-
-
related tags:
- Illegal Immigration
- immigration reform
- Arizona
- Immigrants
- Illegal Immigrants
- Deportation
- Immigration Law
- new america media
- Borders
- dream act
- colorlines
- Mexico
- anti-immigration
- Legal Immigration
- Jan Brewer
- SB 1070
- Citizenship
- ICE raids
- Immigrant
- Minutemen
- immigration protest
- clandestine
- RaceWire
- sb1070
- US: The Immigrant Nation
- Undocumented Immigrants
- Illegal
- Mexico-US Border
- Undocumented
- cuentame
- US Immigration Policy
- Ice
- Migrants
- Border
- Border Patrol
- Migration
- Latinos
- Emigration
- Feet in Two Worlds
- WW3
- US immigration
- immigration debate
- BV Immigration
- Detention
- Campus Progress
- Asylum
- Russell Pearce
- Border Control
- Racism
- Luis Gutierrez
tagged w/ Immigration
-
Weekly Diaspora: What Homeland Security Looks Like After Bin Laden’s Death
by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger
Nearly a decade ago, America’s War on Terror began as a manhunt for Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But over the next nine years, that anti-terrorism effort evolved into a multi-faceted crusade: birthing a new national security agency, blossoming into two bloody wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, institutionalizing the racial profiling and surveillance of Muslim Americans and even redefining unauthorized Latin American immigration as—of all things—a national security issue. Now, in the wake of Osama Bin Laden’s death, which elements of that crusade will persist or expand and which—if any—will dissolve?
Muslim Americans celebrate bin Laden’s death…
Following the announcement of bin Laden’s death last Sunday, Americans feverishly rejoiced at the news that a mission actually was accomplished in the War on Terror. Profoundly, the celebrants included scores of individuals who had unwittingly become targets of that crusade—Pakistani immigrants and American Muslims.
Mohsin Zaheer of Feet in Two Worlds reports that Islamic groups in the United States wasted no time applauding President Barack Obama for Bin Laden’s death, taking the opportunity to distance themselves and Islam from the legacy of the slain terrorist. And while many Americans forget that the 9/11 terror attacks killed nationals from 70 different countries, Zaheer notes that the many immigrants who lost loved ones that day took some comfort in knowing that justice has been done.
But Muslims in the U.S. also had another cause for celebration. Bin Laden’s death coincided with the termination of a grossly discriminatory federal program that has targeted, tracked and deported thousands of immigrants from predominately Muslim countries since 2002. ColorLines.com’s Channing Kennedy describes the program (called NSEERS or the National Security Entry/Exit Registration System) as “one of the most explicitly racist, underreported initiatives in post-9/11 America” which “functioned like Arizona’s SB 1070, with working-class Muslims as the target.” The Department of Homeland Security has been vague about its reasons for ending the program, but the decision amounts to a victory for immigrant rights groups that have been protesting the effort since its launch nine years ago.
…but still face an uncertain fate
That said, the fate of Muslims in America is far from rosy. As Seth Freed Wessler notes at ColorLines.com, the Department of Homeland Security continues to target, detain and deport Muslims “in equally insidious, but less formal ways” than the NSEERS program.
Pointing to investigations by “Democracy Now!” and the Washington Monthly, Wessler explains that the Department of Justice “has repeatedly used secret informant-instigators to manufacture terrorist plots” and advocated religious intolerance, racial profiling and harassment in its search for homegrown terrorists. Through these means, the quest for security has degenerated into the systemic persecution of American Muslims and countless other immigrants deemed threats to national security becaue their race, religion or nationality. And that didn’t die with bin Laden.
As recently as last March, in fact, Republican Rep. Peter T. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, held a hearing on the radicalization of Muslim Americans—during which numerous witnesses repeatedly reiterated the dire threat posed by radical Muslims in the U.S. At the time, Behrouz Saba of New America Media noted that the hearing lacked any discussion of U.S. military presence in the Middle East and its impact on radicalization. Rather than critically examine the many ways in which U.S. foreign policy and military conflict breeds the monster it aims to destroy, the hearing instead served to demonize a growing, well-educated and largely law-abiding population of the United States.
The Latin American link
But the War on Terror has deeply impacted other marginalized communities as well. Even the circumstances of bin Laden’s death bears an alleged connection to the frought issue of Latin American immigration to the U.S.—an issue that has, itself, undergone massive scrutiny and regulation following 9/11.
ThinkProgress reports that one of the Navy Seals involved in Bin Laden’s extermination is, purportedly, the son of Mexican migrants. While the veracity of that claim has been contested by some, Colorlines.com’s Jamilah King argues that the rumor nevertheless “raises serious questions around the military’s recruitment of Latino youth, the staggering numbers of Latino war causalities, and the Obama administration’s often contradictory messages on immigration reform.” She continues:
Casualties among Latino soldiers in Iraq rank highest compared to other groups of soldiers of color. Yet while the military actively courts Latino youth and immigrants with one hand, it’s aggressively deporting them and their families with the other.
It’s worth noting that, within the government, the most vocal proponents of the DREAM Act supported the legislation because they expected it to dramatically increase Latino enrollment in the military. While the DREAM Act ultimately died in the Senate, proponents of its military provision are perpetuating a troubling and persistent dichotomy that is only reinforced in the wake of bin Laden’s demise: immigrants are welcome on our battlefields, but not in our neighborhoods.
It’s comforting, albeit naïve, to believe that Osama bin Laden’s death will cap a decade of military conflict and draw a torturously long anti-terrorism crusade to a close. More likely, our multiple wars will persist longer than they should, and our domestic security apparatus will continue targeting the most vulnerable members of our society under the misguided notion that such enforcement strengthens rather than divides us.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger Nearly a decade ago,... more-
- MediaConsortium
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
OK Treasurer's Controversial Cinco de Mayo Fundraiser
Read More:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/05/973234/-OK-Treasurers-Cinco-de-Mayo-Fundraiser
"While the Oklahoma legislature continues to take heat for advancing legislation last year to make English the official language of Oklahoma, Miller seems to be flaunting a more multicultural flare and embracing the many wealthy Mexican Republican donors that our state has been known for (if you can name twenty there is a prize). It is important to note that Miller in preparation for his Statewide campaign voted to send “English as the Official Language” to a vote of the people.
Now Miller is free to have any fundraiser he chooses, and he is not the first to reach out to our Mexican minority. Many has been the year that members of the Council have shared rides leaving Mary Fallin’s legendary Cinco De Mayo parties in Bricktown (most recently, her Gubernatorial fundraiser billed as “Margaritas & Mary.”
See the invitation here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/05/973234/-OK-Treasurers-Cinco-de-Mayo-FundraiserRead More:... more-
- sarahkatheryn
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Weekly Diaspora: One Year After SB 1070, What’s Changed?
by Catherine A. Traywick, Medica Consortium blogger
A year ago this month, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law, effectively pushing an already vibrant anti-immigrant movement to a new extreme. Over the following months, immigrant rights advocates prepared for the worst, and grappled with multiple setbacks as other states threatened to follow Arizona’s example.
Looking back, though, it’s clear that the draconian immigration law hasn’t quite measured up to its bad reputation—in part because a federal injunction blocked several of its more pernicious provisions. Kent Peterson at New America Media/Frontera NorteSur suggests that anti-immigrant policymakers “overreached” with SB 1070, pushing the restrictionist movement to its own peak with the controversial law.
Arizona’s political influence has waned
Certainly in the long term, the law seems to have done more harm than good to the movement. While it initially added plenty of fuel to the restrictionists’ fire, it has ultimately failed to spread through other states the way many expected it to. While a few states (see Colorlines.com’s infographic or Alternet’s rundown) are still considering SB1070-type laws, most others have backed off the idea.
