, including space rented out by hundreds of local and state jails, and seven freestanding facilities run by private contractors. This number was up by seventy-nine per cent from the previous year, an increase that can be attributed, in large part, to the actions of Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which runs the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division.

“The Lost Children: What do tougher detention policies mean for illegal immigrant families?” by Margaret Talbot, (The New Yorker, March 3, 2008). http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/03/080303fa_fact_talbot

One complication was that hundreds of children were among the immigrant detainees. Typically, kids had been sent to shelters, which allowed them to attend school, while parents were held at closed facilities. Nobody thought that it was good policy to separate parents from children—not immigration officials, not immigrant advocates, not Congress. In 2005, a report by the House Appropriations Committee expressed concern about “reports that children apprehended by D.H.S.”—the Department of Homeland Security—“even as young as nursing infants, are being separated from their parents and placed in shelters.” The committee also declared that children should not be placed in government custody unless their welfare was in question, and added that the Department of Homeland Security should “release families or use alternatives to detention” whenever possible. The report recommended a new alternative to detention known as the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program—which allows people awaiting disposition of their immigration cases to be released into the community, provided that they are closely tracked by means such as electronic monitoring bracelets, curfews, and regular contact with a caseworker. The government has since established pilot programs in twelve cities, and reports that more than ninety per cent of the people enrolled in them show up for their court dates. The immigration agency could have made a priority of putting families, especially asylum seekers, into such programs. Instead, it chose to house families in Hutto, which is owned and run by C.C.A. Families would be kept together, but it would mean they were incarcerated together.

“The Lost Children,” Talbot. Given that Hutto was a prison and that it operated as a prison, the facility was ill-equipped to deal with the incarcerated families. Fathers were separated from their wives and children. The children were housed in prison cells with their mothers. The children were denied toys, crayons or pictures and all had to dress in prison scrubs.

Hutto has more than five hundred beds, though the population fluctuates, and the facility appears never to have been at full capacity; about half the detainees are children. At the time the Yourdkhanis got there, many of the four hundred or so detainees were from Latin-American countries (these did not include Mexico, because Mexicans caught without documents are automatically sent home), and some of those were people who had come to the United States for economic reasons; that is, they were the kind of undocumented immigrants that most people probably think of when they hear of immigrants being rounded up somewhere in Texas. But a substantial number of the families were asylum seekers—people from Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Romania. Like the Yourdkhanis, they were people who said that they had been persecuted in their home countries, and many of them had passed the first test for achieving asylum in the United States—a so-called “credible fear” interview. None had criminal records.

Families were placed in former inmate cells. Each cell had a twin bed or a bunk bed with a thin mattress, a small metal or porcelain sink, and an exposed toilet. Generally, mothers and very young children stayed together in one cell, fathers in a separate cell, and older children in another. Husbands and wives were not allowed to visit each other’s cells. . . The cell doors were metal, and each had a window two inches wide; the floor and walls were bare, except for a shatterproof acrylic mirror. Doors were to remain open during the day, but they were wired with laser-detection alarms that were triggered when anyone came or went at night. A 2007 report by two advocacy groups—the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children—noted that if a child sleeping in a separate cell woke up at night and went looking for his parents the alarm would sound, and only C.C.A. staff members were allowed to respond.

The guards at Hutto conducted as many as seven head counts a day, during which all detainees, even toddlers, were supposed to remain in place, usually by their beds, for as long as it took to complete the count. In practice, this meant that detainees might be in their cells twelve hours a day. (When head counts were not taking place, detainees could assemble in the common area within their “pod” of cells, where there were couches and two televisions.) Last March, an immigration lawyer named Griselda Ponce testified before the U.S. District Court in Austin about conditions at Hutto, and told of an occasion when the five- or six-year-old daughter of a woman she was interviewing had to go to the rest room. The captain on duty told the girl that she could not do so during a head count. Ponce said that the girl made “six or seven requests,” and was rebuffed each time; after about fifteen minutes, the girl “smelled of urine.”

No contact visits were allowed at Hutto—relatives had to sit behind Plexiglas partitions and talk through phones in the old prison visiting room. In any case, few relatives visited, since Hutto was so far from where most of them lived.

Children were regularly woken up at night by guards shining lights into their cells. They were roused each morning at five-thirty. Kids were not allowed to have stuffed animals, crayons, pencils, or pens in their cells. And they were not allowed to take the pictures they had made back to their cells and hang them up. When Hutto opened as an immigration-detention center, children attended school there only one hour a day.

