Tag: Illegal Immigrants

Mar
18

Has AntiLatino Sentiment Peaked

by , under NEWS
Has AntiLatino Sentiment Peaked

By now, you’ve heard all about the Kansas legislator who said it was a fine idea to hire gunmen to fly around in helicopters and shoot undocumented immigrants. Republican Virgil Peck made what he calls a “joke” during a public hearing on how to control the feral-pig population (like you, I was unaware that this was a huge problem in Kansas).
In any case, Peck has apologized for comparing immigrants to hogs, and while he was at it, for advocating that the state just start executing people it doesn’t like.
Of course, Peck’s comments are not in the smallest way indicative of the GOP’s hatred for Hispanics. As conservatives are quick to point out, that is all a liberal-media myth, and the Republican Party truly loves Hispanics. After all, you only joke about slaughtering people like vermin if you really respect them.
To be fair, it can’t be easy for Representative

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
Feb
14

Immigration

by , under NEWS
Immigration

Here we go again… or do we?
You can bet interested parties on all sides of the immigration debate held their breath during the final weeks of the lame duck session of the 111th Congress. When the clock, the year, and the congress all ran out, so did what the Conventional Wisdom considered President Obama’s best shot at immigration reform.
But the conversation is not over by a long shot. People who are agitating for comprehensive immigration reform aren’t going to drop it just because health care reform took up the first half of the Obama

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
Jan
23

Does Immigration Reform Have a Marketing Problem

by , under NEWS
Does Immigration Reform Have a Marketing Problem

Last year I worked with a nonprofit to advocate for the passage of the Dream Act. I knew the odds were long, and of course, the legislation ultimately didn’t pass.
But I would feel better today about fighting the good fight if I hadn’t known, at the time, that our approach was doomed. I had a queasy sensation early on, when I saw one of the video packages that the nonprofit put together (I wasn’t involved with that stage of the campaign).
The video featured kids who would directly benefit from the Dream Act’s passage. Much of it was good, with heart-tugging stories from all-American, clean-cut teens.
But then the bottom fell

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
Jan
21

Truths and Untruths About the Constitutional Origins of Birthright Citizenship

by , under NEWS
Truths and Untruths About the Constitutional Origins of Birthright Citizenship

As Americans and our elected leaders engage in debate over immigration and the constitutional guarantee of citizenship at birth, there is something we should all be able to agree on: misleading statements about constitutional history do not help us understand the Constitution better or allow us to tackle immigration reform in good faith.
It was thus disheartening to see Rep. Lamar Smith, new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, seriously mislead the public in a letter to the editor printed in the Los Angeles Times. Writing about the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship at birth for all children born on

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
Jan
17

The Dream

by , under NEWS
The Dream

As we pause to pay tribute to a man who helped change the course of American history, it’s important to remember that the creation of the holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not spring forth without great labor or controversy. Some legislators did not believe that the man who led the modern civil rights movement was worthy of state or federal

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
Dec
24

Whats the Difference Between DADT and DREAM

by , under NEWS
Whats the Difference Between DADT and DREAM

To the sour-tasting disappointment of many who were relying on it, the Senate failed to pass the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibustering block of the DREAM Act, with Republicans promising not to expect much in 2011. Democrats could only muster 55 votes while the White House stood by in either disbelief or anticipated diffidence. It was a bitter legislative pill to swallow considering that – at the end of the day – it was a bill for the kids.
Despite the rousing bigotry of some Senate Republicans who painted the measure as a gateway crack for illegal aliens, the DREAM Act appeared fairly practical. While opponents somehow assumed that children were making the conscious decision to illegally enter the United States, the Act refuted that notion and simply accepted that there was a large community assimilated into the American public which, at one point, had no control over their movements. As infants to toddlers to barely pre-pubescent kids, it is an amazing feat of cognitive ability to determine at that age what the law is against their parents entering a country without legitimate documentation. And, what kid – or baby – is going to stay behind or get left behind as their parents make that dangerous, illegal step across the border?
Opponents must assume these children had the sense to know the law. Funny enough, it’s not like states or the federal government mandates its citizens to know the Constitution or any accompanying state, federal or local regulation (which we should, but that’s another conversation). So to apply that argument to unknowing and unsuspecting victims of parental fate is a bit ludicrous, at best. Hypocritical at worse given the fact that conservatives are quick to defend the unborn during heated debates over the legality of abortion. Hence, if we are to assume protections for an unborn fetus that is a growing child with cognitive functions, then we should also assume protections and rights for infants and toddlers who are already born, but must be subjected to the questionable judgments of their parents.
But, while DREAM couldn’t pass the Senate, we are aware that the repeal of the infamous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” regulation did pass – with votes to spare. In a 65-31 vote, eight Republicans, strangely enough, were quick to jump partisan fence in support of repealing the ban. Reports described White House vigor on the issue with President Barack Obama offering his own personal energy to the issue, down to it’s signing.
The timing of the two votes was peculiar, both critical pieces of legislation set for passage on the same day and equally worthy of debate on the Senate floor. Both addressed pressing civil rights issues of the day.
What is somewhat troubling is the difference between the two. Despite the repeal of DADT’s good intentions, some could construe failure to pass DREAM as another example of sacrificing the good for the politically expedient. In DADT, Members of Congress faced the wrath of a well-funded, highly organized and relentless lobby that had been intent on passage of the repeal as a follow-up to campaign promises made by then candidate Obama. The advocacy surrounding DADT, followed up with an impressive Capitol Hill phalanx of some of Washington’s finest lobbyists, was a superb and efficient display of political action at work.
But, so was the advocacy surrounding DREAM – or so we thought. Despite the pleadings of countless, law-abiding and educated young Americans trapped in a legal limbo not of their making, Senators objected to what should have been the easiest compromise regarding immigration reform. If we can agree to fundamentally disagree on the definition of illegal immigration or if we won’t allow amnesty for those who lawlessly enter the country then we can (at the very least) agree on resolving the issue of kids who made no such active decision.
Perhaps if the face of protesting youth on Capitol steps and getting handcuffed in Senate office buildings was of European descent, it would have moved lawmakers to rapid action. But, when the faces are a browner hue, the political picture gets fuzzy. Again, much like with the unemployment insurance debate and the fiscal devastation soon unleashed by Congress on the safety net, we should be real and accept the subtle advantages of certain social privileges.
Bottom line is that all pieces of legislation that pass through Congress are interconnected by the deal. One bill won’t pass without shuffling hands on the other. Somehow, DREAM lost the deal – in exchange for passage of DADT.
It’s hard to escape the feeling that somewhere along the way advocates of DADT could have … should have made a conscious decision to team up with DREAM on the grounds that both bills dealt head on with the larger universal issue of civil rights. DADT advocates, annoying some in the African American political and religious community, compare their fight to the integration of Black soldiers in the 1950s. Yet, they seemed unusually quiet on the question of civil rights for these children from faraway places in a country they did not initially pick, but ended up calling home by circumstance.
Some can now celebrate the opportunity to openly fight for their country, defending democracy at home and abroad. But, others too young to know what happened will face the prospect of deportation to foreign lands they do not know. And it will be impossible to forget or forgive what just happened last weekend.
– CHARLES D. ELLISON
(originally appeared in Politic365.com)

