Advertisement

Archive for the ‘States’ Category

To paraphrase my beloved, It’s not that I’m a pessimist. It’s that I’m practical. It’s why I am not alarmed by reports spinning the questioning of the Justices as signs in favor or displeasure with Arizona’s S.B. 1070. While it would be wonderful to say goodbye to parts of the anti-immigrant law that birthed others, it would not change federal law which essentially functions in the same way.

In the coverage of last week’s hearing, organizations and media outlets tried to feel out what side the Justices were leaning towards based on the questioning. Interestingly enough there was no consensus as to what the line of questioning meant. Some organizations felt that the questioning revealed a sympathy towards Arizona State Law. Others expressed concern about the absence of a discussion of race within the questioning. Some sources predicted a mixed result, with some provisions of S.B. 1070 standing while others would not. Very few sources that I saw were able to muddle through the complicated proceedings in a way that was honest and went beyond advocacy for a specific outcome.

S.B. 1070 is a horrible law but let me be super clear, while S.B. 1070 is absolutely about race, ethnicity, and nationality the Supreme Court is not deciding on if the law violates the civil rights or human rights of individuals. It is deciding on if four specific parts of the law attempt to carry out what the federal government should be doing, enforcing immigration policy. If the case were about racial profiling, then national immigration enforcement policy and practice would also end up being scrutinized. This would include the excessive force of border patrol along the southern border, this would include the use (or not) of prosecutorial discretion, and the enforcement priorities of national programs like Secure Communities. To admit that S.B. 1070 is racist and relies on racial profiling, would mean to admit that policing priorities overall across the county are racist and rely on racial profiling. It is troubling to see liberal institutions insist that racial profiling is out of character for the United States when really it has been a hallmark.

A ruling is expected in late June.

Post to Twitter

Arizona’s S.B. 1070 has been pushed back against since it’s creation. There have been marches, rallies, acts of civil disobedience, boycotts, petitions, and lawsuits. This week attention turns to the Supreme Court who on Wednesday will hear if parts of the law, in effect since April of 2010, can be enforced by the state or if the law infringes upon a federal power, immigration enforcement. So far, four parts of the law have been blocked from being enforced because they, according to courts, clearly tread on what the federal government should be doing. These are the four parts that will be considered by the court. The court can strike down all four provisions, some, or none. The parts being considered are:

1. The requirement that all residents of the state, regardless of immigration status, be able to show proof of their legal status if a law enforcement agent stops them with a “reasonable suspicion” to
believe that they are undocumented.

2. The provision making it a state crime if a person cannot produce the proof of their immigration status.

3. The provision making it a state crime for a person to be looking for work or be working if they don’t have legal papers.

4. The provision authorizing law enforcement to arrest an individual without a warrant if the officer believes they have committed any offense that would make them deportable.

This is not a case about if the anti-immigrant law denies equal protection under the law for immigrants. This is not a case about the civil or human rights of immigrants. People should be clear that while yes, if the Supreme Court decides that S.B. 1070 indeed goes above and beyond what a state should be doing, it has the potential of stopping other copycat laws from moving forward in other states like in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah. But that same court decision against S.B. 1070 will affirm the existence and enforcement of federal policies and practices that predated S.B. 1070, namely programs like Secure Communities. It is the federal government who will be arguing against S.B. 1070. So while a Supreme Court decision against S.B. 1070 could have a domino effect in terms of other state anti-immigrant legislation, it will not erase the climate of fear for the undocumented in the United States. That would take a real effort by the federal government to actually practice discretion when it comes to immigration enforcement priorities, something that honestly cannot happen while policies like S-Comm are pushed as part of immigration policy.

 

On Wednesday, there are events scheduled in Arizona and all over the country against S.B. 1070 and similar laws.

 

For a great resource on the Supreme Court S.B. 1070 case, visit the Immigration Policy Center.

