A RACIST BASIS FOR BEING ANTI-IMMIGRANT?

Nicholas Watt reports in the The Guardian that the British National Party, with its anti-immigration and anti-foreigner platform, will receive a big boost from having its leader, Nick Griffin, as a guest on BBC Question Time.

"The British National party will receive a pre-general election boost in the opinion polls, ministers fear, after more than 8 million people watched the far-right leader Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time on Thursday evening."

Nicholas Watt reports on Griffin's subsequent statements:

"In contrast with his emollient remarks to minority ethnic members of the Question Time audience, the BNP leader stridently condemned the decision to record the show in London.

""That audience was taken from a city that is no longer British," he said. "That was not my country any more.

""Why not come down and do it in Thurrock, do it in Stoke, do it in Burnley? Do it somewhere where there are still significant numbers of English and British people and they haven't been ethnically cleansed from their own country.""

Obviously, Griffin is accusing immigrants, especially those from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, of engaging in "ethnic cleansing." As if people of whatever race or ethnicity had no right to enter and live in Britain and be considered "British."

Griffin reminds me of Lou Dobbs of CNN here in the US who rants and rails against Latino immigrants. Underneath all the bluster and complaint, I get the idea that Dobbs' animus towards Latinos is really a prejudice against those of darker complexion than he or who speak a a native language other than English.

OBAMA CONTINUES SAME HARSH POLICY TOWARDS IMMIGRANTS

Why don't we see a change in immigration policy from the time of George W. Bush to the administration of Barack Obama? It seems like the harsh policy of Bush/Chertoff/Julie Myers is still in effect - raiding work places, finding undocumented workers, arresting them, deporting them.

Julia Preston writes in today's The New York Times about the continuation of policy with Janet Napolitano as head of the Homeland Security Department:

"The administration recently undertook audits of employee paperwork at hundreds of businesses, expanded a program to verify worker immigration status that has been widely criticized as flawed, bolstered a program of cooperation between federal and local law enforcement agencies, and rejected proposals for legally binding rules governing conditions in immigration detention centers.

"“We are expanding enforcement, but I think in the right way,” Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, said in an interview."

Why is Napolitano "expanding enforcement?" Undocumented immigrants have been locked up, separated from their children, forbidden to hold a job, deported to their original countries while their spouses and children become impoverished.

Instead of expanding enforcement Homeland Security needs to relax its iron fist and stop trying to deport hundreds and thousands. America needs to show some compassion and empathy to those undocumenteds who come to the U.S. to better the economic position of their families, to put bread on the table for their children.

Does Obama know what is happening? Does he approve of the "expanding enforcement?" Does he really want the policy of his administration to center on arrest, detention and deportation?

OBAMA'S PRO-IMMIGRATION POLICY IN DANGER

The New York Times runs an important and relevant editorial today, "Obama Flinches on Immigration."

A noted civil rights attorney and immigration advocate from California, Thomas Saenz, was going to be the next Assistant Attorney General for civil rights. However, after Saenz began drawing cries and howls from immigration opponents in Congress, Obama dumped Saenz for a less controversial choice, Thomas Perez, from Maryland. Here's another case where Barack Obama caved to the reactionary and conservative forces opposed to his progressive agenda.

Writes the editorial board of The New York Times:

"Mr. Saenz, the former top litigator in Los Angeles for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or Maldef, was privately offered the job in January. The floating of his name led to fierce outbursts from anti-immigrant groups and blogs, which detest him for being so good at what he does.

"He was a leader of the successful fight to block California’s Proposition 187, an unconstitutional effort to deny social services and schooling to illegal immigrants. He has defended Latino day laborers who were targets of misguided local crackdowns, from illegal police stings to unconstitutional anti-solicitation ordinances. An editorial in Investor’s Business Daily slimed Mr. Saenz by calling him “an open-borders extremist” and said Maldef wanted to give California back to Mexico.

"None of it was true, but it was apparently too much for the White House. Mr. Saenz was ditched in favor of Maryland’s labor secretary, Thomas Perez, who has a solid record but is not as closely tied to immigrant rights."

The history of the United States is one where anti-immigration forces attempt to keep out people with different languages, with different skin colors, from different racial backgrounds. It was not that long ago that the official policy of the U.S. was to ban any and all immigrants from Asia, especially the Chinese and Japanese. Today it is a movement against Latinos in general and Mexicans in particular. Some would deny immigrants health care for their families and education for their children because they are "illegals," as if it were okay to deny basic human rights because the parents lack "papers." Others like the American bigots of yesterday want to see all Mexicans returned to Mexico.