It’s easier to gain access to the death-row section of most publicly run prisons than it is to get into Hutto, unless you are a detainee or an employee of C.C.A. Even Jorge Bustamante, a sociologist and a former Nobel Peace Prize nominee, who is the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants, was denied access to Hutto. .. No reporters have been admitted on any occasion since a single-day group media tour, in February, 2007.

Last March, the A.C.L.U., along with the immigration-law clinic at the University of Texas and the law firm LeBouef, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, brought suit against Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and the immigration officials who oversee Hutto. . . . The A.C.L.U. commissioned a psychiatrist to investigate conditions at Hutto, and, not surprisingly, the resulting report documented depression and fearfulness among children housed there, and predicted that, until the facility overhauled its “policies and procedures beyond recognition” and replaced its “current (correctional) staff,” it would not be appropriate for children. More surprising, a psychiatric report commissioned by the government defendants also questioned the “authoritarian milieu fostered by this excessive number of security personnel,” and criticized an atmosphere “capable of contributing to the development of unnecessary anxiety and stress for these children.” The report’s author, Richard Pesikoff, a professor of psychiatry at Baylor College of Medicine, concluded that it was “essential” to make changes at Hutto, in order to protect the mental health of the children.

“The Lost Children,” Talbot. A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union obtained a modicum of relief regarding the worst conditions.

Children are no longer required to wear prison uniforms and are allowed much more time outdoors. Educational programming has expanded and guards have been instructed not to discipline children by threatening to separate them from their parents.

In addition to making those improvements permanent, the settlement also requires ICE to provide, among other things:

· allow children over the age of 12 to move freely about the facility

· provide a full-time, on-site pediatrician

· eliminate the count system which forces families to stay in their cells 12 hours a day

· install privacy curtains around toilets

· offer field trip opportunities to children

· supply more toys and age- and language-appropriate books

· improve the nutritional value of food

Despite the tremendous improvements at Hutto, the facility retains its essential character: it was a medium security prison managed by the Corrections Corporation of America, a for-profit adult corrections company. The ACLU remains adamant that detaining immigrant children at Hutto is inappropriate and calls on Congress to compel DHS to find humane alternatives for managing families whose immigration status is in limbo.

ACLU Challenges Prison-Like Conditions at Hutto Detention Center, ACLU website, http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/detention/hutto.html# And that, my dear readers, is how a free and proud nation treats the children of people seeking asylum from dictatorships, autocrats, Middle-Eastern despots and anyone else who serves our interests.

See video on Hutto at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3907096540955731120.

Keep up to date with developments at Hutto: TDonHutto.blogspot.com.

If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to my RSS feeds. Or you can
get my posts delivered to your inbox directly, by subscribing to my feeds by email.

Immigration: The Myth of the Third Rail of Politics

Now that the last three presidential candidates still standing are all in favor of comprehensive immigration reform it is becoming clear to most astute observers that immigration is not the third rail of politics. The conventional wisdom is that any serious political candidate dare not articulate a pro-immigrant platform lest they get burned by the charged rail of American politics. In fact, the most likely Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, marched with the thousands who protested in the summer of 2006 supporting immigrant rights. As New York Times reporter, David Leonhart notes in the March 2, 2008 issue of the New York Times:

Mr. McCain will all but clinch the Republican nomination on Tuesday with victories in the Ohio and Texas primaries. In the Texas campaign, except for a couple of obligatory questions about a border fence during a Democratic debate, immigration has been the dog that didn’t bark. The candidates who would have made an issue of it exited the race long ago.

The Border and the Ballot Box by David Leonhart, (New York Times, Mar 2, 2008)

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/weekinreview/02leonhardt.html?ref=politics)

Leonhart gives some historical perspective and notes that although the issue has always attracted a wave of xenophobia it has rarely impacted national elections. Given the Nativist laws that have been passed in prior eras, it is still a stretch to say that the immigration issue has little currency. The truth is that in economically challenging times, American workers will often focus their anger on the jobs allegedly lost to immigrants. Combine this with a pernicious racism and you still have a combustible political mixture.

