Saturday, September 24, 2011
From Educators for Fair Consideration:
As many of you already know, E4FC is co-sponsoring a rally next Wednesday, Sept. 28th. Our job is to support by numbers. PLEASE try to make it out and encourage others to come too!
ASPIRE, RISE at UC Berkeley, Bay Area DREAM Act Coalition, Asian Law Caucus, Educators for Fair Consideration, PODER, SF Immigrant and Legal Education Network and the California DREAM Team Alliance are co-hosting a press conference and rally on Wednesday Sept. 28th 12-1PM outside Governor Brown's office to urge him to sign the second half of the CA DREAM Act, AB 131, a bill that would allow undocumented students to access critical financial aid.
As a native Bay Area resident, Governor Brown needs to know just how much his community supports the passage of the CA DREAM Act. We are in a crucial phase in the campaign and need your support. Governor Brown has until Oct. 9th to either sign or veto the bill. The rally will be outside Governor Brown's San Francisco Office (455 Golden Gate Avenue) just a few short blocks from Civic Center BART.
More details on the Facebook event page here: https://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=125195460915243
We hope you can make it next Wednesday. See you there!
Historian Oscar Handlin, a Harvard professor whose "classic writings on American immigration made him a leading intellectual force behind legislation that eliminated the immigration quota system in the United States," died (and here for a NY Times obit)) on Sept. 20 after a heart attack. The son of Jewish immigrants, Handlin chronicled the stories of Europeans, Jews, Puerto Ricans, African Americans, and other immigrant groups that shaped the United States. His book “The Uprooted: The Epic Story of the Great Migrations That Made the American People” won the 1952 Pulitzer Prize in history.
Delegation in Immigration Law by Adam Cox (NYU) and Eric Posner (Chicago)
Abstract: Immigration law both screens migrants and regulates the behavior of migrants after they have arrived. Both activities are information-intensive because the migrant’s “type” and the migrant’s post-arrival activity are often forms of private information that are not immediately accessible to government agents. To overcome this information problem, the national government can delegate the screening and regulation functions. American immigration law, for example, delegates extensive authority to both private entities - paradigmatically, employers and families - and to the fifty states. From the government’s perspective, delegation carries with it benefits and costs. On the benefit side, agents frequently have easy access to information about the types and activities of migrants, and can cheaply monitor and control them. On the cost side, agents’ preferences are not always aligned with those of the national government. The national government can ameliorate these costs by giving agents incentives to act consistently with the government’s interests. Understanding these virtues and vices of delegation sheds light on longstanding debates about the roles that employers, families, and states play in American immigration law
When Rachel F. Moran was in elementary school she overheard a teacher say, "Such a bright girl. Too bad there's no future for her." Even then she realized that her educational prognosis was wrapped up in perceptions of her Mexican ancestry. Moran, now Dean of the UCLA School of Law, has overcome many obstacles on her road to success. She details these, and the importance of connecting with mentors, in the just published 2011 Tomás Rivera Lecture. The lecture series began in 1985, and is named in honor of the late Dr. Rivera, professor, scholar, poet and former president of the University of California, Riverside. Click here to read more.
USCIS, marking a significant milestone in its efforts to provide relief to victims of crimes, has for the second straight year approved 10,000 petitions for U nonimmigrant status, also referred to as the U-visa. On an annual basis, 10,000 U-visas are set aside for victims of crime who have suffered substantial mental or physical abuse and are willing to help law enforcement authorities investigate or prosecute crime.
Friday, September 23, 2011
From the White House:
President Obama Nominates Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen to Serve on the United States Court of Appeals
“Judge Nguyen has been a trailblazer, displaying an outstanding commitment to public service throughout her career,” President Obama said. “I am honored to nominate her today for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals and confident she will serve the American people with fairness and integrity.”
Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen has served as a United States District Judge in the Central District of California in Los Angeles since 2009. Judge Nguyen was born in Dalat, Vietnam, and in 1975, she fled the country as a girl along with her family as Saigon was in the process of falling during the latter stages of the Vietnam War. Her family was placed at a refugee camp in Camp Pendleton, California, where they lived in a tent city for over one month before settling in the Los Angeles area. She received her A.B. from Occidental College in 1987, and her J.D. from UCLA School of Law in 1991. Judge Nguyen began her legal career at the law firm of Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP, where she was a litigation associate from 1991 to 1994. In 1995, she joined the United States Attorney’s Office in the Central District of California, serving as an Assistant United States Attorney in the criminal division. There, she worked as a federal prosecutor in both the General Crimes and Public Corruption and Government Fraud sections, and was a member of the office’s Organized Crime Strike Force from 1999 to 2000. She served as Deputy Chief of the General Crimes section from 2000 to 2002. Judge Nguyen was appointed to the state bench as Judge of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles in 2002 and remained a judge on that court until she was appointed to the federal bench in 2009.