Post to Twitter

Mangos With Chili: Behind the Music
A 5 Year Retrospective
Friday, April 6, 2012
8:00pm until 10:00pm
$8-$20, no one turned away for lack of funds
La Pena
3105 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94705

Buy advance tickets here: http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/235689
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/118977968226694/

Like Behind the Music but so much better, this evening offers a first hand glimpse into the making, growth and evolution of Mangos With Chili, North America’s floating cabaret of queer and trans people of color performance artists. Featuring Co-Directors Cherry Galette and Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha and artists from our first 5 years, this event will be part celebration, part birthday party, and part talk show featuring facilitated Q&A, video diaries from former Mangos artists, and teasers from our upcoming 2012 season, including our upcoming National Queer Arts Festival production, “Reclaiming the Rites,” in June 2012, and our 5 year anniversary “Resurrection” tour. More artist info TBC, but save the date!

And as always, come for the interactive community femmeifest/manifest altar, lovenotes, and cupcakes!

Oh yeah- it’s $8-20, no one turned away for lack of funds! We are also going to show vintage Mangos t shirts, and show our old photos, posters and memorabilia!

Access is love: La Pena is fully wheelchair accessible including bathrooms. In order so that beloved community members with chemical injury can attend, please don’t use fragranced products. (For more info about becoming fragrance free, check out http://yogamaya.wordpress.com/about/classes/fragrance-free/ or http://www.brownstargirl.org/1/post/2012/03/fragrance-free-femme-of-colour-realness-draft-15.html for awesome POC specific, affordable fragrance free POC product info.) Fragrance free seating available. ASL interpretation info TBC. This is an all ages event. La Pena is two blocks from Ashby BART.

Have you experienced the Mango at any point in the last five years? Ask us an anonymous question on our Tumblr and we will answer it on stage! mangoswithchili.tumblr.com

for more information or press inquiries:
mangoswithchili.wordpress.com
or email mangos.with.chili@gmail.com

Co-sponsored by the Queer Cultural Center with a grant from the NEA Presenting Program and with the generous cooperation of La Pena Cultural Center.

Mangos With Chili is a fiscally sponsored project of CounterPULSE and is supported by funding from the Horizons Foundation.

Post to Twitter

Yesterday, a federal district court issued a ruling blocking Arizona from enforcing another portion of it’s anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. Specifically, the court found that parts of the law violated the first amendment rights of day laborers soliciting work on public streets.
In defending this portion of the law, the state of Arizona claimed that the purpose of the provision was to ensure traffic safety.

From the National Day Laborer Organizing Network’s Press Release on the decision:

“Not only is the exercise of free speech a crucial civil right,” declared the court, “Plaintiffs have shown that they and their members are being chilled from soliciting employment by the threat of enforcement” of the anti-day labor provisions.

This is the second recent victory for day laborers:

Last week, the Supreme Court declined to review a Ninth Circuit decision striking down on First Amendment grounds a Redondo Beach ordinance that criminalized day labor solicitation (Comité de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach). The court’s ruling in Redondo Beach struck down the City of Redondo Beach’s anti-solicitation ordinance as a “facially unconstitutional restriction on speech.”

Post to Twitter

Originally I had no intention of watching the alleged last of the GOP debates . It was held in Mesa, Arizona which meant the anti-immigrant rhetoric would be amped up to pander to the local audience which included Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I ended up watching the debate because my partner said we should watch it together (how romantic).Also, Arizona is where the next big primary will happen this coming Tuesday.
I was right about the hateful narrative used against immigrants but I also watched and listened to a group of white men who seemed to be against everything, including each other.

The whole debate, poorly moderated by CNN’s John King, had a strange air about it. The Republican hopefuls appeared on stage and introduced themselves in a manner that would have been appropriate in a bad comic book. For example, Ron Paul knighted himself the “defender of the Constitution.” Someone get that man a cape.

The rest of the very long evening consisted of the candidates talking about everything they hate like spending money. Rick Santorum responded to the first question asked, regarding the national debt, saying that the only thing he wanted to spend money on was the defense department, everything else should be cut : medicaid, medicare, food stamps, and of course Obama Care, I mean healthcare, and education.

Applause followed by Mitt Romney and Santorum going back and forth at each other for a while about who was more fiscally conservative.
Ron Paul gets in on the Santorum bashing (the candidate, not the sexual liquid) by calling him a fake and especially targeting how Santorum was once a backer of No Child Left Behind and now was against it.

Mitt Romney mentioned his experience as head of the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee so many times that I proposed a bobsled race instead of primary to determine the GOP candidate for president.

The most unsurprising portions of the night involved birth control and immigration, and within those topics, race.