Nonetheless, those of us who favor a humanist policy towards immigrants, especially those immigrants who live underground lives, can take comfort in seeing the likes of Tom Tancredo and his ilk go down in flames. The Nativist appeal clearly resonates with a portion of the American electorate but it does not carry the day as a wedge issue. Nativists do their cause ill by aligning themselves with the racists, like Michelle Malkin and the VDare folks who spew irrational hatred. We, at least, have reason on our side.

The task for progressives, as stated by Abe Lincoln, is to appeal to the better angels of our nature.

We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

I harbor no illusions that we will easily overcome cultural resistance to the immigrant population and more broadly to the Latino community within our midst. But having been raised in Texas, with its Hispanic roots going back five centuries, I have seen some amazing melding of cultures. Surely, an appeal to simple humanity and perhaps a modicum of self-interest, we can find a way to move the issue of comprehensive immigration reform in a direction that finds some resonance in the humanity that is the American people.

If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to my RSS feeds. Or you can
get my posts delivered to your inbox directly, by subscribing to my feeds by email.

1 in 100 U.S. Adults Behind Bars

Not exactly on immigration but perhaps apropos to nativism and hatred, The New York Times reports that we are incarcerating more people today than at any point in our history. We also incarcerate more people than any other country.

For the first time in the nation’s history, more than one in 100 American adults is behind bars, according to a new report.

Nationwide, the prison population grew by 25,000 last year, bringing it to almost 1.6 million. Another 723,000 people are in local jails. The number of American adults is about 230 million, meaning that one in every 99.1 adults is behind bars.

Incarceration rates are even higher for some groups. One in 36 Hispanic adults is behind bars, based on Justice Department figures for 2006. One in 15 black adults is, too, as is one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34.

The report, from the Pew Center on the States, also found that only one in 355 white women between the ages of 35 and 39 are behind bars but that one in 100 black women are. …

It cost an average of $23,876 dollars to imprison someone in 2005, the most recent year for which data were available. But state spending varies widely, from $45,000 a year in Rhode Island to $13,000 in Louisiana.

The cost of medical care is growing by 10 percent annually, the report said, and will accelerate as the prison population ages.

About one in nine state government employees works in corrections, and some states are finding it hard to fill those jobs. California spent more than $500 million on overtime alone in 2006.

"1 in 100 U.S. Adults Behind Bars, New Study Says," by Adam Liptak, The New York Times, (February 28, 2008) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

And when we have finished incarcerating everyone who will be left to guard the jails? What does it say about us as a society that we choose to incarcerate so many of our fellow citizens? No other industrialized society comes close to incarcerating as many of our own as does the United States. Is there a willful blindness borne of the fact that the imprisoned cannot be seen or heard? Are we able to sleep more soundly at night knowing that so many voiceless human beings waste away behind bars? Does the high incarceration rate help us to progress as a community?

Pew Report Link: pewcenteronthestates.org

If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to my RSS feeds. Or you can
get my posts delivered to your inbox directly, by subscribing to my feeds by email.

Globalization, NAFTA and immigration

Immigration and emigration between Mexico and the United States is driven by a complex set of forces. These forces are the result of economic and political policies put in place by the United States and Mexico. One such element is the maquiladora program which essentially expands the borders for U.S. manufacturing concerns deep into Mexico. Under this program, American corporations are allowed to transfer their manufacturing facilities to Mexico and pay pitifully low wages and send the finished goods back to the U.S. market without tariffs or other duties leveled on importers from other countries. In almost all respects this is a losing proposition for Mexico and most critically for Mexican workers.

It is ironic to hear so much nativist cant about the so-called loss of control of our borders when American companies enjoy the benefits of an expanded economic zone in Mexico without the burdens of U.S. regulation, wages or environmental concerns. Simply by placing a manufacturing plant 50 feet across the border from the United States, American companies are able to produce manufactured goods while paying their workers less than $5.00 a day. When you consider that manufacturing jobs in the United pay about $12.00 an hour this expansion of U.S. borders greatly benefits U.S. corporations.

Whenever I hear nativists talk about the “integrity of our borders” I often wonder what borders they are referencing. For U.S. concerns taking advantage of Mexican workers, the borders have little relevance to their operations except insofar as they lock Mexican workers to jobs that do not pay subsistence wages. The wall being built on the U.S.-Mexico border will not keep American corporations from moving their operations south of the border. But, Mexican workers will constantly be reminded that the wall is symbol to hypocrisy.