Immigration, the Republicans, and the End of White America Share| The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution" by Ron Unz
For a provocative conservative take on "fixing" the "immigration problems," see "Immigration, the Republicans, and the End of White America Share| The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution" by Ron Unz in the American Conservative. Unz often has taken unconventional conservative positions on immigrtaion and related issues.
Law and Order SVU aired its season premiere ("Scorched Earth") on Wednesday night with a great episode ripped from the headlines. It also looks at th erealities facing refugees, U.S., asylum law, and rape as a form of persecution in military conflicts in Africa. Here is the episode description:
"Moments after a businessman leaves a hotel room, a maid stumbles into the hallway sobbing. At the squad room, Cragen gets word that a maid claims she was assaulted by Roberto DiStasio, the odds-on favorite to be Italy's next prime minister. At the hospital, Benson interviews the maid who describes a grisly tale of sexual assault. At the hotel room, Detective Amanda Rollins - a new hire from Atlanta PD - finds a semen sample on the floor. Moments later, Fin and Munch track down and arrest DiStasio before his plane takes off. "
Sound kind of like the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case?
AP reports that MLB Florida Marlins closer Leo Nunez has been playing under an assumed name and he returned his native Dominican Republic yesterday. This, of course, is likely to raise a myriad of immigratiuon problems and possibly even place his future in Major League Baseball in jeopardy. I am not aware of other Dominican (or other) players playing under assumed names, although baseball great Miguel Tejada lied about his age (and relative youth) when he was seeking to break into MLB.
FEEDING ON DREAMS: Confessions of an Unrepentant Exile by Ariel Dorfman
Hailed by Salman Rushdie as “one of the most important voices coming out of Latin America,” Ariel Dorfman delivers in Feeding on Dreams a memoir excavating for the first time his profound and provocative journey as an exile. In September 1973, the military took power in Chile, and Ariel Dorfman, allied to deposed president Salvador Allende, was forced to flee for his life. Feeding on Dreams is the story of the transformative decades of exile that followed. Dorfman portrays, through visceral scenes and powerful intellect, the personal and political maelstroms underlying his migrations from Buenos Aires, on the run from Pinochet’s death squads, to safe houses in Paris and Amsterdam, and eventually to America, his childhood home. And then, seventeen years after he was forced to leave, there is a yearned-for return to Chile, with an unimaginable outcome. The toll on Dorfman’s wife and two sons, the "earthquake of language" that is bilingualism, and his eventual questioning of his allegiance to past and party—all these crucibles of a life in exile are revealed with wry and startling honesty. Dorfman's best-selling Heading South, Looking North was a memoir of childhood ending with the 1973 military coup in Chile. Feeding on Dreams picks up where that story left off to tell of Dorfman’s continuing struggle as an exile. It is a passionate reminder that “we are all exiles,” that we are all “threatened with annihilation if we do not find and celebrate the refuge of common humanity,” as Dorfman did during his “decades of loss and resurrection.”
The Republican Presidential candidates debated once again last night. Texas Governor Rick Perry took some shots and was the piñata for the party. As in past debates, the candidates jabbed at each other on immigration.
Here is the full transcript to the debate. Below is the portion of the debate touching on immigration, which was fairly substantial in length but had no real surprises. I agree with Representative Michele Bachmann that we must "end the madness" but we probably disagree on what that madness is. It was telling to hear Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum admit straight-up that he thinks that that Governor Rick Perry was "soft on illegal immigration."
BRET BAIER, ANCHOR OF FOX NEWS: Thanks, Shannon Bream.
After the break, we will be tackling foreign policy, government spending. Shannon will have more on that, too. And also the issue of immigration.
Now, here for a preview of what's to come, let's take a look at what's called a word cloud. It shows the words that were used most often in all of the questions you asked about immigration. The bigger the word, the more often it was used.
The biggest word in this cloud, as you see, is "illegal."