Obama had an excellent pro-immigration candidate in Thomas Saenz. Why he decided to desert him can only be guessed. But for whatever reason, the dumping of Saenz does Obama no credit.

ISRAEL, EGYPT VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS OF AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS

Human Rights Watch released a report highly critical of both Egypt and Israel for their treatment of immigrants coming from Africa, principally from Sudan and Somalia. Over 30 immigrants have been shot as they tried cross from Egypt into Israel, all by Egyptian border patrol guards. Israel has rounded up immigrants and forced them back into Egypt where they can look forward to being deported back to their home countries.

The BBC reports on the Human Rights Watch study:

"An international human rights lobby group has called on Egypt to stop shooting African migrants as they cross the country's border into Israel.

"Egyptian border guards have shot dead at least 32 African refugees and migrants since June 2007, Human Rights Watch says in a new 90-page report."

However, Israel is also criticized in the study. Reports the BBC:

"Police in Israel have detained about 200 Africans in Tel Aviv following the announcement of tough measures against illegal immigrants.

"A police spokesman said the detainees - mainly from Sudan, Eritrea and the Ivory Coast - who do not have refugee status would be deported.

"Human rights activists have criticised the detentions."

Ehud Olmert has ordered the tightening of border controls, reports the BBC:

"Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday instructed Israeli police to deport thousands of African asylum seekers who have entered Israel though the Egyptian border. He also ordered security officials to tighten control of the border with Egypt."

We see this wave of anti-immigration in Italy, Israel and, of course, in the United States. The whole question of immigration is based on individual human rights and dignity. Everyone should be able to go wherever he or she wants to improve or better one's economic position, provided that one is peaceful and does no bodily harm. But at its roots, the anti-immigrant movement distrusts the foreigner, his language and different skin color.

REPUBLICAN "VALUES" ARE MEAN, SELFISH, VINDICTIVE

BBC Radio had a report today from St. Paul and the Republican Convention. The BBC reporter was asking delegates why they are in fact Republicans. Most of them answered that it was the values of the party, such as family values, including marriage, anti-abortion, one man, one woman, and the sort. But there were other "values" as well: a strong military, self reliance, low taxes. Unspoken were still others : anti-immigrant, anti-Social Security, anti-government.

Speaking of immigration policy, the Republican Platform includes items like being against states granting undocumented workers a drivers license. Also included a provision against amnesty, a wish for more speedy and effective deportations and a English-as-the-official-language plank.

All in all, the "values' enunciated by the Republicans are not my values. That's why I am a Democrat.

Republicans like to make much about family values but then these turn out to be discrimination against those who have non-traditional families. They talk about the sanctity of life from the moment of conception, but yet have no qualms dropping bombs on the "enemy" that kill hundreds of children. They believe the family is sacred yet they are quick to deport the father of an immigrant family because he came here looking for a better life for his family, thus breaking up that family and separating parents from children.

Republicans believe in dismantling Social Security Retirement Income program because they say each person should be in charge of his own retirement savings. But what happens to the people who wind up without any personal savings? No answer from Republican values for this one.

Republicans say there is too much government, yet there are intractable problems of society that only government can handle. Like helping people caught in a natural disaster such as a hurricane. Or regulating food safety. Or building infrastructure. Or providing retirement income based on a person's working history and contributions.

No, Republican "values" are not my values. Rather they reflect who Republicans are and what they stand for: extremist views, mean, vindictive, petty and militaristic.

SECOND POST ON SARAH PALIN TODAY - WE DON'T KNOW HER OPINIONS ON MAJOR ISSUES

I posted today about Sarah Palin's lack of qualifications to be vice president. Some may think my criticisms unfair and sexist, but I had the same qualms about George W. and look what happened. The electorate chose someone "likeable" (Bush that bully!) over competent and knowledgeable Al Gore. I guess it is possible that the electorate will find Palin acceptable and deserving to be elected, but I certainly do not, not at this time. And I fear the same disaster in foreign and domestic policy, the same melt down, the same disregard for Constitutional protections if Palin gets in as what happened when Americans elected Bush and Cheney.

The electorate needs to know Palin's opinions. Does anyone know how she feels about Iran? Or about Russia? (No it is not enough to say that Palin is governor of Alaska which is the state nearest to Russia). How would she get American troops out of Iraq? What is her attitude towards Palestinians? Towards Israel and its new settlements?

And on the domestic front, what are her plans for Social Security? Does she want to privatize it the way that McCain and Bush propose? And what about domestic eavesdropping without FISA court approval? And what does she think about immigration and ICE's treatment of immigrants caught up in those dreadful raids?