Globalization is a lose-lose proposition

I once supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other free trade pacts in the hope that freer trade would raise the tide for all nations and help equalize wages between nations. I now believe that the critics of globalization were absolutely right. Globalization not only displaces local economies but it opens up weak markets to rapacious global corporations who then wreak havoc on local producers. Globalization is a lose-lose proposition for developing markets (and also for U.S. workers).

Nativist anger at undocumented workers is misplaced. If nativists really cared about U.S. jobs and the welfare of the American worker they would focus the intensity of their anger at U.S. corporations and the politicians that do their bidding. It is these corporations that ship American jobs abroad and the politicians that make their actions possible and this is where their actions should be focused. But as we have noted before, most nativist anger has little to do with jobs or borders and more to do with hatred against Latinos. One need only peruse the dominant Nativist site, VDare.com and its links to other sites, to see the hateful vitriol that is spewed not just against immigrants but also against Latinos and other minorities.

Maquiladoras employ about a million Mexican workers at $4.65 a day

The impact of the maquiladora program on Mexico and on Mexican and U.S. workers is enormous. There are over 3000 manufacturing plants, most of them American companies, now located in Mexico. Maquiladoras, today employ about a million Mexican workers. The overwhelming majority of these workers labor at the Mexican minimum wage, which at today’s exchange rate is $4.65 a day. Keep in mind that the cost of food in Mexico is comparable to or higher to the prices of food in the United States.

It is not a far stretch to argue that each job taken by a maquiladora is one less American job. At prevailing U.S. manufacturing wages (which have been falling) this is one family’s salary.

What does this have to do with emigration from Mexico? For starters, the maquilas have drawn workers to the Mexican border areas simply because that is where the jobs are to be found. Ciudad Juarez went from a small city of 200,000 in 1965 to well over 2,000,000 today. This population cannot be sustained on the maquilas alone and hence there is a push factor from these cities. Given the dismal wages paid by the maquilas, many workers find work across the border much more attractive.

The maquilas receive almost no industrial support from Mexican manufacturers (meaning Mexican manufacturers get no benefit from these companies) and pay almost no taxes. As such, they contribute little to the Mexican economy and likely even fail to pay for the infrastructure that supports them. Given the lack of revenues from these enterprises the Mexican state has little incentive to provide social services, or even basic infrastructure such as roads, sewage systems or clean water supplies to its people. This also provides a push factor from Mexico.

The situation and possible remedial factors were outlined by Simon Chandler of the Annunciation House in El Paso, Texas.

The maquiladora industry grew steadily since its establishment in 1965. But the really strong growth occurred in the years following the signing of the NAFTA agreement in 1994. NAFTA was an agreement which set out to create a free trade zone between Canada, the US, and Mexico. It allowed the free movement of good, services, and capital. But not labor. The European Union (EU), formerly known as the European Community, and before that the European Economic Community, has also established a free trade area. But with the major difference that labor is as free to move as goods, services, and capital. So, as it stands today, a person in Greece or Portugal can freely move to Germany or France to work, or study, or just live. Or vice-versa. Whilst there, the person can use all the health and social services that that country offers to its own citizens. Originally, the European Union was composed or 5 or 6 Western European countries. When nations such as Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Greece applied to join the EU in the early 1970s there was quite an income disparity between the member countries and the applicants. So as part of the economic integration process, the richer countries provided grants to the poorer countries to allow them to develop infrastructure, invest in industry and education, and do other things that would help develop their economies. There were fears that with the free movement of labor that the population of Portugal and Greece would simply relocate to France or Germany where both wages and benefits were substantially higher than in their own countries. But that has not happened. The industrial development strategy has been quite successful and allowed the poorer countries to build stronger economies. Countries like Ireland and Spain have been experiencing economic growth like never before.

This is an important lesson. There is an underlying perception that if the US opened its southern border, the whole of Latin America would enter and swamp the country. But our experience here at Annunciation House, working with migrant sand refugees has taught us something. It has taught us that the decision to migrate to another country is not an easy one to make. To uproot one's life, leaving behind family, friends, and one's culture is a wrenching decision that most people would prefer not to have to make. Migration is caused by poverty, desperation, and oppression. A country that provides a standard of living where people have enough food to eat, are able to get healthcare and an education for themselves and their children, and where people do not fear their government, does not generally experience mass emigration. But it is this poverty, desperation, and oppression that causes thousands of people to cross the southern border of the US and has led to over 2,700 deaths over the past 10 years as migrants have tried to enter the US. Mexico has an economy comparable in size to the state of Ohio. How hard would it have been to have included in NAFTA a component to allow Mexico to develop its economy and bring about some kind of economic stability to the country? How hard would it have been to provide supports to a Mexican agricultural system that is at the point of collapse and could see millions of people leaving the land in the next few years?