This Blogger’s Books from
Tantrum
by Charles D. Ellison

Follow Charles D. Ellison on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/charlesdellison

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
Dec
10

Hola

by , under NEWS
Hola

“Welcome to Arizona, sir. I’m with the Phoenix Police Department.”
“Sir, I noticed when you deplaned that the identification tag on your carry-on appeared to be askew. As you may know, under Arizona law a baggage identification tag cannot be more than 12 degrees off parallel, and it appears to me that yours is more in the 18 to 25 degree range.”
“Since I’ve been forced to detain you in connection with a possible violation of Arizona law, I’ll need you to step over here so I can ask you a few questions.”
“First, may I have your name? Irving Rosenberg, am I pronouncing that correctly? And you are from where, Mr. Rosenberg? New York City.”
“Mr. Rosenberg, I don’t like to make sweeping generalizations, but if I might say so you have a very nice profile. To be candid, your profile captured my attention from the moment you got off the plane.”
“Mr. Rosenberg, have you always been a swarthy fellow? It’s a tan? Deep-sea fishing with friends in California? Do you have any fish inside your carry-on? Can you explain why you don’t?”
“Mr. Rosenberg, can you name the nine boroughs of New York City? Yes, that was a trick question, but you did get five out of six.”
“Mr. Rosenberg, would you mind taking off your sneakers? It says here they were made in Taipei, is that correct? And would you be kind enough to slip out of that shirt? Vietnam is certainly moving into the mainstream of commerce, isn’t it? Let’s just take down those pants for a second. Produced in Singapore, eh? I understand that Spanish is one of the languages sometimes spoken by individuals in the transit lounge of Changi Airport, are you aware of that? And now the shorts. Let’s have a close look at that tag. It says ‘Hecho en Guadalajara,’ am I reading that correctly? (Aside, “Bingo”)”
“Where did you acquire those shorts, Mr. Rosenberg? Wal-Mart? The one on Paseo Rio Sonora in Hermosillo? The store on Carretera Internacional in Mazatlan? How about the one on Avenido Chalma in Cuautitlan Izcali? Oh, I see. No, I wasn’t aware of the new Fishkill location.”
“Sir, while you were in California, did you cross the Texas-California border? You’re very sharp Mr. Rosenberg. Yes, that’s another trick question.”
“While on the subject of tamales, do you like them from the freezer or from vendors on the street? Do frijoles come in a bag or on a plate? Have you ever eaten a Chiquita banana?”
“Is salsa a condiment or a dance? ‘Both’ is an unusually accurate answer, Mr. Rosenberg. Where were you on May 5 in the years 2003 through 2009? Were you using any condiment? Were you dancing in the streets at any time? Was a member of any mariachi ensemble present?”
“What’s your position on NAFTA, Mr. Rosenberg? Do you feel it helps your people more than Americans?”
“Have you ever climbed a fence? How high was the fence? Did you climb to the other side of the fence? Did you turn around and go back where you belonged after you climbed the fence?”
“Have you ever looked sideways at Sheriff Joe Arpaio?”
“Have you ever visited a place, or known an individual, with ‘San’ in its or his name? No sir, Santa Claus would not be embraced by that question.”
“Mr. Rosenberg, do you nap in the middle of the day? Do you shade your eyes with a broad brimmed hat?”
“Sir, have you ever picked any item of produce, including but not limited to grapes, avocados, pistachios, oranges, lemons and durians? No, sir, you can eliminate items you may have picked up in Trader Joe’s produce department.”
“Are you married, Mr. Rosenberg? How frequently do you or your wife mow a lawn, trim a tree, blow leaves or burp someone else’s baby?”
“Do you regularly send money to anyone outside the United States? Your daughter in Neuilly-sur-Seine? Anyone south of the border? Your brother-in-law in Tierra del Fuego. Let’s move on.”
“Mr. Rosenberg, I think I now know everything I need to conclude this conversation.”
“Based upon what you have told me, sir, I have a reasonable suspicion that you are an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States. I ask you now to present to me your green card. You’re not carrying one? How about your Arizona driver’s license? I see. And I suppose you don’t have your passport even though you say you traveled to California, right?”
“I want to advise you that under Arizona law your rights to remain silent, to consult with an attorney, and to have an attorney appointed for you if you cannot afford one were waived when you stepped off the plane. However, you will be provided with access to a copy of the Arizona Criminal Code in Braille once you have been processed.”
“Mr. Rosenberg — mi amigo, if I may — I wish I weren’t forced to go down this road, particularly as in many respects you look like one of us. But I want you to know that your color, your Hispanic name and your sad eyes have nothing to do with my actions.”
“Unfortunately, the law is the law.”