Does she believe in waterboarding or other "enhanced interrogation methods?" How does she feel about depriving Guantanamo prisoners of Constitutional rights such as habeas corpus or the right to counsel? Does she believe in the use of force as the main tool for American diplomacy? Does she agree with Bush and Cheney that military force makes right? Does she approve of the Bush doctrine on pre-emptive war?

These are some of the things no one knows yet about Sarah Palin.

I don't think that people whether male or female are going to vote for her without knowing where she stands. So far, she seems not to have expressed many opinions other than drill for more oil.

I still think this selection of Palin shows how desperate McCain must be about winning the forthcoming election.

STOP HARASSING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

There were at least three stories in today's The New York Times, not counting the NYT editorial, on immigration policy.

Julia Preston reports on the fearful state of many people in Waukegan who are either undocumented immigrants themselves or citizen relatives of such immigrants. It is not a happy picture. What must it be to live in a constant state of fear? Fear that you will be stopped for a traffic violation and then turned over to the immigration authorities at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Fear that the ICE police will raid your work place and discover you are "illegal." Fear if you are an eight-year-old that your father or mother will not come home after work because they have been placed "in deportation proceedings." Put all this fear in context by contrasting it with the harsh and uncaring attitude of some of those children of immigrants who came to the U.S. long ago who now want to see all Mexicans and Latinos evicted and deported.

Preston quotes the mayor of Waukegan on his mean and intolerant views toward immigrants:

"“Do I believe in closing the borders?” Mr. Hyde said. “Do I believe in putting troops down there? You bet your life. Illegal is illegal, and that’s the end of the conversation, really.”"

Then there is the report by Diane Cardwell on another mayor's more realistic approach, Michael Bloomberg of New York City. Bloomberg considers immigrants part of the success of New York City.

“Take a look behind me,” Mr. Bloomberg said, referring to the collection of largely immigrant families he had invited to sit onstage. “This is what makes America great,” he added, holding his arms aloft, his voice rising. “This is New York City. This is freedom. This is compassion and democracy and opportunity.”

"Indeed, Mr. Bloomberg practically began his address by jabbing a sly elbow toward some of the presidential candidates, criticizing those who had suddenly “embraced xenophobia.”

“Keeping New York City and America at the front of the pack begins with an openness to new energy, meaning immigration, and new ideas, meaning innovation,” he said. “That’s how I built my business, and that’s the approach we’ve brought to a city government that was insular and provincial, and married to the conventional.”

Then the NYT opined in its lead editorial that Democratic candidates need to come out with proposals on immigration reform that are realistic and humane towards the 12 million or so of immigrants lacking documents.

"Except for Mr. McCain, the Republican candidates have skirted the issue or, worse, embraced the restrictionist approach known as “attrition.” That amounts to relentlessly tightening the screws in workplaces and homes until illegal immigrants magically, voluntarily disappear.

"Making it work would require far more government intrusion into daily lives, with exponential increases in workplace raids and deportations. It would mean constant ID checks for everyone — citizens, too — with immigration police at the federal, state and local levels. It would mean enlisting bureaucrats and snoops to keep an eye on landlords, renters, laborers, loiterers and everyone who uses government services or gets sick.

"Worst of all, it’s weak on law and order. It is a free pass to the violent criminals we urgently need to hunt down and deport. Attrition means waiting until we stumble across bad people hiding in the vast illegal immigrant haystack. Comprehensive reform, by bringing the undocumented out of the shadows, shrinks the haystack.

"Fred Thompson has been perhaps the most vocal defender of attrition. But on Wednesday, the newly restrictionist Mike Huckabee one-upped him by signing the “No Amnesty” pledge of the nativist group NumbersUSA, formally committing to the principle that all 12 million illegal immigrants must be expelled. Americans, naturally, have no earthly idea how he would accomplish that."

The NYT editorial goes on to criticize Democrats too, in their case for approaching immigration reform from too timorous a position. The Democrats all show "eggshell timidity" on immigration:
"Now, attrition is threatening to become a bipartisan disaster. The SAVE Act, an enforcement-only bill, was introduced last year by a Democrat, Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina, and the notoriously restrictionist Republicans Brian Bilbray and Tom Tancredo. It is gaining sponsors.

"The Republican stance on immigration leaves an opening that opponents could drive a truck through. The Democratic candidates have the better position but approach the subject with eggshell timidity. They should stand up for a real debate, and a better country, by forcefully challenging the Republicans on this issue."

STOP WHOLESALE DEPORTATION OF LATINOS WITHOUT DOCUMENTS

Julie Myers as head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) needs to back off on her quest to deport Mexican and Latino undocumented immigrants. Myers is the niece of Gen. Myers, former head of the Joint Chiefs. Julia Preston reports in today's The New York Times that Myers is aiming to deport some 200,000 undocumenteds for year 2008.