http://www.annunciationhouse.org/news_winter2003_maquillado.html (emphasis added)

Until these structural deficits are addressed we will continue to have migration of undocumented Mexican and Latin American workers into the United States. While it is certainly true that Mexicans need to pressure their government for needed reforms the United States cannot pretend that a long wall will solve the immigration problem. Globalization needs to be addressed on this side of the border by the workers whose livelihood is being decimated just as it needs to be addressed by Mexican and Latin American workers.

Further Resources
American Friends Service Committee (www.afsc.org/immigrants-rights): Has a national program, Project Voice—Migration and Mobility Unit, that works to strengthen the voices of immigrant-led organizations in setting the national agenda for immigration policy and immigrants’ rights.

American Immigration Lawyers Association (www.ailalawyer.com): A legal association for immigration attorneys with a membership of more than 10,000 immigration lawyers. AILA provides an immigration lawyer referral service on its website.

Border Action Network (www.borderaction.org): A network of immigrants and border residents in Nogales, Douglas, and Tucson, Arizona, working to amplify the voices and power of those who are most impacted by border and immigration policies.

Breakthrough, international human rights organization that uses media, education and pop culture to promote values of dignity, equality and justice: www.breakthrough.tv

Campaign for Labor Rights (www.clrlabor.org): Mobilizes grassroots support throughout the United States for campaigns to end labor rights violations around the world.

Coalición de Derechos Humanos (www.derechoshumanosaz.net): A grassroots organization working to promote respect for human and civil rights and to fight militarization, discrimination, and abuse of authority in the southern border region.

Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras(www.coalitionforjustice.net): A tri-national coalition of religious, environmental, labor, Latino, and women’s organizations supporting worker and community struggles in the maquiladora industry.

Detention Watch Network (www.detentionwatchnetwork.org): A national coalition addressing the crisis of immigration detention and helping detainees and their loved ones make their voices heard.

Families for Freedom (www.familiesforfreedom.org):
A multi-ethnic defense network by and for immigrants facing and fighting deportation.

Farmworker Justice (www.fwjustice.org): An organization working to empower migrant and seasonal farmworkers by improving their living and working conditions, immigration status, health, occupational safety, and access to justice.

Global Workers Justice Alliance (www.globalworkers.org): A cross-border network of worker advocates and resources that combats migrant worker exploitation by promoting portable justice for transnational migrants.

Immigration Equality (www.immigrationequality.org): A national organization working to end immigration discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and HIV-positive people, and to help win asylum for those persecuted based on sexual identity or HIV status.

Life or Liberty, a non-profit media project begun in 2002 to produce documentaries on immigrant communities affected by post-9/11 policies. The project has produced award-winning short documentaries for grassroots organizing and educational outreach: www.lifeorliberty.org

Maquila Solidarity Network (www.maquilasolidarity.org):
A labor and women’s rights advocacy organization promoting solidarity with grassroots groups in Mexico, Central America, and Asia, that works to improve conditions in maquiladora factories and export processing zones.

Migration Policy Institute (MPI), "independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank in Washington, DC dedicated to the study of the movement of people worldwide": www.migrationpolicy.org

National Employment Law Project (www.nelp.org): Provides information and advocacy in defense of low-wage workers, including immigrant workers.

National Immigration Law Center (www.nilc.org): Provides information, policy analysis, and advocacy in defense of low-income immigrants and their family members.

National Immigration Project (www.nationalimmigrationproject.org): A project of the National Lawyers’ Guild, Inc. devoted to defending the rights of immigrants facing incarceration and deportation.

National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (www.nnirr.org): A national organization bringing together immigrant, refugee, community, religious, civil rights, and labor organizations and activists from around the United States in defense of immigrant rights.

Pew Hispanic Center (PHC), "nonpartisan research organization [whose] mission is to improve understanding of the U.S. Hispanic population and to chronicle Latinos' growing impact on the entire nation": http://pewhispanic.org

Rights Working Group (www.rightsworkinggroup.org): A nationwide coalition of groups and individuals committed to protecting civil liberties and human rights.