Back after a short break.
pp. 21-27 of 49 page transcript
BAIER: ...round of questions on immigration.
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: Congresswoman Bachmann, as you well know, a number of states are trying to crack down on illegal immigration. We got a bunch of questions on immigration like this one from Tim Emerson, this is a text question so you don't need to look up there. Tim Emerson of California.
He wrote this, "would you support each state enforcing the immigration laws since the federal government is not?"
Congresswoman, could you answer Tim's question? And if your answer is yes, how do you square that with the constitution which says that congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?
MICHELE BACHMANN: Well, the reason why he's asking this question is because the federal government has failed the American people and has failed the states. It's reprehensible that President Obama has sued the state of Arizona and the governor of Arizona for trying to protect the people in Arizona. That's wrong.
BACHMANN: As president of the United States, I would do what my job would demand of me. That's to uphold the sovereignty of the United States of America.
To do that, I would build a fence on America's southern border on every mile, on every yard, on every foot, on every inch of the southern border. I think that's what we have to do, not only build it, but then also have sufficient border security and enforce the laws that are on the books with the ICE agents, with our border security.
And here's the other thing I would do. I would not allow taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens or for their children.
BACHMANN: That's a madness. End the madness for illegal aliens to come into the United States of America.
WALLACE: Congresswoman, thank you.
And we're going to get back to that issue in a moment.
But first, Speaker Gingrich, as you well know, there's a debate going on in Congress right now about whether or not to make all employers, all businesses use E-Verify, a government database, to check whether or not new hires are illegal. Now, some Tea Partiers object to that idea because they say it would turn small businessmen into immigration agents.
But Kristen Williamson of the Federation for American Immigration Reform sent this question. Please look at it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Kristen Williamson, the Federal for American Immigration Reform.
Struggling U.S. workers continue to compete with millions of illegal aliens. Do you support legislation to require all employers to use E-Verify in order to ensure that the people that they hire are actually legally authorized to work in the U.S.? And will you impose penalties against employers who continue to hire illegal workers?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: The question, Mr. Speaker, is, should employers be required to use E-Verify?
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, let me say, first of all, I think we would be better off to outsource E-Verify to American Express, MasterCard or Visa, because they actually know how to run a program like that without massive fraud.
GINGRICH: Second, the program should be as easy as swiping your credit card when you buy gasoline. And so I would ask of employers, what is it you would object to in helping the United States of America in dealing with the problem involving illegal immigration?
But, in addition, I want to reinforce what Congresswoman Bachmann said. I strongly favor 100 percent control of the border, and I strongly favor English as the official language of government.
GINGRICH: And I favor modernizing the legal visa system to make it far more convenient, far easier and far more practical. Here in Orlando, where we have a huge interest in people being able to visit easily for tourism, we have a terribly antiquated legal system while our border is too open for people who are illegal.
WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, thank you.
Governor Romney, I want to continue a conversation that you had with Governor Perry in the last debate.
In Massachusetts, you vetoed legislation to provide interstate tuition rates to the children of illegals. Governor Perry of course signed the Texas Dream Act to do exactly that. But what about Governor Perry's argument that it's better to get these kids an education and to get them jobs than to consign them just to being a burden on the state?
MITT ROMNEY: It's an argument I just can't follow. I've got be honest with you, I don't see how it is that a state like Texas -- to go to the University of Texas, if you're an illegal alien, you get an in-state tuition discount. You know how much that is? That's $22,000 a year.
Four years of college, almost $100,000 discount if you are an illegal alien go to the University of Texas. If you are a United States citizen from any one of the other 49 states, you have to pay $100,000 more. That doesn't make sense to me. And that kind of magnet --
ROMNEY: That kind of magnet draws people into this country to get that education, to get the $100,000 break. It makes no sense. We have to have -- just as Speaker Gingrich said, and as Michele Bachmann said as well, Congresswoman Bachmann, and that is we have to have a fence, we have to have enough Border Patrol agents to secure the fence, we have to have a system like E-Verify that employers can use to identify who is here legally and illegally.
We have to crackdown on employers that hire people that are here illegally. And we have to turn off the magnet of extraordinary government benefits like a $100,000 tax credit -- or, excuse me, discount for going to the University of Texas. That shouldn't be allowed. It makes no sense at all.