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
Nov
23

Lets Be Honest About Health Care Reform

by , under NEWS
Lets Be Honest  About Health Care Reform

A few weeks ago, our dog Kiva was bitten on the nose by a baby rattlesnake. Kristen was walking him on a bike path near our home in Tucson and Kiva pounced on a bush, hoping to feast on a lizard but got much more than he bargained for.
She took him to our vet whose office was fortunately just a few blocks away and she was told that the situation was serious. Kiva needed at least one vial of antivenim serum ($900 a vial) along with numerous blood tests, IVs, and other treatments if everything went well. Within an hour, Kiva’s head looked like a pinata after a wild party but he was lucky and made a full recovery in just a few days.
But this is not an article about my wonderful dog or our good fortune. It is about the epiphany I experienced during the 24 hours that he was in the doggie hospital.
Actually, it is about the check-in process. Before the hospital would agree to accept Kiva as a patient, we had to go into a special room to make financial arrangements. We were told that his treatment would cost between $2,500 and $4,000 and that they wouldn’t admit him unless and until we gave them a credit card up front and let them charge us up front for $2,400 — 60 percent of the high estimate. If we didn’t have the cash, we could take Kiva home and take our chances.
They then told us that unless we signed an agreement to pay them an additional $600 (minimum) up front, they would take no action to resuscitate him if he suffered a heart attack or some other crisis in the middle of the night.
We agreed to their terms and, happily we picked up our very valuable canine son the next day — well on his way to a full recovery. The treatment was a complete success. Everyone at the doggie hospital was delightful and responsive to our calls and treated Kiva and us wonderfully.
But it got me thinking.
Our dog is alive today because we had $4,000 that we were willing and able to pay to keep him alive. I’m pretty sure that he received a higher level of care than the vast majority of humans in the world and most in our own country.
In the U.S., no hospital would turn away or refuse to treat an accident victim or someone whose life was in imminent danger. But follow up care, treatments for life-threatening conditions, and cutting-edge surgeries are often only available for those who are willing or able to pay up front.
As a type-1 diabetic with a fake hip, no thyroid, and spots on his lung, I am not unfamiliar with doctors’ offices. In recent years, the biggest change in their decor are the many signs prominently announcing the types of insurance that are not accepted and other declarations that the physicians understandably want to make sure that they will get paid before treatment is dispensed.
Let’s be honest. About health care.
We live in a country where we pay several times what residents of other nations pay for health care and by any objective measure our outcomes are much worse. There are still more than 35 million Americans who lack any insurance coverage at all and where those of us who are insured have been paying more and more each years for less coverage, higher deductibles, and co-pays that have gone through the roof.
As a candidate for president, Barack Obama accurately identified health care reform as a top priority and most Americans agreed with him. After dozens of incarnations and versions (each of which was labeled “Obamacare” by his political enemies), an inadequate but important first step was passed and signed into law this year.
The response of the Republican leadership and and their media promoters has been to convince Americans that this undefined Obamacare has made us worse off today than we were a couple of years ago. That we are being charged much more (we aren’t) for coverage that will somehow be worse (it won’t) — even though most of the provisions of the bill haven’t even kicked in yet and really haven’t been set in stone anyway.
They have convinced millions of Americans that we are being bankrupted by a health care system that caters to dark-skinned people who pay nothing and get everything for free — Mexican immigrants and black welfare freeloaders — at the expense of the rest of us.
But let’s be honest.
All those people really get is the assurance that if they walk into an emergency room bleeding to death or with some other pressing ailment that they will be treated whether they have insurance or not.
Beyond that, tens of millions of Americans who are too young for Medicare deal with the health care system in the same way that Kristen and I dealt with Kiva’s vets. If you have a long-term chronic condition or symptoms of something seems like it might be serious, you’d better be covered by insurance that your doctor accepts (an ever shrinking list) or come up with a whole bunch of cash up front. Otherwise they face the choice that we did with our dog. Find the money or go home and hope you don’t die.
All of the fact-free ranting about Obamacare has mainly succeeded in distracting Americans and keeping many of us from coming to grips with what a total disaster our current health care system has become. A comparison with Canada (which has socialized medicine) shows that we spend about 60 percent more per capita on health care than they do. And yet, our infant mortality rates and life expectancy is far worse than theirs.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen cites a CIA study that shows the U.S. ranking first in the world in health care costs and 49th in life expectancy and 47th in infant mortality. His piece on the subject is well worth reading.
On top of that, about half of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. — millions a year — are due to health care costs. People who don’t have the money choose to spend it anyway to save their loved ones or themselves. Who do they think they are?
To make matters worse, most of them have financed those life-saving treatments by maxing out multiple credit cards which has only hastened their slide into bankruptcy.
Meanwhile, in Canada there are zero bankruptcies due to health care costs.
Reasonable people can disagree about how to best fix our broken system. But right now, Republicans seem to be only focused on undoing Obama’s efforts to make things better — and undoing Obama altogether.
Let’s be honest.
Our health care system is one of many things that are driving us broke — not because of freeloaders or illegals or whatever your definition of Obamacare might be. It’s because the rest of us are living much longer than we were supposed to. The whole system was financially based on the assumption that we would work until we were 65 or so and live a few years after that before succumbing to old age and/or diseases. Today, many of the members of my golf club are over 80 and some of them can beat me scratch. We all have relatives who are in their 90s and are doing just fine.
They paid in a little and are taking out five and ten and twenty times as much in benefits. Many of them are retired and been net takers for almost as long as they worked and paid into the system. A bipartisan committee has just recommended that benefits to retirees be cut significantly in the future as part of our effort to get out of debt but polls show that most of us and our elected officials just don’t want to go that route.
We’d apparently rather get angry and outraged at blacks and Mexicans and single mothers and poor people. And, of course, Obama.
I tried to explain this all to Kiva but he just licked my face and begged for a treat. I’m not giving him anything until he learns to bark at Glenn Beck.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
Nov
17