SweatFree Communities (www.sweatfree.org): A national network assisting sweatshop workers globally in their struggles to improve working conditions and form strong, independent unions.

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), "a data gathering, data research and data distribution organization associated with Syracuse University...information about federal enforcement, staffing and spending": www.trac.syr.edu

U.S. / Labor Education in the Americas Project (www.usleap.org): Works to support the basic rights of workers in Central America, Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico, especially those who are employed directly or indirectly by U.S. companies.

United Students Against Sweatshops (www.studentsagainstsweatshops.org): An organization of students and community members at over 200 campuses around the United States, supporting the struggles of working people and challenging corporate power.



If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to my RSS feeds. Or you can
get my posts delivered to your inbox directly, by subscribing to my feeds by email.

The Economic Revitalization of Cities by Immigrants

Professional nativist Lou Dobbs is famous for making outlandish claims regarding immigrants. Perhaps his most famous whopper was his claim that immigrants were responsible for 7,000 cases of leprosy in the preceding three years. In fact, the actual number was 7,000 cases of leprosy in the last thirty years. As well, Dobbs stated that a third of all prisoners were “illegal aliens.” The Justice Department correctly notes that only 6% of the federal prison population are non-citizens (many of them incarcerated for immigration related offenses). What Dobbs and others of his ilk are promoting is a hate agenda that seeks to demonize immigrants – especially undocumented workers. The reason Dobbs and the nativist fringe are able to peddle such lies is that they play to the prejudices of a portion of the U.S. population. The picture of the immigrant community in the U.S. is considerably more complex and contrary to the stereotypes foisted on the public by the nativists.

Speaking from personal experience I reside in a community that is rich with immigrants and diversity. I can cross the street and buy fresh fruits and vegetables at the Korean vegetable stand. They cater to a Latin American clientele and will stock prickly pair cactus – the juicy fruit of my youth. Around the corner is a Halaal market whose proprietors are from Somalia. A Mexican Butcher shop provides some of the finest meats that I have ever tasted, no pre-packaged cellophane sterility here. Various Vietnamese markets provide all manner of great produce, fresh fish and the juiciest roast ribs and duck. A Salvadorean bakery makes wonderful corn-meal pupusas and sweet baked goods, like their famous tres leches cake (three-milk cake). My Brazilian friend has turned a dilapidated skating rink into a world-class soccer-training facility. He also operates a Brazilian restaurant where you can dine on black beans and rice with succulent meats. Our accountant is Colombian but if you wanted a Vietnamese or Eritrean accountant you could easily find one. The array of products and services that this diverse community provides is astounding. I find this smorgasbord of diversity quite wonderful.

This community was not always wonderful. A decade ago, it would have been foolish to walk alone at night. The streets were the domain of drunks, thieves, prostitutes and drug addicts. As immigrants have arrived the area has become safer and more vital economically. Where once bars, porn shops and pawn shops predominated now we have markets, computer repair stores, restaurants, video stores and cafes. Most of these businesses have been opened by recent immigrants from Asia, African and Latin America. The neighborhood has literally been revitalized by the very people so much reviled by Dobbs.

Immigrant entrepreneurs are playing a similar role in revitalizing cities around the country

There are no lepers in this community and very few of the criminals arrested are immigrants. Around the corner from me is a small store-front mosque where immigrants from the horn of Africa go to worship. They are a proud people who have seen war and devastation. In their stead they have brought safety and order to this community. They walk with their families, shop at the local markets and contribute economically to what used to be an impoverished area. The same is true of the Latin Americans and Asians who have also opened businesses and who also make this a community where kids can play and families can shop without fear of being set upon by thugs. As the immigrants have increased so the crime rate has dropped. This is now one of the safer neighborhoods in the City – much safer than areas with few if any immigrants.

Immigrant-owned businesses … run the gamut from professional services to high-growth technology companies

The nativist mind-set will not process this information as proof that immigrants are a force for good. They will retort that these immigrants – whether documented or undocumented – are stealing jobs from native-born Americans. Never mind that the immigrants have taken over dilapidated buildings and converted them into vital businesses. If the immigrant thrives he is stealing native bread. If the immigrant fails he is a drag on society. Yet none of these businesses would exist were it not for the entrepreneurial actions of the new-comers. In the nativist mind, bigotry rules and judgment and reason give way to hatred.