WALLACE: Governor Perry, I'm going to ask you a question, so you don't need to respond to him, because you're going to get a full minute to answer your question, which is on directly this point. You're the candidate whose name, by a wide margin, came up most often in the questions being submitted to all of you candidates about immigration.
Dave Hollenback (ph) of Arizona sent this "To date, it appears that you have not tried to stop the illegals from coming. We have high unemployment and a considerable amount of jobs going to illegals. Are you going to exert an effort to stop the abuse of U.S. citizens by illegals?"
Now, last year, more than 16,000 children of illegals, young people in Texas, took advantage of your in-state tuition rate. Speak to that issue. And just, generally, how do you feel being criticized by a number of these other candidates on the stage for being too soft on immigration, sir?
RICK PERRY: Well, I feel pretty normal getting criticized by these folks, but the fact of the matter is this: there is nobody on this stage who has spent more time working on border security than I have.
For a decade, I've been the governor of a state with a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. We put $400 million of our taxpayer money into securing that border. We've got our Texas Ranger recon teams there now.
I supported Arizona's immigration law by joining in that lawsuit to defend it. Every day I have Texans on that border that are doing their job.
But if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they've been brought there by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart. We need to be educating these children, because they will become a drag on our society.
I think that's what Texans wanted to do. Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature, when this issue came up, only four dissenting votes.
This was a state issue. Texans voted on it. And I still support it greatly.
WALLACE: Senator Santorum --
RICK SANTORUM: Chris, no one here is suggesting --
WALLACE: Senator Santorum, you don't need to butt in because I was about to ask you a question on this exact issue.
You say that Governor Perry's opposition to building a border along the entire fence shows that he is a "big government moderate."
Question: Is he soft on illegal immigration?
SANTORUM: Governor Perry, no one is suggesting up here that the students that are illegal in this country shouldn't be able to go to a college and university. I think you are sort of making this leap that, unless we subsidize this, the taxpayers subsidize it, they won't be able to go.
Well, most folks who want go to the state of Texas or any other state out of state have to pay the full boat (ph). The point is, why are we subsidizing?
Not that they can't go. They can go. They just have to borrow money, find other sources to be able to go.
And why should they be given preferential treatment as an illegal in this country? That's what we're saying.
SANTORUM: And so, yes, I would say that he is soft on illegal immigration. I think the fact that he doesn't want to build a fence -- he gave a speech in 2001 where he talked about, buy national health insurance between Mexico and Texas. I mean, I don't even think Barack Obama would be for buy national health insurance.
So I think he's very weak on this issue of American sovereignty and protecting our borders and not being a magnet for illegal immigration, yes.
WALLACE: Governor Perry, 30 seconds to respond, sir.
PERRY: I've got one question for him.
Have you ever even been to the border with Mexico?
PERRY: I'm surprised if you have, but you weren't paying attention, because the idea that you --
SANTORUM: Well, the answer is, yes, I have.
PERRY: -- are going to build a wall, a fence for 1,200 miles, and then go 800 miles more to Tijuana, does not make sense. You put the boots on the ground.
We know how to make this work. You put the boots on the ground.
You put the aviation assets --
SANTORUM: But it's not working, Governor.
PERRY: -- in the ground. No, it's not working because the federal government has not --
SANTORUM: But you said we know how it works. Is it working in Texas?
PERRY: The federal government has not engaged in this at all. When I'm the president of the United States, I'll promise you one thing --
SANTORUM: But you're saying you put the assets there. Has it worked in Texas?
PERRY: -- we will put the assets on the ground --
SANTORUM: You said you have.
PERRY: -- the boots on the ground --
BAIER: Senator Santorum, let him finish, please.
PERRY: -- the aviation assets on the ground, and we will stop illegal immigration, we will stop the drug cartels, and we will make America secure.
SANTORUM: Can you answer the question? Is it working?
WALLACE: Well, you know, you asked your question, he gave his answer, sir.
WALLACE: Sometimes we are frustrated with all of you answering questions.
WALLACE: Congressman Paul, I want to ask you a question about a comment you made a couple of weeks ago about a border fence with Mexico. Here's what you said, sir. I want to quote it: "There's capital controls and there's people control. So every time you think of a fence keeping all those bad people out, think about those fences maybe being used against us, keeping us in."
Question, Congressman, do you know a lot of Americans who want to take their money and flee the United States of America?
RON PAUL: There are -- there are some. All the candidates up here talk about repatriation of dollars. They've already taken them overseas.