Arizonas Overflowing Morgues Full of Unidentified Migrants

by , under NEWS
Arizonas Overflowing Morgues Full of Unidentified Migrants

Christof Putzel is a Vanguard correspondent. As part of his investigation into the immigration debate, he crossed the border from Mexico into the U.S. on foot.
The Pima County Morgue in Tucson, Arizona, is so overwhelmed with the record number of bodies being found in the desert this year that it has taken to storing many of them in mobile units, refrigerated trucks most often used in response to mass disasters such as Hurricane Katrina or 9/11.
As part of my investigation for Current TV’s Vanguard about immigration from Mexico into the United States, I spoke to Dr. Bruce Anderson, the morgue’s forensic anthropologist. “This is a mass disaster — it’s just played out slowly,” he told me.
Anderson showed me the dessicated remains of one body, which Anderson estimated had only been dead for a month. The elements in the desert are so harsh that the bodies decompose at a rapid pace, making them even more difficult to identify. While the investigators sift through the things the dead carried for clues — Mexican voter registration cards, telephone numbers scrawled on scraps of paper, jewelry, rosaries, family photographs — the identities of most of these suspected illegal immigrants will remain a mystery forever.
Watch more from “Life and Death on the Border” at current.com/vanguard.

Follow Christof Putzel on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/christofp

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
Nov
15

Why I Smuggled Myself Across the USMexico Border

by , under NEWS
Why I Smuggled Myself Across the USMexico Border

Christof Putzel is a Vanguard correspondent. As part of his investigation into the immigration debate, he crossed the border from Mexico into the U.S. on foot.
Americans may be preoccupied by the economic hardships they face because of the Great Recession. Unemployment is stuck close to ten percent; poverty claims a larger share of the population each year; many older people without the means to retire fear they’ll never work again.
But for millions of people looking at the United States from afar, America is still worth risking everything just for a shot at a better life.
The presence of illegal immigrants, now estimated at eleven million, is a source of bitter and emotional controversy among us. They build our houses, clean our office buildings, harvest our food, care for our kids, cut our lawns and hire themselves out for a pittance to do odd jobs. They’re fixtures in restaurant kitchens, poultry processing plants and jobs considered too dirty or too menial for others to do. Yet they keep coming, especially from the south, sneaking across the border from Mexico any way they can. It’s a dangerous dash, often into the arms of waiting border patrol.
Nearly all of us are descended from immigrants, of course. But in recent years, as living standards have stagnated or declined for all but the wealthiest and most fortunate Americans, the political pressure to choke off illegal migration has exploded. Billions of dollars are spent on higher, stronger fences, sophisticated sensing technology and more border patrol agents.
Tighter security has pushed would-be migrants to try more and more remote and treacherous areas along the nearly 2,000-mile US/Mexico border. Fewer get through. More die on the way. Yet hundreds of thousands try it every year. This year, officials say, more people have died in the desert on American soil than ever before.
To understand what crossers go through for a shot at the American dream, I went to the small Mexican town of Altar, a hotbed of human smuggling, where migrants pay coyotes—smugglers—to take them across. On assignment for Current TV’s documentary series, Vanguard, I found a coyote willing to allow me to accompany him across the border and into southern Arizona desert.
The trip frequently takes three or four days to reach a road north of the border. The coyotes restrict each traveler to two gallons of water, which often isn’t enough to survive. Authorities have found the remains of more than 250 people already this year, and they estimate that for every body they discover many more lie unfound under the brutal southern sun.
For me it was humbling to experience first hand just what so many people go through for a chance at a better life.
My report, “Life and Death on the Border,” premieres Monday, November 15 at 9/8c on Current TV.