Lake Street was a “problem neighborhood,” known for prostitution and drug crime… “Now, everybody wants to be here”

This revitalization phenomenon is not unique to this community. In Minneapolis, a city rich with a creative class and a culture of tolerance, the south side of the City has been revitalized by immigrants. Where once blocks and blocks of abandoned buildings gave shelter to criminals, there exist vital markets, restaurants and businesses, both “ethnic” and “white.” The initial impetus for this revitalization came from Mexican immigrants who took over an abandoned building and built small businesses requiring a minimum of capital. Others saw the success of the Mexican Mercado and then African markets and International markets started to flourish. Rather than being a drain on the City, these businesses provided badly needed jobs and new sources of revenue for the City. If you want to learn more check out these sites:

Reviving South Minneapolis, by Reese Fayde (The Next American City)

http://americancity.org/article.php?id_article=213

http://deboramaskitchen.blogspot.com/2005/05/mercado-central-in-south-minneapolis.html

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g43323-d117422-Reviews-Mercado_Central-Minneapolis_Minnesota.html

The change wrought by these immigrant entrepreneurs is here described by Reese Fayde:

On a Saturday in early June, more than 10,000 Minneapolis residents celebrated the official opening of the Midtown Global Market, the centerpiece of a decade-long, $190 million, 1.2-million square foot transformation of the former Sears Tower on Lake Street in south Minneapolis.

The tower is the city’s largest building, originally built in the 1920s. It stood empty for a decade, after Sears closed its Lake Street operation in 1994. Now the Global Market, a collection of around 30 immigrant-run businesses, occupies the tower’s first floor. Luxury lofts, a corporate headquarters, and a Sheraton Hotel will sit above. In ethnic markets like the new Global Market, immigrants are playing a crucial role in the revitalization of south Minneapolis. Parts of Lake Street once bordered the most crime-ridden neighborhoods in the city. Now property values in south Minneapolis are up, businesses are moving in, and the street corners are bustling with tourists and shoppers. Manny Gonzalez, owner of Manny’s Tortas—which serves gourmet Mexican sandwiches piled high with steak, onions, and jalapenos—recalls that, when he first moved to Minneapolis from Mexico City in the early 1980s, Lake Street was a “problem neighborhood,” known for prostitution and drug crime. In 1999, when he and a group of immigrant business owners formed the Mercado Central, another ethnic market in the area, rents were still cheap—around $9 per square foot for retail space. But retail rents are currently up to $15 or $16 per square foot, and he expects the price to continue to rise. “Now, everybody wants to be here,” he says.

Immigrant entrepreneurs are playing a similar role in revitalizing cities around the country. Immigrant-owned businesses still include traditional restaurants and groceries like Manny’s Tortas. But they also run the gamut from professional services to high-growth technology companies. As Mayor Michael Bloomberg quipped in recent Congressional testimony on immigration, it is “pure fantasy” to imagine life in a major city without immigrants. According to Michael Porter, chairman of the Boston-based Initiative for a Competitive Inner City, they change the face of entrepreneurship in inner cities, providing “a much-needed shot of economic vibrancy to distressed neighborhoods.” And yet few urban communities have actively sought and supported immigrant entrepreneurs as a revitalization tactic.

Minneapolis, however, is a remarkable example of a city that has not only taken steps to incubate immigrant-owned businesses, but has also taken a more holistic approach to reviving areas like the Lake Street corridor, integrating the work of private foundations and community organizations to increase public transportation, expand affordable housing options, improve public education, and expand civic engagement. While Latino immigrants have paved the way for improvements in places like Mercado Central and Plaza Verde, Hmong (Laos), Somali and Oromo (Ethiopia and, to a lesser extent, Kenya) immigrants have started their own companies, further cementing the unique economic, social and cultural role of immigrant entrepreneurs in the revitalization of Midtown Minneapolis.

Reviving South Minneapolis, by Reese Fayde (The Next American City)

http://americancity.org/article.php?id_article=213

In my community most of the revitalization has taken place by immigrants with little or no support from non-profits or governmental agencies. This experience is consistent with the fact that creative class cities – places of tolerance – are the ones to benefit from this immigrant revitalization. So while nativists peddle hate, good people are building communities, raising families, attending church and bringing life to once moribund areas. Immigrants have always played this role and in the mythology of our country we celebrate them. It’s time to stop the nativist claptrap and speak the reality that immigrants are a vital and positive force in our country.