We're talking about trying to bring in $1.5 trillion because they leave our country, because we make it uncomfortable, too many regulations, too much taxation. They can't start business; they've lost confidence.
Yes, when countries destroy a currency, they do lead to capital controls and they lead to people control. So I think it is a real concern.
And, also, once you have these data banks, the data banks means that everybody is going to be in the data bank. You say, oh, no, the data bank's there for the illegals. But everybody's in the data bank.
That's national ID card. If you care about your personal liberty, you'll be cautious when you feel comfortable, blame all the illegal immigrants for everything. What you need to do is attack their benefits: no free education, no free subsidies, no citizenship, no birth-right citizenship.
And that would get to the bottom of it a lot sooner. But economically, you should not ignore the fact that, in tough economic times, money and people want to leave the country. That's unfortunate.
WALLACE: Congressman Paul, thank you very much, sir.
Here is NYC Attorney Merrill Clark's read on the debate:
1. BACHMAN: “I would build a fence on America's southern border on every mile, on every yard, on every foot, on every inch of the southern border.” Even though I believe in a fence, I would show some “inches” along the border where the fence is just not feasible. Have a Michelle border contest to show such areas! Show us your inches, Anthony Weiner please do not participate! 2. BACHMAN: “I would not allow taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens or for their children.” This includes educating children? Michelle’s “Many children left behind” educational program. She is an attorney? Such education was mandated by the Supreme Court. Uhm [Ron Paul also favors no free education, later in transcript] Michelle, listen to Perry on this on: PERRY: “But if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they've been brought there by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart. We need to be educating these children, because they will become a drag on our society.” Sounds like Perry has somewhat of a heart. Michelle needs heart surgery 3. PERRY: I've got one question for him. Have you ever even been to the border with Mexico? SANTORUM: Yes. Border tours with the Ricks!
1. BACHMAN: “I would build a fence on America's southern border on every mile, on every yard, on every foot, on every inch of the southern border.”
Even though I believe in a fence, I would show some “inches” along the border where the fence is just not feasible. Have a Michelle border contest to show such areas! Show us your inches, Anthony Weiner please do not participate!
2. BACHMAN: “I would not allow taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens or for their children.”
This includes educating children? Michelle’s “Many children left behind” educational program. She is an attorney? Such education was mandated by the Supreme Court. Uhm [Ron Paul also favors no free education, later in transcript]
Michelle, listen to Perry on this on: PERRY: “But if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they've been brought there by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart. We need to be educating these children, because they will become a drag on our society.”
Sounds like Perry has somewhat of a heart. Michelle needs heart surgery
3. PERRY: I've got one question for him.
Have you ever even been to the border with Mexico?
Border tours with the Ricks!
UPDATE (9/25): Media Matters has taken co-moderator Chris Wallace to task for using the pejorative "illegals" to refer to undocumented immigrants and read a question from the public that used the term, as well.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Members of Congress, immigrant legal service providers, new citizens and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas celebrated Citizenship and Constitution Day on Capitol Hill on September 21. Earlier in the day, USCIS announced the award of $9 million in grants to expand citizenship and integration programs. The grants will be awarded to 42 organizations ranging from public or nonprofit organizations that provide citizenship preparation services to eligible immigrants. According to government data, 7.9 million immigrants are currently eligible for citizenship. The top 20 states with large immigrant populations eligible for citizenship are California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona, Washington, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Michigan, Georgia, Colorado, Connecticut, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio. In Florida for example, 680,000 legal permanent residents are eligible for naturalization which represents 5.3% of the voting eligible population. In Illinois, 340,000 immigrants are eligible to naturalize or 3.8% of the voting eligible population. For NALEO’s complete state breakdown of legal permanent residents eligible to naturalize please visit here.
Julia Preston writes in the NY Times:
Children whose parents are illegal immigrants or who lack legal status themselves face “uniformly negative” effects on their social development from early childhood until they become adults, according to a study by four researchers published Wednesday in the Harvard Educational Review.
The study concluded that more than five million children in the United States are “at risk of lower educational performance, economic stagnation, blocked mobility and ambiguous belonging” because they are growing up in immigrant families affected by illegal status.
The study is the first to pull together field research by social scientists nationwide to track the effects of a family’s illegal immigration status on children from birth until they graduate from college and start to navigate the job market. It covers immigrants from a variety of origins, including Latinos and Asians.