As Seth Hoy explains at Alternet/Immigration Impact, “states learned from Arizona — the numerous protests, Supreme Court challenge, costly litigation, economic boycotts that are still costing state businesses millions — and rejected similar laws.” Peterson similarly notes that a number of states have moved away from Arizona’s example because of SB 1070’s unexpected economic consequences—chiefly, an estimated $769 million in economic and tax revenues lost as a result of boycotts.
Immigrants still marginalized
That’s not say that the law has had no effect on immigrants. While a federal judge stayed several of its provisions last summer, SB 1070 proved to be a precursor to other insidious state laws targeting immigrants. Empowered by their success with SB 1070 and the ensuing media frenzy, state legislators quickly moved forward with several other harsh laws. As Feet in Two Worlds’ Valeria Fernandez explains, many immigrants in Arizona continue to live in fear even though SB 1070 is only partially enacted. She writes:
When you talk to immigrants in the street, they’ll tell you that not much has changed. Some continue to live in fear that they could be stopped by the police and deported. Others are having a difficult time getting work due to another Arizona law that harshly sanctions employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
At Colorlines.com, Seth Freed Wessler elaborates on the real impact of bills like SB 1070. He writes:
[The bills] send waves of fear and confusion into immigrant communities. … In the period since SB 1070 passed, uncounted numbers of immigrants have fled their homes in Arizona. … And the provisions in the law that were not blocked by the court, including one that makes it a crime to harbor or transport undocumented immigrants, put everyone at risk.
The role of the federal government
Nevertheless, Wessler points out that the federal government—not SB 1070 and not Arizona—is to blame for the brunt of the damage inflicted upon undocumented immigrants in the last year. Besides deporting record numbers of immigrant detainees and significantly expanding border enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security laid the groundwork for SB 1070 with its 287(g) program—which enabled local law enforcement to act as ICE agents. Adding insult to injury, President Barack Obama never came to close to fulfilling his campaign promise of passing comprehensive immigration reform.
Whether he will do so this year is up for debate, but many reform advocates remain skeptical after last year’s ups and downs. As Marcos Restrepo of the American Independent reports, several immigrant rights activists voiced disappointment after Obama convened a White House meeting on immigration last Tuesday. Chief among the critics was Pablo Alvorado, director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, who said in a statement:
While we appreciate the President’s effort to keep immigration reform on the national agenda, his actions belie his intent…If the President genuinely wanted to fix the broken immigration system, he would respond to the growing chorus of voices calling for the suspension of the secure communities program and move to legalize instead of further criminalize our immigrant communities.
The American Prospect’s Gabriel Arana is similarly skeptical of both the president’s approach to the problem, and his ability to enact meaningful reform:
On one hand, it is laudable that the president has revived the immigration debate, but there is a reason it died last year, even with Democrats in firm control of Congress and the executive branch. Instead of trying to tack immigration reform to an enforcement bill, the president should change the frame and stop talking about immigration as a national-security issue rather than an issue in its own right.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.by Catherine A. Traywick, Medica Consortium blogger A year ago this month, Arizona... more-
- MediaConsortium
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Boycott Georgia
sign this pledge to boycott to the best of my ability the purchase, trading or exchange of products and/or business relations with those housed in the state of Georgia. I urge based on my zip code below that my own city and state officials do the same until this bill is vetoed and/or repealed. http://mycuentame.org/boycottgeorgia/sign this pledge to boycott to the best of my ability the purchase, trading or... more-
- emailaxel
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 9 comments
-
-
Weekly Diaspora: How Bad U.S.-Latin American Policy Fuels Unauthorized Immigration
By Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger
Too often, the immigration debate in this country ignores the role U.S. foreign policy plays in fueling unauthorized immigration. But as the Obama administration continues to stall on immigration reform in the United States—all the while moving forward with two contentious trade agreements with Colombia and Panama—the connections between the two are worth examining.
CAFTA impoverished Salvadoran famers
During President Obama’s tour of Latin America last month, ongoing mass protests underscored the U.S. government’s own hand in stimulating unauthorized immigration to its borders. Reporting on the president’s visit to El Salvador, for example, Juan Gonzales of Democracy Now! notes that hundreds of Salvadorans gathered to demand the renegotiation of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which devastated the country’s agricultural sector, impoverishing and displacing farmers. Considered alongside the country’s tragic history of U.S.-backed military repression (which Democracy Now! explores in greater detail), it should be no surprise that El Salvador is the second largest source of undocumented immigrants to the United States.
NAFTA displaces one million Mexican farmers
The first, of course, is Mexico—which has its own sordid history of U.S. involvement. As Michelle Chen at Colorlines.com explains, “the deregulation of agriculture under [the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s] coincided with the devastation of Mexico’s farm sector, displacing some one million farmers and driving many northward across the border in search of work.”
While NAFTA created considerable economic opportunities for U.S. businesses eager to conduct business in low-wage Mexico, it also allowed American farmers to flood the Mexican market with government-subsidized corn—destroying the country’s own corn industry and bankrupting thousands of agricultural workers.
Obama’s 180 on Latin American policy
It’s worth noting that Obama, during his presidential campaign, promised to overhaul NAFTA on the grounds that “our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street, it [sic] should also be good for Main Street.” Yet, as Steve Ellner argues in the latest issue of In These Times, Obama gradually abandoned his initially critical stance on Latin American policy—choosing instead to “placate rightist critics.” Ellner adds that Obama’s shifting position on the pending (CAFTA-modeled) trade agreement with Colombia—moving “from opposition…to lukewarm endorsement…to vigorous support—is just one example of his turnabout on Latin American policy.”
While Obama has taken some steps to address potential labor abuses in the agreement (NAFTA and CAFTA’s absence of such measures is a key criticism of the deals), trade unionists in Colombia and the United States alike have voiced skepticism:
Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohen argued against the agreement by pointing out that 15 million Colombians representing 82 percent of the working population are not recognized as workers and thus under the law “have no rights.”
Big Business funds paramilitary killings in Colombia
The skepticism is well founded, as the United States has a long history of favoring business interests over the rights of workers—both at home and abroad. Earlier this month, for instance, evidence surfaced that the Cincinnati-based Chiquita Brands International may have hired Colombian paramilitary groups “responsible for countless killings” as security for its Colombian facilities. This is in spite of the fact that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) concluded an investigation of Chiquita in 2007, ruling that any money paid out to the paramilitary groups—one of which was a designated terrorist watch group—was extorted, and that “Chiquita never received any actual services in exchange for them.”
Jim Lobe and Aprille Muscara of Inter Press Service report that the documents were released by the National Security Archive (NSA), an independent research group, on the same day that President Obama met with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos to discuss labor rights in the pending trade agreement. According to Michael Evans, NSA’s chief researcher on Colombia, the evidence against Chiquita is clear.
“What we still don’t know is why U.S. prosecutors overlooked what appears to be clear evidence that Chiquita benefited from these transactions,” he told IPS.
U.S. banks launder billions for Mexican drug cartels
Even more recently, news broke that the federal government failed to prosecute a number of U.S. banks guilty of laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels. New America Media/Al Diá reports that Wachovia (now owned by Wells Fargo) alone moved $378.4 billion for cartels through money exchangers and $4.7 billion handled in bulk cash between 2004 and 2007. Yet this past March, the federal government formally dropped all charges against the bank, per a settle agreement reached the previous year, and despite Wachovia’s indirect role in financing a five-year drug war that has taken countless lives and continues to drive unauthorized immigration to the United States.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.By Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger Too often, the immigration... more-
- MediaConsortium
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Pointless
Katja Reinhardt, a student from Germany and WORLDbytes reporter, investigates the impact of the points based immigration system on international students. She hears from campaigners, students and professors who tell of scandalous stories of university staff being pushed to become border agents and maintain surveillance of overseas students; treating them as criminals.Katja Reinhardt, a student from Germany and WORLDbytes reporter, investigates the... more-
- worldwrite
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Senator Al Franken Sponsors Equal Immigration Rights Legislation for Same-Sex Couples
Sen. Al Franken is the sponsor of legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate late last week that would give bi-national same-sex couples the same rights as married couples for immigration purposes. The Uniting American Families Act is authored by Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont and is sponsored by 18 other Democrats.