All of the candidates made the issue of contraceptives one of choice, access, and liberties but for religious fundamentalists, not for people with a uterus. Access to contraception was blamed for the amount of children born out of wedlock, especially among “some people”. I wonder who those people could be?

:: looks around at her two kids with no daddy in sight::.

Oh wait. They mean me.

Those same some people,like me, are really poor, usually criminals,uneducated and a burden because of all the babies they had while not being married. Therefore the answer to poverty is marriage and no birth control. Sign me and my out of wedlock daughters up! Married people who use birth control are mythical creatures who must exist only in the realm of the liberal elites.
This discussion of the evils of birth control had one brief ray of light when Ron Paul clarified that the morning after pill is not the same as the abortion pill. I said that moment was brief right because then he entered into the bash Planned Parenthood portion of the evening.

Arizona, the home of SB 1070 and banned books, seemed to waiting for the four white men to unleash the anti-immigration vitriol. Governer Jan Brewer and Sherrif Joe Arpaio sat in the audience, almost as GOP guests of honor. All of the candidates spoke in favor of fences and more boots on the ground. All of the candidates lambasted Obama and his administration for suing Arizona and not doing enough to stop immigrants who were of accused draining the economy and coming for the welfare ride. Mitt Romney especially came down hard on the administration, which makes sense campaign wise, since the Democratic Party has been putting all of it’s eggs in the Latino vote basket hoping that they can keep or win support by making Romney the most anti-immigrant of all. Alternately, Florida GOP Senator Marco Rubio’s name was mentioned, as if to prove to any Latinos who were watching, that they were capable of acknowledging a Latino who they weren’t going to paint as the scapegoat for the U.S.’s ills.

Of course none of the arguments the GOP presidential wannabes presented are based in reality. No one mentioned how Obama has actually expanded Bush immigration enforcement policies and how thanks to those expansions there were more Border Patrol boots on the ground and record breaking deportation numbers. Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio’s name was mentioned, as if to prove that they were capable of mentioning a Latino and had some credibility. Newt Gingrich, who at one point was being praised for his “common sense” approach to immigration policy, which boiled down to saying that family unification was important for “good” undocumented people and proposing a limbo status of undocumented but not deportable, reverted back to the standard nativist arguments and when asked to discribe himself in one word, Newt Gingrich cockily answered, “cheerful”.

Post to Twitter

One of the many things that irks me about the way that social justice movements are promoted by nonprofits through to the masses is the use of the either/or lens. I have written extensively over the years about how this has played out in the context of immigration policy and practice struggles in the United States. Whenever a bill is up for discussion, the so-called “good” side, that is the Democratic Party, pushes this good immigrant/bad immigrant binary and non-profits, in an often misguided effort to keep themselves afloat and gain a victory, take this language as their own. We see it with the push for the DREAM Act and the various state in-state tuition namesakes. We see it with the push against criminalizing deportation programs like Secure Communities. Now we see it again in the fight against H.B. 56 in Alabama.

Passed in June of last year, the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, or H.B. 56 is considered one of the harshest anti-immigrant laws in the United States. It requires schools to check and report the immigration status of their students and bars undocumented students from postsecondary education. It instructs police to demand proof of immigration status from anyone they suspect of being in the country without documentation, even on a routine traffic stop or roadblock. It also invalidates any contract knowingly entered into with an undocumented immigrant, including routine agreements such as a rent contract, and makes it a felony for an undocumented immigrant to enter into a contract with a government entity.

Hollywood director Chris Weitz, journalist Jose Antonio Vargas along with the Center for American Progress recently launched a campaign to repeal H.B. 56 called “Is this Alabama”. The accompanying report to the campaign, Alabama’s Immigration Disaster, focuses on the economic and civil rights impact of the law:

Overall, as Professor Samuel Addy of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration has illustrated, because of H.B. 56, Alabama could lose up to $10.8 billion (or 6.2 percent of its gross domestic product), up to 140,000 jobs in the state, $264.5 million in state tax revenue, and $93 million in local tax revenue.

These costs will all be incurred to drive out an undocumented population that is estimated to be only 2.5 percent of the state—a population that paid $130 million into the state’s tax coffers in 2010.