In contrast to mean Ms. Myers, I believe everyone has a right to go anywhere and cross any border in his/her desire to put bread on the table. Therefore, I want open borders, the end of ICE, the removal of the hated fences and walls along the U.S.-Mexican frontier and, above all, respect for our Latin American neighbors who immigrate to the United States.

TANCREDO, FULL OF VENOM FOR IMMIGRANTS, QUITS THE RACE AND GIVES SUPPORT TO MITT ROMNEY

There's good news about Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. He has decided to quit trying to secure the Republican presidential nomination. Tancredo never had a chance. But at least we won't need to endure more racial and ethnic hatred spewing forth from his mouth.

Tancredo is throwing his support to Mitt Romney, another immigrant basher. Chris Cillizza blogs for The Washington Post:

"Tancredo's biggest impact on the field came as he bowed out of a contest that he never had any real chance of winning. Tancredo had made tough stand on immigration the centerpiece and organizing principle of his campaign, and his endorsement of Romney could prove a powerful validator of the former governor's bona fides on the issue."

Tancredo had but one issue - animus towards foreign-speaking immigrants of any sort. He would send them all back in the interests of maintaining a pure and anglicized culture in the U.S.

Tancredo seems to have forgotten the origins of his last name. His parents or grandparents were no doubt immigrants from Italy. As a kid, he surely must have felt sting from the anti-Italian sentiments among the Irish and the Wasps and all the others. I wonder if he ever heard other kids call Italians racial or ethnic slur names.

You would think, given his background, Tancredo, of all people, would be the most sympathetic to the ordeals and hardships faced by immigrants, especially Spanish-speaking Mexicans, when they try to make a living for their families here in the U.S. After all, his Italian forebears had to put up with the same antipathies, maybe even worse, now confronting Latinos and other non-English speaking immigrants arriving in America.

Fortunately, most Americans remember their immigrant roots and are more tolerant and sympathetic to the new arrivals than a Tom Tancredo or a Lou Dobbs. Because we are losing a voice exacerbating racial and ethnic conflict, I am happy Tancredo has dropped out.

TANCREDO WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN UNIVISION'S REPUBLICAN DEBATE BECAUSE IT IS BROADCAST IN SPANISH

Tom Tancredo says he will not participate in today's Republican debate on Univision because it is in Spanish and he is against bilingualism here in the United States.

Wait! I thought we want our children to learn foreign languages? Isn't that why we spend dollars on education budgets to provide foreign language teachers and foreign language courses? Why is Tancredo against having a Republican debate in Spanish?

I thought he was against immigration in general. I did not know he was really deep down against Americans speaking a foreign language. Tom Tancredo, whose name reveals he is of Italian ancestry is against people speaking and using Spanish? Does that mean he would not be against immigration if it concerned only those immigrants who speak English? How about if they did not have swarthy skins but complexions as white as snow?

Guess what? I bet those who now endorse Tancredo's racist and ethnic and language biases would not have let Tancredo's parent or grandparents into the country back then.

ICE ARRESTS & DEPORTS ELVIRA ARRELLANO, MOTHER WHO LIVED ONE YEAR IN CHICAGO CHURCH SANCTUARY

Doesn't ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) have anything better to do than chase after and arrest Elvira Arrellano, the mother of the six-year old, who has spent the last year in a church sanctuary in Chicago? Apparently not. The immmigration police no doubt have arrested all the criminals and felons, and so now they devote their time to picking up mothers who simply want to live in peace and provide food for their families.

Writes the BBC:

"A Mexican woman whose fight to stay in the US with her US-born son attracted national attention has been sent back to Mexico as an illegal immigrant. Elvira Arellano was arrested in Los Angeles on Sunday afternoon and deported several hours later . . . "

"She became a prominent figure after taking refuge in a Chicago church for a year to avoid being separated from eight-year-old Saul, a US citizen . . .

"Ms Arellano took refuge in the Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago last August, defying a deportation order.

"But this weekend she left the church to travel to Los Angeles to back calls for immigration reform.

"On Saturday, Ms Arellano had said she was not afraid of being arrested by US immigration officials.

""From the time I took sanctuary the possibility has existed that they arrest me in the place and time they want," she said.

""I only have two choices. I either go to my country, Mexico, or stay and keep fighting. I decided to stay and fight.""

STOP MEAN AND HARSH CRACK DOWN ON UNDOCUMENTED LATINOS!