Even though same-sex marriage is legal in seven jurisdictions in the United States, couples in which one partner is not a citizen do not have any right under current federal law.
http://minnesotaindependent.com/80376/franken-sponsors-immigration-rights-for-same-sex-couplesSen. Al Franken is the sponsor of legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate late last... more-
- rhondawinter
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Arizona: The New “Show Me” State?
Arizona Law Says Lack of Foreskin Acceptable Proof of Citizenship-
- joeeddy
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
David Cameron's full speech on immigration
The Prime minister's is to hold his most outspoken speech on immigration later today in Hampshire. The below text is the full speech he is giving to his fellow Conservative party members on the government's new immigration policy.
If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing the basic gist is that immigration is way too high, and that immigrants unable to speak English or unwilling to integrate have created a "kind of discomfort and disjointedness" which has disrupted communities across Britain.
The full speech
A year ago, we were in the middle of a general election campaign. And there was one message I heard loud and clear on the doorstep: we want things to be different. People said they wanted a government that didn't just do what was good for the headline or good for their party but good for the long term and good for our country. That's what we're engaged in.Clearly, cutting public spending isn't popular, but it's right to bring sense to our public finances. People said they wanted a government that actually trusted them to use their own common sense. That's the kind of government we want to be – giving neighbourhoods and individuals a whole range of new powers … scrapping so much of the bureaucracy that drove us mad.People said they were sick of seeing those who did the right thing get punished and the wrong thing rewarded. Again, that's what we're acting on. In welfare we're ending the system that took money from hard-working taxpayers and gave it to people who refused to work. These are the differences we are trying to make – listening to people, doing the hard and necessary work of changing our country for the better.
Immigration debate
But there was something else we heard on the doorstep – and it was this: "We are concerned about the levels of immigration in our country … but we are fed up of hearing politicians talk tough but do nothing." Here, again, we are determined to be different.Now, immigration is a hugely emotive subject … and it's a debate too often in the past shaped by assertions rather than substantive arguments. We've all heard them. The assertion that mass immigration is an unalloyed good and that controlling it is economic madness … the view that Britain is a soft touch and immigrants are out to take whatever they can get. I believe the role of politicians is to cut through the extremes of this debate and approach the subject sensibly and reasonably.The last government, in contrast, actually helped to inflame the debate. On the one hand, there were Labour ministers who closed down discussion, giving the impression that concerns about immigration were somehow racist. On the other, there were ministers hell-bent on burnishing their hard-line credentials by talking tough … but doing nothing to bring the numbers down.This approach had damaging consequences in terms of controlling immigration … but also in terms of public debate. It created the space for extremist parties to flourish, as they could tell people that mainstream politicians weren't listening to their concerns or doing anything about them. I remember when immigration wasn't a central political issue in our country – and I want that to be the case again. I want us to starve extremist parties of the oxygen of public anxiety they thrive on and extinguish them once and for all.Above all, I want to get the policy right: good immigration, not mass immigration. That's why I believe it's time for a new approach – one which opens up debate, not closes it down; where politicians don't just talk, but actually act.
Benefits of immigration
Let's start with being open. The British people are fair-minded – and I want them to feel they can be honest about what they think about this subject. Here's what I think. Our country has benefitted immeasurably from immigration. Go into any hospital and you'll find people from Uganda, India and Pakistan who are caring for our sick and vulnerable. Go into schools and universities and you'll find teachers from all over the world, inspiring our young people. Go to almost any high street in the country and you'll find entrepreneurs from overseas who are not just adding to the local economy but playing a part in local life. Charities, financial services, fashion, food, music – all these sectors are what they are because of immigration. So yes, immigrants make a huge contribution to Britain. We recognise that – and we welcome it.
Pressures of immigration
But I'm also clear about something else: for too long, immigration has been too high. Between 1997 and 2009, 2.2 million more people came to live in this country than left to live abroad. That's the largest influx of people Britain has ever had … and it has placed real pressures oncommunities up and down the country. Not just pressures on schools, housing and healthcare – though those have been serious … but social pressures too. Because real communities aren't just collections of public service users living in the same space.Real communities are bound by common experiences … forged by friendship and conversation … knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. And these bonds can take time. So real integration takes time.That's why, when there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods … perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there … on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate … that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods.This has been the experience for many people in our country – and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it.
Our aim
So, taking all this into account, I believe controlling immigration and bringing it down is of vital importance to the future of our country. That's why during the election campaign, Conservatives made a clear commitment to the British people … that we would aim to reduce net migration to the levels we saw in the 1980s and 1990s.Now we are in government, we are on track to meet that aim. We are controlling legal immigration – having introduced a cap on non-EU economic migrants. We are clamping down on illegal immigration. And we are getting to grips with the asylum system too. The UK Border Agency is now close to clearing the back-log of almost half a million asylum cases. Our action is working.But some myths have crept in – about what we're doing and the impact our policies will have. There are those who say that whatever measures we put in place, we can't control immigration significantly. And there are those who accept we can control immigration, but argue that the way we propose to do it will damage our economy and universities. Today I want to take those myths head-on.
Immigration from Europe
Let me begin by addressing those who say we can't control immigration. They have three planks to their argument. First, they say legal immigration is impossible to control because we're a member of the European Union. Second, they argue that illegal immigration can't be controlled either because it's impossible to properly police. And third, they say that immigration will always be high because immigrant workers do jobs that British people won't do.Each part of that argument is wrong. Take this question of Europe. Yes, our borders are open to people from other member states in the European Union. But actually, this counts for a small proportion of overall net migration to the UK. In the year up to June 2010, net migration to our country from EU nationals was just 27,000.That's not to say migration from Europe has been insignificant. Since 2004, when many large eastern European countries joined the EU, more than one million people from those countries have come to live and work in the UK – a huge number. We said back then that transitional controls should have been put in place to restrict the numbers coming over. And now we're in government, if and when new countries join the European Union, transitional controls will be put in place.