Alabama’s agricultural industry and foreign investment are especially affected. Chad Smith, a tomato farmer, estimates that he could lose up to $300,000 in produce because of the lack of farmworkers who are now fleeing the state. And recent embarrassing incidents such as the arrest of Mercedes-Benz and Honda executives under the provisions of the new law jeopardize the presence of foreign companies, which give the state both a significant amount of money and a significant number of jobs—percent of the state’s workforce in 2009, the most recent year for which data are available.

The campaign also features videos reflecting the personal, human impact of H.B. 56, asking people in Alabama their feelings about the law and framing the law in the context of the long struggle against racism in the state.

Check out one of the videos:

While repealing H.B. 56 is certainly something I am behind, I am concerned with framing issues of racism against blacks as something belonging to Alabama’s past – the United States’ past. Calling the struggle for equality and justice for all migrants the civil rights issue of our times implies that there is no more work to be done in terms of racism against blacks and the legacy of slavery in one state and across the country. All people have to do is look at the recently aired documentary Slavery by Another Name and look at who is being incarcerated and how to see that there is a hell of a long way to go when it comes to fighting racism. When racism is framed as either black or brown, real solidarity work is watered down. The reality is that the prison industrial complex that uses people of color bodies as raw materials is connected to the immigration criminalization complex.

So yes H.B. 56 is Alabama. It is the United States whose new budget features more money for Secure Communities. Failing to make the connections means we will continue to spread our resources too thin and be divided and conquered.

Post to Twitter

I’m feeling a little dazed from the seemingly endless stream of GOP debates and the incumbent President’s non-statement statement on immigration policy during the SOTU. With the Florida primary just days away, both political parties are targeting the Latino vote that the state allegedly represents. Both parties are playing a spin game, ready to crown an opponent as the most anti-immigrant on one hand, while claiming that the Latino electorate in Florida doesn’t really care about immigration.

In last night’s GOP debate, on again off again front runner Newt Gingrich took a page from the Democratic National Committee, targeting Mitt Romney as the most anti-immigrant. Certainly this attack is related to Romney’s statements earlier this week touting “self-deportation” as a good solution to current problems. Romney, offended by Gingrich’s characterization, demanded an apology. As I pointed out in a piece I wrote for El Diario La Prensa last month, we are heading into dangerous territory when we try to find the “worst” among bad choices. Gingrich’s allegedly kinder, softer approach to immigration amounts to what the current Obama policy is on paper, allowing “non-threatening” immigrants with family ties and a long history in the U.S. to stay in a permanent limbo status.

A new/old Latino target is being pushed by one organization. Today, Presente.org launched a campaign targeting potential GOP Vice Presidential pick, Senator Marco Rubio. The campaign wittingly named “No Somos Rubios” (We are not Rubios/We are not Blondes), hones in on Republicans using a brown face with a brown name to earn Latino votes. This right wing strategy is being called into question not just based on Rubio’s anti-immigrant positions but also because Rubio represent such a specific facet of the Latino electorate. Rubio appeals to Cuban-American anti-Castro demographic. Rubio probably will not appeal to other Latinos, especially in the South West, who according to polls, played a critical role in Obama’s getting elected in 2008.

Read more…

Post to Twitter

Yesterday, almost civil and human rights organizations from across the United States, and a few international organizations, sent a letter to the Secretary of Honeland Security, urging her to stop deportation programs like 287(g) and Secure Communities in Alabama. Many of the signatories, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), had already been calling for a stop to the policies that currently are deporting about 400,000 people a year in the United States, but the recent implementation of what is being called the harshest anti-migrant law in the country is compelling many to focus on Alabama.

Secretary Napolitano is targeted because the successful implementation of HB 56 is contingent upon cooperation and participation of DHS as the state law relies on the department to take custody of non-citizens identified through HB 56 for detention and deportation. The groups also urged DHS to promote and enforce its own guidance which limits state action in immigration matters, as well as exercise favorable discretion in any case that arises from enforcement of Alabama’s HB 56.

HB 56 combined with ICE pattern and practices specifically threaten Latinos in the state. Since immigration is racialized as a latino issue, people who are perceived as Latino will be targeted. Racial profiling threatens the 185,602 Latinos in Alabama, a population that while making up only 3.9% of the total population according to the 2010 Census, increased 145% in the last decade.