Follow Christof Putzel on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/christofp

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
Nov
01

ReThink Review Monsters the Real Aliens at the Border

by , under NEWS
ReThink Review Monsters  the Real Aliens at the Border

Digital video and desktop/laptop editing have brought filmmaking into the hands of the average person with an idea and some people to put in front of the camera. This has done wonders for those looking to make documentaries and smaller movies that primarily focus on people talking, with digital movies quickly overtaking filmed ones as entries in our nation’s film festivals. The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity showed that horror movies are also excellent candidates for new this low-budget approach, especially when atmosphere and tension are more important than gore.
Now, with Gareth Edwards’ film Monsters, it appears that even convincing sci-fi/giant monster movies are within the grasp of low-budget filmmakers who know their way around effects software. Listen to my ReThink Review of Monsters for Pacifica Radio’s Uprising show by clicking on the image below.
I feel that I didn’t say enough about Monsters as a potential allegory for immigration in my review, so I’d like to do that now.
(WARNING: Contains some slight spoilers that you’d probably figure out from watching the trailer.)
Q: Are the alien creatures in Monsters supposed to symbolize Mexicans trying to cross the US border?
A: Maybe. One thing I like about Monsters is that it portrays the aliens not as technologically advanced beings bent on world domination, but simply as giant animals following their instincts to migrate based on the season. While they are undoubtedly destructive, there is no evil intention to their behavior. In that sense, you could say that illegal immigrants, like the creatures, are simply doing what they can to survive and are not crossing the US border to turn the US into Mexico or hurt Americans by taking their jobs. Still, no one wants giant aliens rampaging around their country under any circumstances, so comparing the aliens to Mexicans can’t be seen as a call for tolerance.
Q: Are Sam and Kaulder white Americans forced into experiencing what Mexicans crossing the border go through?
A: I think that’s a fair parallel. To get back to the US once the option of taking a ferry is eliminated, the two are forced to pay a large sum of money to a man who is essentially a coyote. That’s the term for someone who charges a high price to lead Mexicans on the perilous route across the US border, requiring payment up front with no guarantee of success, and sometimes with plans to swindle their helpless clients out of their money. Once Kaulder and Sam pay the coyote, they can only trust that he will keep his word and arrange for the safe and easy passage they paid for — which wouldn’t make for much of a movie if that happened. And like the real trek to cross the US border, it’s a journey fraught with danger where the possibility of death is very real — just not from giant octopus monsters. If you still have any doubts, the conversation Kaulder and Sam have when they reach the fortress-like wall at the US border should convince you.
For more ReThink Reviews, visit ReThinkReviews.net
To subscribe to ReThink Reviews on YouTube, go here.

Follow Jonathan Kim on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/ReThinkReviews

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
Oct
14

Why I Dont Use the IWord In Any Form

by , under NEWS
Why I Dont Use the IWord  In Any Form

Since we launched the Drop the I-Word campaign, thousands of people and numerous media outlets have pledged not to label immigrants criminals and to affirm their humanity and dignity. Of those thousands, some are immigrants, both undocumented and with papers, who are asking us to stand up for our values, not just bear witness to their demise. Others are allies who recognize that this is an historic moment to support a resilient community. Still others are motivated by the simple recognition that journalists and everyday people alike can no longer allow fear mongers to dictate the parameters of our conversation.
We have also encountered skepticism, notably from progressive reporters. While our colleagues agree that “illegals” is a slur, they’re okay with its longer version, “illegal immigrant.” Ezra Klein at the Washington Post, for instance, dismisses “word games” that “paper over” the issue. But Klein picks the wrong target. As long as we use the word “illegal” in connection with immigration or immigrants, it papers over the fact that our laws are unjustly applied. It creates the illusion of simplicity, when that could not be further from the case. The only thing that should be simple is that immigrants are real people, not problems.
There’s no conflict between honest reporting and dropping the i-word. I use undocumented and unauthorized regularly, as this is a matter of permission represented by a piece of paper. I never obfuscate how a source came to be in the United States, whether they overstayed a visa or crossed a border. Dana McCourt weighs in on the debate with a call for more precision, not less, by recognizing that the U.S. government treats immigrants differently based on their specific situations. McCourt avoids the term “largely because the bare ‘illegal’ is used as a slur and the longer ‘illegal immigrant’ doesn’t reliably pick out a specific class of people or what’s wrong with their legal status.” In other words, because it’s imprecise.
At The American Prospect, Adam Serwer calls the phrase a “facially neutral term that advocates don’t like.” But if we agree that reducing a person to a crime is racist and dehumanizing in one form, isn’t it so in all forms? We have to look at the framework from which the term emerges.
Serwer has reported a lot on the ways in which race gets manipulated in our nation’s politics, so I was surprised to see him exempt the language of immigration from its political context. That context, simply put, is this: authorized immigration is impossible for some people, yet those same people are regularly hired as cheap, exploited labor with a limited ability to protect their own rights. That cheap labor is comprised almost entirely by people of color, not because they just happen to be the ones overstaying visas and crossing borders, but because the system is fundamentally rigged against them. No one else who benefits from the set up, including the employers who recruit and hire these migrants, is slapped with a similar label. Reason.org illustrates this well with a chart of “Our Nation’s Broken Immigration and Naturalization System.”
The repetition of the i-word in conjunction with images of brown-skinned people, particularly Latinos, popularizes the notion that individuals are to blame for our systemic challenges. It reinforces racial fear and economic anxiety, creates a hateful environment, and increases the American public’s tolerance for daily violations of human rights. The i-word limits the conversations we are able to have about immigrants, their rights and their mobility in this globalized economy. In Operation Gatekeeper, geographer Joe Nevins points out that language matters in immigration and always has. “Wetback” was the preferred official term in the 1950’s. When it fell out of favor, “illegal” took its place. The word, whether as a noun or a modifier, was the rhetorical core of a discursive shift on immigration. News outlets increasingly reported that immigrants were flooding the border and overwhelming services, and began coupling immigration with criminality. All of this drove a policy shift, too. Over the last 30 years, legislatures have stripped most immigrants of access to vital social programs, built up the enforcement infrastructure to unprecedented proportions and ultimately brought us to a point where the country deports a record 393,000 people a year. In this politically charged environment, even green-card holders are swept up in the deportation dragnet. As Serwer himself notes in his analysis of Arizona’s SB 1070, there has been a severe impact on communities of color: “The reason you can pass a law that encourages racial profiling in spirit while prohibiting it in letter is that everyone has a concept in their head of what an ‘illegal immigrant’ looks and sounds like.”
So the problem is not that the discourse makes the work of pro-immigrant advocates harder, but that it renders untenable the lives of people who contribute to American culture and economy miserable, along with those of the people who love them and look like them. At the center of this debate are human beings. Not illegal beings, but human beings. Discourse reflects the way that people think about themselves and the country thinks about us. The word homosexual, for example, is clinically correct but experienced as dehumanizing by gay and lesbian people, and so they pushed for journalists to drop it. As the discourse changes, so does the culture and policy affecting gay people—not nearly fast enough, but significantly nonetheless. Some may say, “But being gay isn’t a choice.” Well, neither is escaping poverty, drought or war. That millions of people wind up in the country without permission comes about for many reasons, only a very few of which have to do with the choices individuals made.
In the end, every journalist and media outlet has to decide which language to use. I once interviewed a source related to the Federation of American Immigration Reform who insisted that I use “illegal immigrant” throughout my story, not just when quoting him. Well, I get to choose my own words, and for all the reasons above, I choose not to use FAIR’s language.
I’d encourage others also to consider their language, and its source. Where did it come from? What is the effect, intentional or not? How does a reductionist and biased lexicon thrive? There are alternatives that meet our needs, not just for varied vocabulary, but also for thoughtful, accurate journalism that recognizes the fundamental humanity of the people about whom we are reporting.