Immigration from outside the EU
But this remains the fact: when it comes to immigration to our country, it's the numbers from outside the EU that really matter. In the year up to June 2010, net migration from nationals of countries outside the EU to the UK totalled 198,000. This is the figure we can more easily control and should control.Last week, our new immigration cap for people coming here to work from outside the EU came into force. It means for the next twelve months, we will not allow employers to recruit more than 20,700 skilled workers from outside Europe. And we've already shown a cap can work. Last July, we placed interim limits on the number of visas we would give for skilled workers - and this kept the numbers down to under 20,000.Of course employment is just one of the routes of entry and settlement into this country. Every year tens of thousands of people marry into Britain or join their families here. Now many of these are genuine, loving relationships. But we also know there are abuses of the system.For a start there are forced marriages taking place in our country, and overseas as a means of gaining entry to the UK. This is the practice where some young British girls are bullied and threatened into marrying someone they don't want to. I've got no time for those who say this is a culturally relative issue – it is wrong, full stop, and we've got to stamp it out.Then there are just the straightforward sham marriages. Last summer, we ordered the UK Border Agency to clamp down on these and they've had significant success, making 155 arrests. And there was also the shocking case of a vicar who was jailed for staging over 300 sham marriages.But as well as abuse of the system, there are other problems with the family route. We know, for instance, that some marriages take place when the spouse is very young, and has little or no grasp of English. Again we cannot allow cultural sensitivity to stop us from acting. That's why last November we introduced a requirement for all those applying for a marriage visa to demonstrate a minimum standard of English … and we will defend the age limit of 21 for spouses coming to the UK.So however sensitive or difficult a subject it may be, we are tightening up the family route. But by far the biggest route for non-EU entrants into this country has been the student visa route. Immigration by students has almost trebled in the past decade. Last year, some 303,000 visas were issued overseas for study in the UK.But this isn't the end of the story. Because a lot of those students bring people with them to this country … husbands, wives, children. Indeed, last year, 32,000 visas were issued to the dependents of students. Again, many of these applications are for legitimate students doing legitimate courses with legitimate dependents coming over with them. But we know that some of these student applications are bogus, and in turn their dependents are bogus.Consider this: a sample of 231 visa applications for the dependents of students found that only twenty-five percent of them were genuine dependents. The others? Some were clearly gaming the system and had no genuine or loving relationship with the student. Others we just couldn't be sure about.The whole system was out of control – and we're now getting to grips with it. We're targeting bogus colleges that offer sham courses. We're making sure that anyone studying a degree-level course has a proper grasp of the English language. We're saying that only postgraduate students can bring dependents.And we're making sure that if people come over here to study, they should be studying not working … and that when they've finished their studies, they go home unless they are offered a graduate-level skilled job, with a minimum salary.Taken together, we estimate that these proposals will cut the number of student visas issued by around 80,000 a year. So across all the main routes of entry to Britain – work, family, education – we are taking action, simultaneously. And the key word here is 'simultaneously'.As the Home Secretary has said, controlling immigration by clamping down on one route alone is "like squeezing a balloon … Push down work visas and the number of student visas will shoot up. Clamp down on student visas and family visas will spring up."For years, people have been playing the system, exploiting the easiest routes of entry to the UK. Now, because of what we're doing, this country finally has consistent controls right across the immigration system.
Permanent settlement
But as I said in a speech in opposition, what matters most is not who comes into the country but who stays. Of course there are fair and legitimate reasons for people who arrive here temporarily to stay here permanently. But the figures clearly suggest that many gain temporary entry into the UK with no plans to leave. More than a fifth of students who entered Britain in 2004 were still here five years later – and many were supposed to be coming to study short courses.But the most significant route to permanent settlement is the economic migration route. Last year, 84,000 people who initially came on a work visa got the right to settle here. I want Britain to continue to attract the best workers. But it cannot be right that people coming to fill short-term skills gaps can stay long-term.As the Cross-Party Balanced Migration Group has argued, it is essential we break that link between temporary visas and permanent settlement.They are right – that's what this Government is determined to do … and we will consult on how best to proceed on this in the coming months.
Illegal immigration
So this is the progress we are making on cutting legal immigration and clamping down on the abuse of legitimate entry routes. And we are cracking down on illegal immigration too. This is a question of fairness – yes, to the British people … but also to those who have been shipped over here against their will, kept as slaves and forced to work horrendous hours.So as part of our National Crime Agency, we are establishing a proper border policing command which will crack down on people smuggling. And because of better technology and closer working with the French, we have managed to cut the number of people identified trying to cross the Channel illegally by two thirds last year.At the same time as stopping illegal immigrants coming to Britain, we are doing something about those who are already here. Two nationwide campaigns targeting illegal migrants have resulted in 1400 arrests, 330 prosecutions and 260 removals. And in the six months to the end of February, we collected some £3.6m in fines from employers of illegal workers.What's more, we're closing the loophole that has allowed people who have worked here illegally to get unemployment benefits. Estimates suggest that as many as 155,000 illegal workers might be able to do this … with some eligible to claim over £5,000 in employment seekers allowance – each year.That's wrong - and we're stopping it. We're making sure that only people who have the right to work here can claim benefits. And we also recently announced that anyone who owes money to the NHS will be refused entry to the UK until they have paid back their debts.So across border control, health policy, benefits policy … we are taking decisive action to close the gaps that for too long have allowed people to come here illegally and to stay here illegally.
Who will do these jobs?
So we can control both legal and illegal immigration. What is required is political will and the drive to make sure this agenda runs right across government.But the third argument put forward by those who say we can't control immigration is that immigration is not just a problem of supply but of demand. Put simply, immigration will always be high because British people won't do the jobs migrant workers do.I can see why this argument is made. Since 1997, the number of people in work in our economy has gone up by some 2.5 million. And of this increase, around 75% was accounted for by foreign-born workers … many of whom were employed to clean offices, serve in restaurants or work on building sites. At the same time we have had persistently, eye-wateringly high numbers of British born people stuck on welfare.But let's be clear about what our conclusions should be from this. This is not a case of 'immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs'. The fact is – except perhaps in the very short-term – there are not a fixed number of jobs in our economy. If one hundred migrant workers come into the country, they don't simply displace job opportunities for a hundred British citizens. Of course they take up vacancies that are available, but they also come and create wealth and new jobs.The real issue is this: migrants are filling gaps in the labour market left wide open by a welfare system that for years has paid British people not to work. That's where the blame lies – at the door of our woeful welfare system, and the last government who comprehensively failed to reform it.So immigration and welfare reform are two sides of the same coin. Put simply, we will never control immigration properly unless we tackle welfare dependency. That's another powerful reason why this government is undertaking the biggest shake-up of the welfare system for generations … making sure that work will always pay … and ending the option of living a life on the dole when a life in work is possible.
Economy
Take all these actions together, and I believe we are proving that we can control immigration.But there's another group of people I want to take on. The ones who accept we can control immigration, but have doubts about what our reforms will mean. The first thing they say is: these policies will deny British business of the talent they need to succeed. That's plain wrong. Nothing – nothing – is more important to this government than growing our economy, creating jobs and prosperity across our country.That's why far from simply salami-slicing numbers coming here with no thought to the impact that will have on business, we have thought incredibly carefully about how we can select and attract the world's brightest to our shores.This was something the last government comprehensively failed to do. Yes, they introduced a points-based system for immigration, where people were admitted to our country according to the levels of skills they had … but only after being repeatedly called to do so by the Conservative party.Yet once they put this in place, they failed to properly control it and effectively manage it. For example, tier one visas were supposed to be reserved for only the highest skilled migrants. But the evidence shows almost a third of people who came over on one of these visas were not employed in highly skilled jobs. Some were found stacking shelves in supermarkets or driving taxis – and that's if they were employed at all.Tier two visas were supposed to be reserved for skilled jobs such as engineers. But again, these visas were abused and misused. In one case, an applicant applied as an "elite chef" for a fried chicken shop. The main qualifying criterion was the rate of pay. So in this case, his sister, who owned the shop decided to pay him exactly the amount that allowed him to qualify. There was nothing the authorities could do and he was allowed in.So it has fallen to this government to sort out the system – and we are completely changing the way it works so it is truly geared to the needs of our economy. We are reforming tier one, to make sure that it is genuinely a route only for the best. As part of that package of reform, we are introducing a new route for people of exceptional talent – like scientists, academics and artists. And we are introducing a new entrepreneur visa, to roll out the red carpet for anyone who has a great business idea and serious investment.We are also reforming tier two visas. Business leaders have told us that as a country, we should prioritise skilled tier two, workers with a job offer rather than highly-skilled tier one workers without a job offer. So that's what we're doing.For the coming year, even as we have reduced the number of economic migrants overall by seven thousand, we have actually increased the number of tier two visas available. And we have also raised the skills level so it is only open to graduate-level occupations - and excludes other jobs like careworkers and cooks. What's more, we have exempted what are called 'intra-company transfers' from the limit while raising standards at the same time … so firms can still move their employees around the world, but not to fill permanent jobs that could be done by UK workers.So I completely reject the idea that our new immigration rules will damage our economy.