If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to my RSS feeds. Or you can
get my posts delivered to your inbox directly, by subscribing to my feeds by email.

A Window into a Community

Both of my parents are from Mexico and they are both evangelical Christians. My father was an early convert to Protestantism having been raised by an Evangelical pastor in Mexico. As a young man he immigrated to this country and worked at a factory in Nebraska. He absorbed the blue-collar pro-union politics of his co-workers. He remains a blue-collar Democrat to this day voting Democrat no matter how powerful and unremitting the exhortations of his evangelical pastor on behalf of Republicans.

My mother has contributed mightily to the coffers of Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Falwell. While living at home, I read the right-wing missives of these heralds of god. My mother is a hard-core, right-wing evangelical voter. She will vote the party ticket as laid down by Pat Robertson and his ilk. Given the extreme polarity between my father’s views and those of my mother, they rarely talk politics. The intolerance is entirely on the part of my mother who refuses to countenance political debate of any kind – especially with the left-wing views to which my father subscribes.

The only time a political discussion opens up in our family is when I visit my parents. My father and I naturally grouse about the lousy political state of things. We carry this on until my mother joins us and I egg him on to needle her. She shushes my father up and unless I change the direction of the discussion she leaves us alone in the kitchen to drink our coffee and share our views.

My dad reads the local English-language newspaper and watches the local and national news on the English language stations. My mother does not read newspapers but she might watch some of the local news. They both watch Spanish-language television which is ubiquitous in the border area where they reside. Few of their political views are influenced by Spanish language television especially given its constant glitter shows and sensationalistic news coverage. The only other source of political news for either of my parents is the evangelical church that they attend and the numerous flyers sent to them by evangelical organizations such as The 700 Club.

Norquist says. "Oddly enough, people resent the idea that you might throw their mother out of the country."

My sister retired from the U.S. Air Force and currently works for Lockheed-Martin. Her political views might be described best as moderately left-of-center. Her religious views are more in line with those of my parents. Her children speak three languages.

My political views are considerably more nuanced than those of my parents or of my sister. Spanish is my first language and I attended the first few years of grade school in Mexico. Eventually, I made my way to an elite Eastern school and today my views are influenced by the New York Times, Harpers, and The New Yorker as well as by a number of political blogs and other websites.

We have extended family in Mexico. My uncles visit the U.S. at least once a year. We have big barbeques and check out all the second-hand stores for goods that are prohibitively expensive in Mexico.

I have family members who are in this country working without legal documents. They pay taxes, shop at American stores and abide by the laws of this country. Were it not for their undocumented status they would be considered model citizens. Should they be stopped or apprehended by agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (ICE) they would be summarily deported.

It should be pretty clear that as an informed citizen and given my experiences, I would not be particularly enthusiastic about the Republican Party’s nativist anti-immigrant policies. Republican strategist Grover Norquist, a top ally of Karl Rove, believes that the "vicious" rhetoric by GOP candidates could prompt Hispanics to flee "in droves" to the Democrats. "Talking about a strong border is one thing," Norquist says. "It's when you get into enforcing the law — which means deport — that you lose people's votes. Oddly enough, people resent the idea that you might throw their mother out of the country." I could not have put it better myself.

So what does this have to do with the price of tortillas? Namely, that the Republican apparatchiks have been using the anti-immigrant issue as their wedge issue of choice – kind of like the gay marriage issue of 2008. Unfortunately, it is not yielding returns for them. Any redneck who hates Mexicans is not going to put a Hillary or Obama bumper sticker on his pickup and if he votes he will likely vote R despite the nativist rhetoric. There are, however, like the Iraq war, unintended consequences. The nativist rancor has given the racist right cover to push their agenda of hate. As well, the Latino community has more reasons to say adieu to the Republican Party.

The last point is not without consequence. In the last two presidential elections, George Bush was able to make real inroads into the Hispanic vote. In one election he got fully 40% of the Latino vote. No Republican would dream of getting 40% of the African-American vote. At one point, the Latino community was actually in play between the Dems and the Reps. Not so today. If my experience is illustrative of any dynamic, it is that while we – the Latino community -- are not focused on one issue we are quite aware who is behind the current climate of hate. And we are not going to forget. Nor will my evangelical mother.

If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to my RSS feeds. Or you can
get my posts delivered to your inbox directly, by subscribing to my feeds by email.