Follow Rinku Sen on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/ARC_RinkuSen

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
Sep
30

Wrestlemania Linda McMahons Senate Campaign

by , under NEWS
Wrestlemania Linda McMahons Senate Campaign

I’m Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment. And I’m running for senator of the Nutmeg State. I’m not a professional politician, a “Washington insider.” I’m a Washington outsider, a rebel, an iconoclast — like Stone Cold Steve Austin. And I’m willing to spend $50 million of my own money to buy the election.
First, I would like to thank all the little people that have made this campaign possible — the midget wrestlers: Little Beaver, Lord Littlebrook, Mini Vader. (Although there’s no truth to the storyline that Hornswoggle is my husband Vince’s illegitimate lovechild. This is Connecticut, not Alaska, you know.) Then I’d like to take the opportunity to address the issues that matter to this country:
The economy. Governments don’t know how to stimulate the economy; small business owners like me — net worth $1.2 billion — know how to stimulate the economy. (Okay, maybe the Xtreme Football League wasn’t such a good idea. You can’t hit a home run every time at bat.) First, declare all your talent “independent contractors” even though you ban them from wrestling for other franchises. Second, refuse to provide them with health care benefits. Third, don’t renew their contracts when they’re too injured to wrestle anymore. That’s the way to keep the prices of all those wrestling action figures and t-shirts down.
Taxes. They say two things are inevitable — the Undertaker at Wrestlemania and taxes. High taxes have had this nation’s corporations in a sleeper hold too long, cutting off the carotid artery of commerce, oxygen-depriving the brain of business. It’s high time we broke that hold and piledrived corporate taxes into the ground. The fact that the WWE would benefit is strictly coincidental — like when a wrestler just “happens” to find an illegal foreign object hidden in his tights.
Illegal aliens. This issue hits close to home. There have been lots of great Latino wrestlers — Tito Santana, the Guerrero Brothers, Ray Mysterio Jr… Many of them are here illegally — why do you think they wear masks? Some people want to build a wall between the United States and Mexico. I’ve got a better idea — let’s build a giant steel cage around Mexico. Mexicans who make it out and touch American soil automatically receive a WWE contract and a shot at the Intercontinental title.
Drugs. Some of our wrestlers make Arnold Schwarzenegger look like, in the words of Classy Freddie Blassie, a “pencil neck geek.” Back in the 1980s, the WWE was rocked by a steroids scandal. We instituted a strict drug testing policy — then cancelled it because it wasn’t “cost effective.” Since then, steroids have permeated the rest of professional sports — Mark McGwire looks like Hulk Hogan. I think it’s time for the U.S. to rethink its drug policy and decriminalize steroids. If it’s good enough for America’s pastime, it’s good enough for professional wrestling. (So some wrestlers die of drug-related causes — you can’t make an omelette without breaking necks.)
Foreign policy. From the days of Sgt. Slaughter, the WWE has always stood for a strong foreign policy. (The Sarge is more of a war hero than my opponent Richard Blumenthal, who’s systematically inflated his military record — like a wrestler on steroids.) I’ve got a solution to the Iranian problem: how about a match between our two toughest jabronis — say John Cena vs. the Iron Sheik? Okay, the Iron Sheik’s getting a little long in the tooth — he’s replaced the Camel Clutch with Dentu-Grip–but he’s still a Hall-of-Famer. Winner gets hegemony over the Middle East. Just kidding — we’re still going to give Iran the “atomic drop” anyway.
Finally, I’d like to challenge my opponent to a series of debates. He can pick the format — steel cage, lumberjack match, hardcore rules… I guarantee victory — as long as Vince is the special guest referee. I’m Linda McMahon. Professional wrestling may all be fake, but I’m dead serious about becoming a Senator. As Kurt Angle used to say, “it’s real, oh, it’s very real.” (Hey, at least I’m not Christine O’Donnell. That witch sounds like she’s been drop-kicked too many times in the head.)