Universities
The second thing some say is that our policies on student visas will damage our universities. Again, let me make clear: this government will do nothing to harm Britain's status as a magnet for the world's best students. That's why with us, if you're good at your subject, can speak English and have been offered a place on a course at a trusted institution – you will be able to get a visa to study here.Put another way, Britain's universities are free to market themselves globally saying: "You can come and study here at some of the finest institutions anywhere in the world – and you can stay and work in a graduate job after you leave."That makes our country a hugely attractive destination for genuine students who genuinely want to study abroad. What we don't want is for this to be a hugely attractive destination for people who only want a passage to Britain. So we are cracking down on the abuses of the system.In recent years there has also grown up a thriving industry of bogus colleges, providing bogus qualifications as cover for bogus visas. Of the 744 private colleges on the UK Border Agency sponsor register in January, only 131 had attained highly trusted sponsor status.Yet, as of mid-January this year, the 613 private colleges who are not "highly trusted" have been able to sponsor 280,000 students between them. The potential for abuse is clearly enormous.Indeed, we have been looking into the practice of some so-called colleges. In one case, students were sent off to so-called work placements in locations up to 280 miles away from the college where they were supposed to be studying on a regular basis.In another, students were found working in 20 different locations and undertaking no study time whatsoever. In yet another case, there were 2 lecturers for 940 students.Want to know how ridiculous things have got? An Indian organisation which helps people get student visas has put up a massive billboard in that country. It's got a picture of London bus and the words "get a free ride to the UK" emblazoned across it.Clearly, we cannot – and should not – put up with any of this. That's why we're getting to grips with the abuse and that's why I reject the idea that our policy will damage our universities.It really is simple: if you're a genuine academic institution – you have nothing to worry about. But if you're not, you do – and I make no apology for that.
Conclusion
What I have set out today is a sober, comprehensive and effective plan to cut immigration, and cut it substantially. Sober because we come to this debate clear-headed about not only the benefits of immigration … but also its impact on our public services, communities and society. Comprehensive because we are leaving no stone unturned, taking action across all routes of entry to our country. And effective – because we are doing all this in a way that strengthens our economy and enhances the status of our universities.This time last year, we said we would listen to people's concerns and get immigration under control. Today I can confidently say that we are getting there.If we take the steps set out today, and deal with all the different avenues of migration, legal and illegal, then levels of immigration can return to where they were in the 1980s and 90s, a time when immigration was not a front rank political issue. And I believe that will mean net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade.Yes, Britain will always be open to the best and brightest from around the world and those fleeing persecution. But with us, our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs. No buts. That's a promise we made to the British people. And it's a promise we are keeping.
Source for the speech: The Guardian The Prime minister's is to hold his most outspoken speech on immigration later... more-
- sbacker
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Poland in fear of 'starved Irish' influx
THE Polish edition of the respected Newsweek magazine has painted a bizarre portrait of Ireland as a poverty stricken country where "20,000 horses" are starving by the sides of motorways.
Ireland's international reputation is now so battered that relatives of eastern Europeans living here are anxiously contacting them to "see if they are all right''.
The article, titled 'Hang-over Ireland', and written by journalist Marek Rybarczyk, claims that one of the most striking aspects "in today's Irish landscape'' consists of "stray horses roaming the suburbs and the motorways constructed in the Seventies for billions of EU refunds. In total they amount to 20,000!"
The author adds that "in the period of prosperity the proud animal was the symbol of high status'' but that "today, too expensive to maintain, they die of hunger".
The apocalyptic tone continues as the author notes that "they cannot be even used for consumption as they lack the electronic chips required of Brussels".
The article also says that social aid centres such as the Capuchins of Bow St in Dublin were receiving flocks of "more and more broke people -- most often the middle class representatives'' such as estate agents and "desirable professionals'' who have exchanged "fashionable restaurants with starters for €30 for free canteens''.
And it also strongly implies that last year's farcical distribution of 53 tonnes of free cheddar cheese from the EU was used as a measure to ward off mass starvation.
Lucinda Creighton, the junior minister for Foreign Affairs, criticised the "irresponsible press coverage".
"It is difficult to treat with any real seriousness these sort of reports from a magazine which previously rated Brian Cowen as being one of the top 10 world leaders.''
But she also admitted that "our relationship with Europe is seriously damaged'' and noted that these images of Ireland are "yet another legacy issue we must deal with''.
Meanwhile, within Poland a major national debate has begun over the Irish economy. Speaking to the Sunday Independent, one Polish emigrant said: "There is a huge appetite in Poland and Eastern Europe for knowledge about the collapse of the Celtic Tiger."
Some responsible media outlets, such as the Polish equivalent of RTE, have warned Poles they should not "demonise the Irish situation''.
However, Polish emigrants also admitted that the image of Ireland that is being pedalled by more tabloid elements of the Polish media means many Poles now believe "Ireland is a third-world country where people are going to rubbish tips looking for food'' and that it is "not unusual now to find dead horses and cows in the middle of fields".
In an ironic reversal of fortunes they noted Polish concerns that mass emigration from "the starving Irish'' could drive down pay rates means many building sites in Poland now have signs saying "no Irish need apply"THE Polish edition of the respected Newsweek magazine has painted a bizarre portrait... more-
- pdy
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Vicente Fox Interview
I had the privilege of interviewing Vicente Fox the former President of Mexico. We talked about many things ranging from his idea’s about legalizing drugs, Mexican Americans, Wikileaks, the drug war, immigration, education, and American/Mexican relations.
You can watch the entire interview by clicking on the links bellow.
http://www.fox5sandiego.com/videobeta/f43415c0-1607-47d8-a394-de7852651df4/News/Vicente-Fox-Interview-P01
http://www.fox5sandiego.com/videobeta/ba30204f-4462-4937-9725-5ac2b5be8526/News/Vicente-Fox-Interview-Part-02
http://www.fox5sandiego.com/videobeta/ba30204f-4462-4937-9725-5ac2b5be8526/News/Vicente-Fox-Interview-Part-03
http://www.fox5sandiego.com/videobeta/ba30204f-4462-4937-9725-5ac2b5be8526/News/Vicente-Fox-Interview-Part-04
http://www.fox5sandiego.com/videobeta/ba30204f-4462-4937-9725-5ac2b5be8526/News/Vicente-Fox-Interview-Part-05
http://www.fox5sandiego.com/videobeta/ba30204f-4462-4937-9725-5ac2b5be8526/News/Vicente-Fox-Interview-Part-06I had the privilege of interviewing Vicente Fox the former President of Mexico. We... more-
- lmbowler
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Weekly Diaspora: Texas Excludes Low-Income Latinos from Census, Expedites Visas for Wealthy Mexican Immigrants
By Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger
Newly released census figures show that the Latino population in the United States surged by 43 percent in the last 10 years, comprising 50 million people. According to New America Media’s Nina Martin, this marks the first decade since the 1960s when the number of Latino births exceeded the number of immigrants. But, the this increase notwithstanding, it seems that a sizable portion of the Latino population may not have been counted at all.
As Claudio Rowe reports at Equal Voice Newspaper / New America Media, officials in Hidalgo County, Texas, are planning to sue the federal government for failing to count as many as 300,000 Texas residents living along the U.S.-Mexico border. The residents, most of whom live in unincorporated subdivisions called colonias, are predominately U.S.-born Latinos (65 percent). Though community organizers spent months preparing families to participate in the census, the federal government failed to mail census forms to 95 percent of colonia residents—allegedly deeming them “hard to count.” The omission could lose the state tens of millions of dollars in social services funding over the next decade.
But that’s not all, as Rowe explains:
Aside from money, census undercounts can drastically affect political representation by triggering the redrawing of electoral districts. So across the nation, inaccurate population figures could affect elections for thousands of government offices over the next 10 years – everything from school board members to state representatives.
Texas redistricting discounts Latino population
In large part because of high Latino population growth, in fact, Texas is set to gain four new congressional districts—and the battle over their geographic make-up has already begun, despite the likely exclusion of several hundred thousand Texans.