About 5.5 million children in this country have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant, according to an estimate by the Pew Hispanic Center. Among them, about one million children were brought here illegally by their parents, while about 4.5 million are United States citizens because they were born here. Read more...
During the last 50 years, the number of foreign born from Latin America and the Caribbean has increased rapidly, from less than 1 million in 1960 to 21.2 million in 2010. Currently, the foreign born from Latin America represent over half of the total foreign-born population. This brief discusses the size, place of birth, citizenship status, and geographic distribution of the foreign born from Latin America in the United States. It presents data on the foreign born from Latin America at the national and state levels based on the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS).
Here are some of the findings:
In 2000, 16.1 million foreign born from Latin America lived in the United States. Over the last 10 years, the foreign-born population from Latin America increased by 5.1 million, reaching 21.2 million in 2010.
The majority of the foreign born from Latin America were from Central America (70 percent), followed by the Caribbean (18 percent), and South America (13 percent). Mexico accounted for more than half (55 percent) of the foreign born from Latin America. El Salvador and Cuba each represented more than 5 percent.
Among the foreign born from the Caribbean, those born in Cuba (30 percent) and the Dominican Republic (24 percent) represented the largest proportion of all foreign born. Over three-fourths of all foreign born from Central America were born in Mexico (79 percent). Colombia represented the largest share of the foreign born from South America (23 percent).
Although the foreign born from Latin America were found across the country, most were concentrated in only a few states. In 2010, 26 percent (or 5.5 million) of the foreign born from Latin America lived in California, 14 percent (or 3.0 million) in Texas, 13 percent (or 2.8 million).
Central America represented more than half of the Latin American foreign born. The foreign born from Mexico represented about 9 out of 10 foreign born from Latin America in New Mexico, Arizona, and Idaho. The foreign born from the Caribbean represented about one-third of the Latin American foreign born in seven states. Two of these states—Florida (55 percent) and New York (49 percent)—each have Latin American foreign-born populations of 2 million or more.
In 2010, 32 percent of the foreignborn population from Latin America were naturalized citizens. The foreign-born population from Central America had the lowest percent naturalized of all regions of birth (24 percent). Of those born in the Caribbean, 54 percent were naturalized citizens. About 44 percent of the foreign born from South America were naturalized citizens.
Among the country-ofbirth groups shown, Jamaica (61 percent) and Cuba (56 percent) had the highest percent naturalized. By comparison, Mexico (23 percent) and Honduras (21 percent) were among the countries with the lowest percent naturalized.
Last week, my organization, NCLR (National Council of La Raza), along with The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Human Rights and the Asian American Justice Center, announced the suspension of our participation in the economic boycott of Arizona.
As was the case when NCLR initially announced our plans to join in boycotting the state in May 2010, we consulted with a wide variety of our partners, including our network of nonprofit Affiliate organizations across the country—13 of which are based in Arizona—and our sister civil rights institutions. The decision to boycott Arizona was not made lightly, and we end our participation now after meticulous consideration.
In particular, we were moved to act after receiving requests from Arizona’s elected officials, business leaders, union leaders, religious leaders, and NCLR Affiliates. They believe that this is the right time for NCLR to suspend its boycott activities and promote a more constructive debate around the issue of immigration. There is a concerted and growing effort in the state to foster civil and constructive dialogue—voices that represent a broader swath of Arizona than the brand of extremism that has tarnished the state. In light of the injunction against the SB 1070, and these growing efforts committed to charting a new course, we agreed to suspend our participation in the boycott.
Our opposition to racial profiling laws such as SB 1070 is unequivocal, and the work against them continues. The record has shown that such laws are destructive political wedges that undermine the social and economic fabric of the communities through which they are pushed. And because of that, we understand why other organizations and allies may choose to continue to boycott the state, and we respect that decision completely. For our part, we reserve the right to reinstate the boycott should SB 1070 be implemented, and in the meantime we will continue to work with and lend our support to local partners trying to get their state back on track.
Ultimately though, by pursuing this new course, we hope that we can play a role in bringing SB 1070 supporters and opponents together to find the common ground needed to advance sustainable solutions to fix our broken immigration system. We look forward to working together with all Arizonans—and Americans—of good will to seek real, lasting solutions that are consistent with our nation’s most fundamental values and principles.