Follow Robert Brenner on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/Robert Brenner

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
Sep
07

AntiAnti Immigration Principles to Make Migration Work

by , under NEWS
AntiAnti Immigration Principles to Make Migration Work

The most comprehensive overview of illegal immigration in the United States since the economic crisis began its downward spiral concludes that the flow of unauthorized immigrants into the country has significantly slowed. The annual inflow of unauthorized immigrants was “nearly two-thirds smaller in the March 2007 to March 2009 period than it had been from March 2000 to March 2005.” The report released last week by the non-partisan Pew Hispanic Center also concludes that the total number of unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States has dropped by an estimated one million.
These findings have become a kind of Rorschach test: everyone is projecting what they want to see into the numbers and graphs. While the Pew researchers, masters of their trade, carefully avoid any causal statements as to what may be behind the numbers, it seems everybody else is attaching their pet ideas to the new data.
To those who see immigration — including unauthorized immigration — as the yin to the yang of American business, this was an “it’s the economy, stupid” moment. The economic collapse, they argue, reduced the flow of unauthorized labor to the homeland, as the cornucopia of jobs that pulled them with unstoppable force into the booming economy suddenly evaporated. For those who oppose all immigration, the new figures are proof positive that “attrition through containment” is working. The new multipronged strategy for combating unauthorized immigration includes expanded deportations in the mainland and unprecedented displays of power at the border. Proponents of the tough “attrition through containment” approach claim that the massive deportation campaign — rapidly intensified under President Obama — coupled with the greatly expanded deployment of force at the border is exactly the right formula to put an end the problem of mass illegal immigration in the United States.
This formula, alas, is fool’s gold.
While the number of unauthorized migrants is indeed down, the most surprising pattern in the new data evokes Sherlock Holmes’ story about the dog that didn’t bark. It’s elemental, Holmes deduced: since the dog did not bark, whoever killed the horse in the barn must have been the master of the barn dog.
The most important variable in the new report is what did not happen under unprecedented circumstances. We are in the midst of the most severe economic recession since the great depression (sharply reducing the incentives for new migration), we are in the midst of the most extensive deportation campaign in recent history (last year 393,000 immigrants were deported from the United States — the seventh consecutive record high, according to the Department of Homeland Security), and in the midst of the largest growth in monetary and personnel allocations for border enforcement (between 1990 and today, the U.S. increased the border patrol from a force of 3,733 to 20,000. The combined expenditure in 2009 for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was a staggering $14.9 billion — and that is not counting the drones now fully operational in our Southern border.) The crossing is more expensive now than ever before. Tougher border controls have been a boom for smugglers — unlike in the past, today almost everyone crossing the border without papers relies on expensive and dangerous coyotes even as deaths at the border have reached historic records. Yet we continue to have an estimated annual rate of new illegal immigration into the country of 300,000 and, most importantly, we still have over 11 million immigrants without papers. A North to South inertia is the new normal — immigrants in the U.S. are staying put. Even if the sharply reduced inflows remain at this new low, other things being equal, at the current rate of deportations, it could take over two generations to rid the U.S. of all the unauthorized immigrants.
Anti-Anti Immigration
Those who oppose immigration, first and foremost, oppose illegal immigration. It reveals the failure of government in its most basic task — setting and regulating international borders, especially urgent in the aftermath of September 11. Unauthorized immigration corrodes the rule of law by unmasking the systemic failure of enforcement. It undermines public trust — the most important lubricant for social cohesion. Massive unauthorized immigration rewards those who do not play by the rules, punishing would-be migrants patiently waiting their turn, the anti-immigrant chorus incants. It cheapens the value of citizenship and casts suspicion on the status of all legal immigrants. Unauthorized immigration has created a sub-caste of citizen children who through no fault of their own are growing up in the shadows of their country. Unauthorized immigrants, by definition, break one law – upon their unauthorized entry into the United States. No one can be pro illegal immigration.
But such immigrants are not from the other side of the moon. They are working folk who are not only staying put but are growing roots in the U.S. Nearly half of all unauthorized immigrants live in households with a partner and children. The majority of these children, 79 percent, are U.S. citizens by birth. The number of U.S. children growing up in unauthorized families has grown from 2.7 million in 2003 to 4 million in 2008. Adding the 1.1 million unauthorized children living in the U.S. means that there are 5.1 million children currently living in what are termed “mixed-status” homes.
Over the last generation, unauthorized immigration has been closely tied to labor market predilections in the low-skilled sector of the American economy. Like it or not, in the roaring 1990′s the nation developed an insatiable appetite for immigrant labor — summoning millions of unauthorized folk to do the jobs abandoned by native workers. Illegal immigration did not happen to us. We were all complicit in it’s making.
The United States of Helplessness
Thus, we are now in a very unhappy place. The U.S. has the largest number and proportion of unauthorized immigrants in the world: we are under five percent of the world’s population but have approximately twenty percent of all illegal migrants on earth. This is happening as we face the deepest economic crisis since the great depression — war, terrorism on a global scale, and a neighbor to the south convulsed by a drug war. We have never seen such a combination of noxious ingredients. Immigration makes Barack Obama President of the United States of Helplessness. All immigration lines are broken: the line at the border, the queues in U.S. consulates, and in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration offices all over the homeland. Those who argue that to fix this all we need is for illegal immigrants to get behind the line, did not get the memo: there is no line to get behind. There are over three million people waiting between four to twenty years to join immediate relatives who are U.S. citizens and permanent migrants. If you are a U.S. citizen and your sister is in the Philippines you will have to wait twenty years before she can join you. If you are a U.S. citizen and would like to sponsor your unmarried adult child in Mexico, you will wait sixteen years. And if you are a start-up in Massachusetts and set out to hire a skilled Indian worker with college education and proven experience in her field, you will pay $13,000 in fees and wait 20 years. Out of this chaos we need to build a 21st Century migration system.
What will it take to get moving again?
First we need to choose a path at the proverbial fork for dealing with unauthorized immigrants already here. To deal with the issue systemically, rather than on a piece meal basis, one path would be to massively expand the current rate of deportations. It would be at an unknown and surely significant economic, legal, and social cost. Two consecutive Presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have rejected the notion that the U.S. could mount a one-time massive experiment rounding up and deporting 11 million folk.
There is another path. It is based on the idea of belonging and consent in a democracy and what Sigal Ben Porath of the University of Pennsylvania calls “shared fate.” We propose a set of coherent principles requiring unauthorized migrants here to pass a “belonging threshold.” These principles privilege the foundations of social cohesion and shared fate in a plural society: meaningful family ties, work, and community roots. Those with a history of work, paying taxes, good character, and engagement in the public sphere by learning the language, U.S. history, and about U. S. government would be eligible to regularize their immigration status. It is constructed on the bedrock of consent in the mutual relationship between the nation and individuals with a record of engagement in jobs, in neighborhoods, and in the public sphere. Unauthorized immigrants are not unknown entities from another galaxy: we have sealed our shared fate by bringing them into our homes as nannies and gardeners, by hiring them to cook our meals at restaurants and to clean our bathrooms in hotels, by making them our co-workers, our fellow worshipers at church, our children’s classmates and friends. It would add nothing that is not de facto already part of the family of the nation.
Working out the details of a program to end the dystopia is hardly rocket science. It will require political muscle and bipartisanship. Any serious, disinterested researcher in the field of immigration will tell you what a real formula — alas, not another formula for fool’s gold — will look like. But first the administration and congress will need to find the political will to make migration work. This is not likely to happen, if at all, until after the midterm elections. If the mid-term elections are a debacle for Barack Obama and he is destined to be a one-term president, perhaps it will take a new “Nixon-to-China” moment when a new Republican president succeeds where President George W. Bush failed.
The possible combinations to make migration work are few and obvious. We would suggest a three-phase program of action. Passing each phase would be a rite de passage moving folk into the open. The first phase would be the creation of a national registry where unauthorized immigrants who have been here for three years would sign an affidavit acknowledging their unlawful entry into the United States. Second, they would undergo a background security check. They would supply evidence of a meaningful history of work and tax payments. Lastly they would furnish proof of good character in the form of three affidavits from community leaders such as a supervisor, a teacher, or a religious figure.
In the second phase, those who qualify would pay a $6,500 fine that would serve both as a penalty and for breaking the law upon entry and as a fee to cover the program’s costs ($6,500 is half what it costs the average U.S. employer today in fees to process and recruit a new immigrant worker from overseas. It is only slightly more than what immigrants now pay coyotes at the border to cross them illegally.) Lastly, in a third phase, they would complete a course study of English, U.S. history, and U. S. government. The courses would serve as a foundation for a systemic integration strategy, which should be in place for all new Americans, see here.
This plan would work if at the same time the incentives for further unauthorized immigration were meaningfully reduced by, inter alia, clamping down on unscrupulous employers hiring workers without papers. Of course, good fences make for good neighbors. With the good news of dramatically slowed attempted crossings at the border, there is now a window of opportunity. Given what we know about the unauthorized immigrants in our midst, it is safe a safe bet that the majority would sign up, qualify, and pass the threshold.
It is time to create a rational and principled path out of the shadows. Anything less will keep us where we don’t want to be, in The United States of Helplessness.
Marcelo M. Surez-Orozco and Carola Surez-Orozco are Co-Directors of Immigration Studies @ NYU. Their forthcoming book is entitled, Lifting the Lamp: Shedding Light on Immigration Dilemmas.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
Sep
04