Patrick Brendel of The American Independent notes that, while U.S. Reps. Lamar Smith (R) and Joe Barton (R) feud over whether the new districts should favor a particular political party, the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC) has filed a redistricting lawsuit against state leaders, alleging “that the population numbers being used for the State’s 2011 redistricting process “severely undercounts Latinos.” MALC’s petition adds:
“The creation of redistricting plans for Texas election districts using the defective 2010 census data discriminates against Latino voters and is not legally enforceable.”
Opponents argue that non-citizens shouldn’t be included in the census at all, because redrawing political districts to accommodate undocumented populations dilutes the voting power of actual citizens. How the U.S.-born colonia residents who were excluded from this census fit into that schema, however, remains unclear.
The whole debacle does elucidate one important point, though: Low-income Latinos and undocumented migrants are similarly marginalized by both state and local governments—regardless of their citizenship status.
Texas welcomes wealthy Mexican immigrants, rejects working class undocumented
At the Texas Observer, Melissa Del Bosque reinforces that point when she notes that, while U.S. immigration policy has grown increasingly hostile towards Mexican immigrants in general, the government has been remarkably accommodating toward wealthy Mexican immigrants. She reports that Texas border cities are doing everything they can to encourage Mexican investment in the state, even brokering deals with the federal government to expedite visas for wealthy investors eager to flee Mexico’s security crisis:
“If you are in Mexico City you would call Progreso Bridge and say, this is our credit card number, this is our plane, this is who is on it,” Hernan Gonzalez, the Weslaco EDC executive director, told the McAllen Monitor. “They would already be in a registry … and then the officers would come and clear you based upon when you are going to land.”
By contrast, only 2 percent of the 11,000 Mexicans who have sought asylum from cartel violence gained entry into the United States, according to the Texas Observer’s Susana Hayward. Del Bosque adds that “Mexicans who invest $500,000 or more in a company that creates at least 10 jobs can obtain U.S. residency in a matter of months,” thereby avoiding the growing immigration case backlog in the United States. (As of February 2011, the average waiting period for immigration cases was 467 days—a 44 percent increase since 2008.)
It’s a stark reminder that the escalating furor over immigration reform is as much about class as it is about race, nationality or culture.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.By Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger Newly released census figures... more-
- MediaConsortium
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Weekly Diaspora: 100 Years After Triangle Fire, Immigrant Workers Still Fighting for Labor Rights
by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger
Last week marked the centennial of the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, in which 146 mostly immigrant workers died. The tragedy prompted widespread labor reforms in the United States, but its commemoration underscores the plight of immigrant workers similarly exploited today.
As Richard Greenwald notes at Working in These Times, the disaster marked “the moment that a strong collective working class demanded its citizenship rights,” while today, “we are living in a time where organized labor is weak, fractured and leaderless.” He concludes that a rebirth of labor must come, as it did in 1911, from today’s new immigrant communities, which continue to bear the brunt of exploitative labor practices.
Immigrant workers rally for labor rights
Immigrant workers and union organizers articulated the same sentiment when they commemorated the fire last week. According to Catalina Jaramillo at Feet in Two Worlds, labor groups rallied Friday to call for safer working conditions and unionization—especially for the thousands of immigrants who face abuse and exploitation because of their immigration status. One union member articulated the similarities between today’s migrant workers and those who perished in the Triangle Fire:
“I see that a hundred years since this terrible accident that killed so many people, things have really not changed at all,” said Walfre Merida, a member of Local 79, from the stage.
Merida, 25, said before joining the union he worked at a construction company where he was not paid overtime, had no benefits and was paid in cash.
“Safety conditions, none. Grab your tool and go to work, no more. And do not stop,” he told El Diario/La Prensa. ”When we worked in high places, on roofs, we never used harnesses, one became accustomed to the dangers and thanked God we weren’t afraid of heights. One would risk his life out of necessity.”
Kari Lydersen at Working In These Times adds that, while workplaces in general have gotten safer, immigrant workers tend to be employed in the most dangerous professions and are disproportionately affected by workplace health and safety problems. In particular, foreign-born Latinos tend to suffer injury and illness at a much higher rate than U.S.-born Latinos. Lydersen writes:
Work-related injury and illness can be especially devastating for undocumented workers since they are often fired because of their injury and they often don’t collect workers compensation or other benefits due them. […] A 2009 Government Accountability Office report says non-fatal workplace injuries could be under-reported by 80 percent.
Crackdown on immigrant workers bad for the economy
Other labor rights advocates are drawing attention to the federal government’s ongoing crackdown on immigrant workers. Worksite audits which require employers to check the immigration status of their workers have resulted in thousands of layoffs in recent months. This sweeping trend hurts families as well as local economies, according to a new report from the Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center.
The report specifically looks at the economic impact of immigrant workers in Arizona, but its findings present much wider implications. Marcos Restrepo at The Colorado Independent sums up the key points:
The analysis estimates that immigrants on the whole paid $6 billion in taxes in 2008, while undocumented immigrants paid approximately $2.8 billion.
Increase tax revenues by $1.68 billion.
The report adds that the effects of deportation in Arizona would:
Decrease total employment by 17.2 percent.
Eliminate 581,000 jobs for immigrant and native-born workers alike.
Shrink the state economy by $48.8 billion.
Reduce state tax revenues by 10.1 percent.
Meanwhile, the effects of legalization in Arizona would:
Add 261,000 jobs for immigrant and native-born workers alike.
Increase labor income by $5.6 billion.
Restrepo adds that, in part because of such mounting evidence, immigrants rights advocates are exhorting authorities to recognize immigrants as workers, first and foremost.
Immigrant farm owners contend with exploitation
Of course, even when immigrants are owners, rather than employees, they still disproportionately contend with exploitative industry practices. At The American Prospect, Monica Potts reports on the unique experiences of Hmong immigrants operating chicken farms in the Ozarks. Specifically, Potts examines how behemoth agri-businesses like Tyson exploit the inexperience or limited English abilities of immigrants to sell chicken farms and secure contracts that often put the farmers deep into debt:
Many Hmong were signing contracts they couldn’t read and getting into deals they didn’t fully understand. At least 12 Hmong declared bankruptcy in 2006. […] The concerns are similar for other immigrant farmers, especially Hispanics, who moved into the area to work at chicken-processing plants but were also recruited to buy operations. Hispanic farmers sometimes pooled their money and bought farms without a contract, only to realize later they wouldn’t be able to sell their chickens on the open market. … Many just walked away rather than trying to save their farms.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger Last week marked the centennial... more-
- MediaConsortium
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
What You Don’t Know About Immigration: The Top 99 Immigration Blogs
Remember that some countries are fairly easy to immigrate to, while others (like the U.S.) require a long process with many documents, interviews and approvals before it’s a done deal. When immigrating anywhere, remember that time and money are seldom on your side, so it’s imperative to save up and prepare for the big move far in advance to ensure your story is a successful one.
link: http://www.mastersdegree.com/blog/what-you-dont-know-about-immigration-the-top-99-immigration-blogs/Remember that some countries are fairly easy to immigrate to, while others (like the... more-
- eva2
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Boyd Dobbler Dead at 56
Super patriot Boyd Dobbler has died.-
- Progresshiv
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 8 comments
-
-
The view from the streets: immigration
A crew of intrepid Citizen TV makers learning to shoot with WORLDbytes, take to the streets to investigate public attitudes to immigration. On asking people what they think about the idea of ‘Open Borders’ many responses are refreshingly positive. Some may argue this is because it’s Hackney and Wood Green in Cosmopolitan London but it’s clear old fashioned ‘racism’ has had its day. Politicians cannot blame the second class citizenship they impose through immigration law on public attitudes. ‘Too few resources’ for ‘too many people’ is more common but we’ll visit the streets to check out public views on that next.A crew of intrepid Citizen TV makers learning to shoot with WORLDbytes, take to the... more-
- worldwrite
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 1 comment
-
-
Weekly Diaspora: Big Business Dictates Immigration Policy—At Workers’ Expense
By Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger
Arizona’s business leaders, frustrated by the deep financial fallout of increasingly radical immigration proposals, successfully swayed state lawmakers into defeating five extremist anti-immigrant bills.