Immigration Article of the Day: "Refugee and Displaced Women: 60 Years of Progress and Setbacks" by SUSAN MARTIN
"Refugee and Displaced Women: 60 Years of Progress and Setbacks" Amsterdam Law Forum, Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 72, 2011 SUSAN MARTIN, Georgetown University - Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service (SFS).
ABSTRACT: 2011 marks the anniversary of two important events in refugee protection. In 1951, the United Nations adopted the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Forty years later, in 1991, the Executive Committee of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) adopted Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women. Since 1991, there has been both progress and setbacks in providing equal and effective protection to both male and female refugees. The article concludes that the gap between rhetoric and reality for women and girls is still very large. Following a brief discussion of the demographic profile of refugees, the article discusses issues related to legal protection, physical security, and social and economic rights for refugee and displaced women. The article call for renewed efforts to implement fully the various legal instruments and guidelines that set out norms and standards of protection for refugees generally and women and girls specifically and to ensure that refugee and displaced women are able to participate actively in decisions that affect them and their families.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
ImmigrationProf regularly has referred to the Obama administration as pursuing an "enforcement now, enforcement forever" approach to immigration. The numbers bear us out.
Reuters now reports that "President Barack Obama . . . .has sent home more than 1 million illegal immigrants in 2 1/2 years — on pace to deport more in one term than George W. Bush did in two. The Obama administration had deported about 1.06 million as of Sept. 12, against 1.57 million in Bush's two full presidential terms."
The French-American Foundation-United States announces today the launch of its Immigration Journalism Fellowship and Award Program supported by a $200,000 grant from the Ford Foundation. This new program will support independent and responsible reportage on immigration issues by providing a select group of journalists with sizeable fellowships to produce innovative and in-depth work. The program will also include an annual award for best immigration journalism given by a jury of renowned media professionals, including Sylvie Kauffmann, Executive Editor of Le Monde, with the goal of bringing increased attention to this specific field of journalism. Application to the program is open to journalists of all nationalities with an interest in the issues surrounding immigration and integration. “Immigration is a heated topic in both the American and European media.\
Unfortunately, the media faces increasing economic challenges that weaken the institutional support that journalists need to pursue quality reporting on the topic,” said Antoine Treuille, President of the French-American Foundation in New York. “The ultimate goals of this program are to improve the coverage of immigration and integration issues, and better inform policy-makers, advocates and the general public.”
Click here for more information about how to apply for both of these initiatives.
From the Bookshelves: Elbert Parr Tuttle: Chief Jurist of the Civil Rights Revolution by Anne Emanuel
Elbert Parr Tuttle: Chief Jurist of the Civil Rights Revolution by Anne Emanuel The previously untold life story of a remarkable civil rights champion
This is the first—and the only authorized—biography of Elbert Parr Tuttle (1897–1996), the judge who led the federal court with jurisdiction over most of the Deep South through the most tumultuous years of the civil rights revolution. By the time Tuttle became chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, he had already led an exceptional life. He had cofounded a prestigious law firm, earned a Purple Heart in the battle for Okinawa in World War II, and led Republican Party efforts in the early 1950s to establish a viable presence in the South. But it was the intersection of Tuttle’s judicial career with the civil rights movement that thrust him onto history’s stage. When Tuttle assumed the mantle of chief judge in 1960, six years had passed since Brown v. Board of Education had been decided but little had changed for black southerners. In landmark cases relating to voter registration, school desegregation, access to public transportation, and other basic civil liberties, Tuttle’s determination to render justice and his swift, decisive rulings neutralized the delaying tactics of diehard segregationists—including voter registrars, school board members, and governors—who were determined to preserve Jim Crow laws throughout the South.
Author Anne Emanuel maintains that without the support of the federal courts of the Fifth Circuit, the promise of Brown might have gone unrealized. Moreover, without the leadership of Elbert Tuttle and the moral authority he commanded, the courts of the Fifth Circuit might not have met the challenge.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
Wednesday and Thursday, November 9-10, 2011
John Tishman Auditorium, 66 West 12th Street, NYC
The Center for Public Scholarship presents the 25th conference from the Social Research journal at The New School. Join us as experts and scholars discuss human rights as a mediating language for discussions about social justice and the global economy. How does a wealthy nation determine what they can do to alleviate global poverty? What are the ethical obligations and how can such assistance be mutually beneficial? What are the human rights responsibilities and obligations of international financial institutions and corporations? Where are the opportunities in economic policies and institutions to strengthen human rights policies around the world and improve social justice?