The Department of Justice is currently challenging the constitutionality of HB 56, which went into effect in September. I signed onto to the letter to Secretary Napolitano, but with a healthy dose of cynicism in terms of expectations. The Department of Homeland Security through Napolitano continues to defend it’s deportation record and Secure Communities. The White House continues to defend Secure Communities. It will be interesting to see how the Federal Government, who has helped to create the anti-immigrant atmosphere surrounding states like Alabama, further reacts to the crisis in the state. Will the answer be a policy change or a public relations campaign.

Sources : New America Media

Post to Twitter

This past weekend, when I received an email announcing that the National Council of la Raza (NCLR) was declaring the economic boycott of Arizona over, I admit that my first reaction was confusion.

I was confused because I didn’t remember the boycott solely being “owned” by any one organization. I was confused because I thought that the boycott (which I have been following and respecting as have my children) was supposed to remain in effect until the anti-immigrant law SB1070 was repealed. Did I misunderstand?

So I went back.

Various organizations and localities called for boycotts. No one can own an act of resistance.

The demand of the boycott was that SB1070 be repealed.

That hasn’t happened.

According to reports in the media, NCLR is cancelling the boycott because they feel that they have successfully discouraged other states from enacting similar laws (never mind not so successfully discouraging the president from his enforcement/deportation party). NCLR and other orgs are pointing the millions of dollars lost because of the boycott including the cancellation of conferences and conventions in the state. Additionally, The Arizona Republic says Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon’s office sent NCLR letters last month asking it to end the boycotts and work toward immigration reform. Based on the official press release announcing the calling off of the boycott, it’s all about the money honey. Both the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Phoenix Convention and Visitors Bureau are quoted in the official release, talking about the importance of “getting back to business”.

I know I am not the only one confused by this decision. Certainly the boycott in and of itself is controversial. There is debate as to the effectiveness of such an action, just like there is debate as to the effectiveness of civil disobedience. What both boycotts and cd’s share in common is that on their own, they are useless. On a small scale, people not buying a Stone Cold Creamery ice cream cone or blocking a highway are meaningless unless they are connected in a real way to work on the ground for a long time. The work of protest is not supposed to be easy. That is why it is called struggle. And to clarify, work on the ground does not just mean funded policy promoting as is currently happening with across the board in the immigrant rights advocacy world. The immigrant “movement” at the moment has been completely co-opted by non-profit orgs and their funders. There is no direction while on our blocks deportations rise.

And then we wonder why we are unable to find a Latino “leader”.
And then we wonder why Latinos are criticized for being unable to create sustained actions.

I’ve gone from confusion to cynical anger at the state of “movement building”.

Does NCLR’s backing off the boycott mean their national convention will be in Phoenix next year?

Post to Twitter

Over the next few days be on the lookout for film reviews from our time at the NY International Latino Film Festival. A week of films from all over the world, it was difficult to choose when and which films to watch. Unfortunately, I could only check out three, but I’m glad I did!

We’ve shared the trailer to Precious Knowledge before, and I was very excited to see the film as part of the NY Latino Film Festival and one I could review. I attended the second of two screenings at the festival and there were about 50 people present. The producers, editors, and one young woman, Pricilla Rodriguez, whose father is detained since the passing of SB 1070, from the film were present for a question and answer period after the film. Check out the trailer one more time:

Read more…

Post to Twitter


Hola!

VivirLatino is a daily publication published by Mamita Mala Media, dedicated to featuring all the latest politics, culture, entertainment of interest to the diverse Latin@ diaspora.

About | Advertise with us | Contact | Twitter

VivirLatino on Facebook


blog advertising is good for you

blog advertising is good for you
  • Karen: Have you see the census figures for 2010? Latinos are not all that diverse. Most" Latinos" are Mexic [...]
  • Maegan La Mala: Hi Karen, I agree but only in part. I think that people do get up in cults of personality but th [...]
  • Maegan La Mala: I haven't heard anything about a rally being held Jose Luis. i know Presente.org is organizing a pet [...]
  • Karen: Also, Al Sharpton, now a host on MSNBC, brought attention to the Trayvon Martin case because he knew [...]
  • jose luis: when the rally is going to be held in SAn Diego..if there is on??? [...]

Get our RSS Feed!