New America Media’s Valeria Fernández reports that 60 executives from the likes of WellsFargo bank and U.S. Airways penned an open letter to state Senate President Russell Pearce last week, urging him to leave immigration policy to federal government. Julianne Hing at Colorlines.com has posted the letter in full, but here’s the gist:
Last year, boycotts were called against our state’s business community, adversely impacting our already-struggling economy and costing us jobs. Arizona-based businesses saw contracts cancelled or were turned away from bidding. Sales outside of the state declined … It is an undeniable fact that each of our companies and our employees were impacted by the boycotts and the coincident negative image […] Arizona is looking like a nativist, restrictive and intolerant place, and that’s bad for business.
The legislature subsequently voted down five controversial measures that sought to redefine citizenship and ban undocumented immigrants from hospitals and public schools, among other provisions.
Pearce, whose behind-the-scenes maneuvering repeatedly saved the contentious bills from dying much sooner, has vowed to continue pushing his agenda by voter referendum, if necessary. If he does, he may have more success. Arizonans have repeatedly voted in favor of harsh anti-immigrant proposals, including measures that stripped undocumented college students of financial assistance, banned ethnic studies, and ended equal opportunity programs.
Arizona’s business leaders overlook immigrant workers
It’s worth noting, though, that while the letter’s signatories handily criticized the legislature’s immigration agenda for negatively impacting the state’s economy, they had almost nothing to say about its detrimental impact on the state’s workers—a considerable proportion of whom are immigrants. Instead, they urge “market driven immigration policies” that will “preserve our ability to compete in the global economy“ — language that is more evocative of labor-exploitative capitalism than worker solidarity.
Their calls for “the creation of a meaningful guest worker program” are similarly suspect. While the notion of a “meaningful guest worker program” that would legalize certain undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. may, on the surface, seem like a sympathetic solution—particularly in light of the federal government’s failure to move forward with any kind of comprehensive immigration reform—it nevertheless poses dire implications for undocumented workers.
Utah’s guest worker proposal evokes Bracero program abuses
As David Bacon at In These Times posits, “guest workers” whose legal status is contingent on their employment situation are uniquely vulnerable to workplace abuse and exploitation, and could face labor conditions “close to slavery.” The Bracero Program, a guest worker initiative which imported Mexican laborers primarily for work in agriculture between 1942 and 1964, stands out as stark example of the dark side of guest worker programs. Bacon explains:
Braceros were treated as disposable, dirty and cheap. Herminio Quezada Durán, who came to Utah from Chihuahua, says ranchers often had agreements between each other to exchange or trade braceros as necessary for work. Jose Ezequiel Acevedo Perez, who came from Jerez, Zacatecas, remembers the humiliation of physical exams that treated Mexicans as louse-ridden.
“We were stripped naked in front of everyone,” he remembers, and sprayed with DDT, now an outlawed pesticide. Men in some camps were victims of criminals and pimps.
Arizona isn’t the only state to toy with the idea of establishing a guest worker program. In an effort to distance itself from Arizona’s contentious and economically disastrous immigration agenda, Utah—a fiercely red state and Arizona’s northern neighbor—is considering creating its own guest worker program, according to the Texas Observer’s Victor Landa. The law would grant legal residency to working, undocumented residents who do not commit serious crimes.
While Landa notes that the purportedly progressive measure nevertheless runs afoul of federal immigration laws (only the federal government can grant immigration status), the bill presents other issues. One must stay employed or lose residency—a circumstance that would strip employees of bargaining power while granting their employers an inordinate amount of license in the workplace. In practical terms, that doesn’t much change the existing workplace dynamics of undocumented immigrants, who frequently endure exploitation and abuse without recourse.
Labor unions vs. worksite immigration enforcement
What’s more: Exploitative employers generally get off scot free even when targeted by employer sanctions efforts; it’s the workers, not employers, who bear the brunt of the federal government’s worksite immigration enforcement. For this reason, a Services Employees International Union (SEIU) leader, Javier Morillo, has condemned the Department of Homeland Security’s emhasis on workplace raids and employer verification, according to Nicolas Mendoza at Campus Progress.
Responding to the termination of 250 unionized janitors in Minnesota following an I-9 audit—a verification process through which the federal government can ask businesses to check the immigration statuses of their employees—Morillo said:
Under the leadership of Secretary Napolitano the federal government has become an employment agency for the country’s worst employers. With each I-9 audit, the government is systematically pushing hardworking people into the underground economy where they face exploitation… Let’s be clear: I-9 audits, by definition, do not go after egregious employers who break immigration laws because many of them do not use I-9 forms. Human traffickers do not ask their victims for their social security cards. [emphasis added]
Mendoza notes that the federal government’s employer verification programs rely on the honesty of employers and rewards them for firing undocumented workers, rather than sanctioning businesses for hiring them. Workers pay the price, while employers get off.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.By Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger Arizona’s business... more-
- MediaConsortium
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Weekly Diaspora: AZ Lawmakers Try to Ban Undocumented Children from Public School
by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger
Arizona lawmakers are considering two bills that would block undocumented immigrants’ access to education to an even greater degree than current state law.
SB 1611 — sponsored by state Senate President Russell Pearce (R) — bans undocumented students from enrolling in Kindergarten through 12th grade and attending community college. It also requires schools to notify law enforcement agencies if parents are unable to submit proof that their child is a citizen or legal resident. The other bill, SB 1407, requires schools to submit data on the number of enrolled undocumented and authorized immigrants alike, under threat of funding loss.
Given the state legislature’s persistently anti-immigrant stance on public education, these new laws are plainly part of a larger strategy. The state was the first to pass a law prohibiting students from receiving public funding for education, including merit-based scholarships, and last year welcomed two new laws banning ethnic studies and equal opportunity programs. The measures being considered now would work in tandem with those other laws to categorically deprive undocumented students of an education, while subjecting even authorized immigrants to greater scrutiny than before.
Challenging Plyler v. Doe
New America Media’s Valeria Fernandez reports that the proposed measures are an attempt on the part of lawmakers to spur a challenge to the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe. The landmark ruling determined that children, regardless of citizenship, have a constitutionally guaranteed right to public education.
Anti-immigrant politicos have long taken issue with the decision, arguing that the public education of undocumented immigrants is an undue economic burden to the state. But many educators take the opposing view. As one Phoenix high school principal told New America Media, such hostile measures have already cost him 100 students, which means fewer financial resources for the school as funding is determined by the number of students enrolled. Other critics contend that failing to educate these students “would create an underclass and harm the state’s long-term interests.”
Public education undermined by older, white electorate
But, as Harold Meyerson notes at The American Prospect, the unfortunate fate of Arizona’s immigrant population is compounded by the fact that, while only 42 percent of Arizonans under 18 are white, 83 percent of Arizonans over 65 are white. As he states, the educational opportunities of a rapidly growing population of racially diverse youth are being determined — or undermined — by a class of much older, white Americans.
As racial demographics across the United States are shifting in much the same way as in Arizona, the political power dynamic could change accordingly. But until then, state lawmakers in Arizona are taking drastic measures to ensure that the state’s growing majority of Latinos — and especially immigrants — are deprived of the educational opportunities that would enable them eventually to shift the political status quo.
Labor groups jump into the fray
Perhaps that’s why organizations representing sectors besides education are now getting behind educational equality measures. As Seth Sandronsky reports for Working In These Times, prominent labor organizations including the AFL-CIO and the southern Arizona-based Pima Area Labor Federation (PALF) have recently announced their opposition to Arizona’s ethnic studies ban, and their support of the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican American Studies program, which is allegedly in violation of the ban.