Do YOU Agree with These Bumper Stickers

by , under NEWS
Do YOU Agree with These Bumper Stickers

Having been so inspired by the message T-shirts from last weekend’s Restoring Honor rally in Washington, I spent the week traveling America’s 50 states, photographing bumper stickers. They are a great way to have a voice in the public debate! See if you agree with these ones… or not!
1 of 20
‘The Sexy Book Of Sexy Sex’: Comedians Guide You Through The Bedroom And Beyond (PICTURES)
Drunks vs. EVERYTHING: The Funniest Inebriated Fights With Inanimate Objects (VIDEOS)
The 10 Best Political Comedies Ever Made (VIDEO)
11 Regrettable Tattoos: Reddit Users Share Their Worst (PHOTOS)
Otters: The Animal That Gets Cuter With Anger (PHOTOS)
11 Comedies Canceled BEFORE Getting Emmy Attention (PHOTOS)
comments(1)
<>
Total comments: 1 | Post a Comment
Rate This Slide
Rank #2 | Average: 8.6
No Way!
Right On!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Current Bumper Sticker
loading…
Choose your Bumper Sticker
UserName
| Become a fan
Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow
loading…
Top User Slides
<>
| Become a fan
Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow
loading…
Users who voted on this slide
<>
loading…

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Go straight to Post

Comments Offread more
© Copyright All Global News on One Page 2011. All rights reserved.