In an interview with Sandronsky, Rebekah Friend, the secretary-treasurer for the Arizona AFL-CIO, illuminates the links between educational equality, labor rights and civil society:
HB 2281 (the ethnic studies ban) in Arizona is part of a bigger, repressive attempt nationwide to control parts of the population, from women’s health care to workers’ and immigrants’ rights. … It’s a mindset to cleanse out ethnic studies, unions, and all social spending generally that we in unions and others have fought for, like the eight-hour working day, child labor laws and social security, and won.
California and Connecticut to pass their own DREAM ACT?
Meanwhile, as Arizona youth and their allies continue the fight for education, two other states are pushing the envelope on educational equality for undocumented students. Connecticut and California have both considered passing their own versions of the DREAM ACT. While the original DREAM ACT, which died in the Senate last November, would have created a path to legalization for certain undocumented youth who committed to attending college, these new bills are less sweeping, if similarly progressive, in scope.
Melinda Tuhus of the Public News Service reports that Connecticut’s DREAM ACT “would allow undocumented high school graduates to pay in-state tuition at Connecticut’s public colleges, if they graduate after four years of high school.” And in California, the legislature’s Higher Education committee has already moved forward with its own mini DREAM ACT, which “would allow undocumented immigrants who graduate from a California high school to qualify for college scholarships and financial aid,” according to New America Media/La Opinion.
The measure builds on a California Supreme Court ruling last November, which upheld the state’s decision to allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at public colleges. Both states’ measures run counter to the growing national trend of denying in-state benefits and public funding to undocumented students — a retrogressive movement that began with the passage of Arizona’s pernicious 2005 law, Prop 300.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger Arizona lawmakers are... more-
- MediaConsortium
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 1 comment
-
-
Weekly Diaspora: Arizona Pushing Undocumented to Surrounding States
By Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger
Stricter immigration enforcement and reduced economic opportunities in Arizona has pushed many undocumented immigrants out of the state to look for work.
While restrictionist lawmakers, whose stated objective over the last year has been to drive attrition through enforcement, are satisfied, it’s not exactly the outcome they’ve been waiting for. Rather than return to their home countries, most immigrants are instead relocating to surrounding states — a trend that’s prompting legislators in other states to approach immigration reform in radically different ways.
Oklahoma Absorbs Arizona Emigrants
Oklahama is experiencing a considerable influx of undocumented immigrants fleeing Arizona, according to Kari Lydersen at Working In These Times. The rising immigrant population has created friction among residents, some of whom believe that undocumented migrants are taking jobs away from Oklahomans. In response, state lawmakers have introduced a bill known as “Arizona Plus,” which incorporates many of Arizona’s more controversial laws, in an effort to expel immigrants in much the same way that Arizona’s existing immigrations laws attempt to do. Lydersen explains:
State Senator Ralph Shortey (R) and Shannon Clark, a Tulsa police officer in charge of enforcing the city’s 287(g) immigration program, said workers including masons and tile workers have been greatly affected by the influx of immigrant workers from Arizona. Employers and civil rights leaders have decried the proposed Arizona Plus measure and other recently introduced anti-immigrant laws, saying that immigrants provide a crucial part of the state’s workforce, especially in areas with otherwise aging and declining populations.
There remains disagreement about the actual economic impacts of unauthorized immigration. As state Senator Andrew Rice (D) told Lydersen, many of Oklahoma’s incoming immigrants are assuming low-wage jobs that citizens are not even bothering to apply for.
Immigrants are an economic boon
Of course, numerous studies demonstrate that immigration actually bolsters economies rather than depressing them, effectively driving wages up and creating opportunities for American workers to move into more highly skilled fields, as Mikhail Zinshteyn of Campus Progress explains:
A study co-authored by George Borjas…shows without new waves of immigration, legal or otherwise, there would be far fewer businesses operating today because of an inadequate labor market. His partner on the paper, Lawrence F. Katz, co-authored another study that showed income inequality in the bottom half of the economic ladder has not increased since the 1980s—meaning the huge spike in undocumented immigrants since 1990 has had no statistical effect on the economic fortunes of the Americans they allegedly affect.
Facts notwithstanding, pitting undocumented laborers against low-income American workers is a time-tested tactic of anti-immigrant politicos. It’s effective too, even though — as Zinshteyn notes — many of its proponents also support myriad other policies that directly hurt low-income American laborers.
Utah proposes guest worker program for undocumented migrants
Meanwhile Utah’s legislature is proposing to handle unauthorized immigration rather differently. New America Media reports that state lawmakers passed a bill last week that seeks to legalize and integrate undocumented laborers into the state’s workforce. The measure would create two-year work visas for undocumented Mexican immigrants without a criminal record and their families, for fees ranging from $1,000-$2,500. Lawmakers hope to demonstrate that Utah, which is home to 110,000 undocumented immigrants, is a safer place for migrants than Arizona.
Immigrant rights advocates are not as enthusiastic, however. Colorlines.com’s Julianne Hing notes that the Utah legislature also passed enforcement and employer sanctions measures last week, which — while less draconian than Arizona’s — nevertheless do their part to marginalize and oppress undocumented immigrants. Hing adds:
[Activists] argue that the benefits of the guest worker program will not be enough to mitigate the harm of harsh enforcement measures that will almost certainly lead to more exploitation and deportation.
Regardless, many others are lauding Utah’s efforts to implement some kind of reform that legalizes undocumented immigrants living in the United States — particularly as Congress has yet to move forward with any attempt at comprehensive immigration reform.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The PulseBy Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger Stricter immigration enforcement... more-
- MediaConsortium
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Texas Bill Would Turn Illegal Immigrants Into Indentured Servants
Tea Party favorite Debbie Riddle (I kid you not) (R-TX) introduced House Bill 2012 into the Texas State House, a bill that would jail folks who hire undocumented workers but would exempt anyone who hires “the help” for their homes, thereby effectively legalizing slavery for illegal immigrants. Yeah, you heard that right. All y’all indentured servants working for the rich but cheap white man? Y’all can stay. You might think this is crazy, but consider that this comes from “Terror Baby” lady. See? Now it all makes sense.
Yahoo reported today:
As Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, also a Republican, told CNN, without the exemption, “a large segment of the Texas population” would wind up in prison if the bill became law.
“When it comes to household employees or yard workers it is extremely common for Texans to hire people who are likely undocumented workers,” Pena told the news giant. “It is so common it is overlooked.”
Jon English, Rep. Riddle’s chief of staff explained that the exemption was an attempt to avoid “stifling the economic engine” in Texas, which today is, somewhat ironically, celebrating its declaring independence from Mexico in 1836.
Mind you, this is the same Miss Debbie who wants to copy Arizona’s papers please law. So, it’s OK and not scary when brown people clean the house and do the yard, but it’s super scary when they….exist? This whole Tea Party thing is starting to make sense. It’s about what serves the white man best at any given moment! Brown person working for cheap for rich man? Good! Brown person driving around? Toss ‘em in jail! Gosh, sounds a lot like slavery, no?
Hey, y’all, so long as you are indentured servants, the white gal from Texas loves ya’! This here is freedom Tea Party style. Think of what this could mean for “terror babies”. If they are willing to clean the toilets of Miss Debbie’s house, they too can come here and be “free”. See, we’re not afraid of the brown, we’re afraid of the brown taking good jobs. But so long as those spunky Texans can make the brown work for free or little, thereby helping to push down the average pay for all Americans, well then, they can stay! Win win!
Now if only Miss Debbie can get the “help” to take over union jobs, the Tea Party overthrow of freedom will be complete!Tea Party favorite Debbie Riddle (I kid you not) (R-TX) introduced House Bill 2012... more