Bush's endorsement of "his administration's" half-baked plan to "crack down" on immigration enforcement shows how mean and how shallow he and his cronies are. Since "congress" did not pass his lousy immigration bill, Bush is now showing his vindictive and irrational mind. If "congress" does not act, then, by gosh, Bush will.

But wait! By "congress," Bush is trying to falsely imply that it was the fault of Democrats in congress. Actually, it is the Democrats who are in favor of providing a pathway to citizenship and legality to some 12 million undocumented immigrants. The ones who torpedoed any hope of compromise on immigration reform were the Republicans, such as that racist Tom Tancredo (R. - Col.) who insist that the illegality of crossing the border without proper documents should be punished by death, or at least by deportation, something close to the death penalty.

Bush's unfortunate and ill-conceived plan to crack down on mostly Latinos probably emanates from the small mind of Julie Myers, head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), who just happens to be niece of the former General Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs several years ago and toady to Don Rumsfeld. Talk about nepotism! And how about Michael Chertoff, former federal appellate judge and now secretary of Homeland Security, signing off on it? What does that say about the character of those who are running the government? Why can't they give the little guy a break? The United States, land of the free and home of the brave, sees fit to force the firing of people who have done nothing more than cross the border without documents in order to put bread on the table for their families. How mean is that?

The Washington Post in a story by N.C. Aizenman this morning reports that:

"Particularly controversial are new guidelines for employers who receive a "no-match" letter from the Social Security Administration informing them that 10 or more of their employees have Social Security numbers that do not correspond with government records.

"The administration issues about 130,000 no-match letters a year. Many are the result of innocent mistakes -- a worker miswrote his Social Security number on a form, for example, or failed to notify the government of her new, married name. . ."

"The impact on immigrant-dependent industries such as construction and agriculture -- whose workforce is at least two-thirds illegal -- would be "devastating," predicted Craig Regelbrugge, government relations director for the American Nursery & Landscape Association.

"There's no replacement workforce," he said. "This will give people a set of bad choices: Either they terminate their workers, or they take a deep breath and duck and hope the law doesn't catch up with them. Or, for a lot of people, they're just going to make the decision to get out of the business.""

FOR OPEN BORDERS AND AGAINST IMMIGRATION BILL

I am against the Senate immigration bill S.1348, not because it confers amnesty, but because it is too harsh on immigrants and immigration. I want open borders for the United States that allow anybody to come and go, freely without restriction, for peaceful purposes. In contrast, S.1348 wants heightened border patrol and elimination of open borders.

I had lunch yesterday with a law school classmate who does lots of immigration work. Even he was arguing against open borders, claiming that a nation's sovereignty would depend on maintaining border control, as to who can and who cannot enter the country. For me, open borders has no effect on whether or not a state is "sovereign." For example, each one of the 50 states is a sovereign, yet each state must maintain open borders to anyone living and residing in another state. No, control of immigration does not define whether a state or country is "sovereign."

My point to him was that the United States has had de facto "open borders" along the Mexican-American frontier, and that it has worked rather well. "Open borders" has been the reason why we have so many Latino and other workers who have contributed so much to the U.S. economy and social fabric.

So why does the right want "closed borders?" It could not be because some undocumented Mexican poses a security threat. For one thing, there has not been one Mexican who has been shown to be a jihadist or member of Al Qaeda. Nor do we have any evidence whatsoever that Latinos are entering the United States with bombs.

The only reason I can think of is that the people screaming for more border security are anti-Latino and anti-Spanish-speaking. After all, there is no clamor for a 20-foot wall along the Canadian border. If these nativists really were concerned with control of the border, they should be concerned about the open spaces along the northern frontier with Canada. But they are not. They don't seem to mind Canadians who speak English sneaking across. What bothers them are dark-skinned Mexicans and other Latinos who speak Spanish rather than English.

I favor open borders and citizenship for any person who migrates to the United States for peaceful purposes. Already the 12 million undocumented immigrants have contributed mightily to the U.S. economy by their taxes and Social Security contributions, notwithstanding that they will never reap the benefits of social security retirement income and other American privileges and immunities.

AMNESTY FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

The opponents of immigration say that they don't want amnesty. I WANT AMNESTY. The 12 million undocumented workers currently in the U.S. (please don't call them "illegal aliens") have come to the U.S. to seek work and to make a better life for the family children. Let's by a simple act of Congress according amnesty bring them into the open by giving them a chance to obtain permanent legal residency and citizenship if that's what they want.

But consider this article today on The New York Times web page by reporter Julia Preston.

"The undoing of the immigration bill in the Senate this week had many players, but none more effective than angry voters like Monique Thibodeaux, who joined a nationwide campaign to derail it.

"Mrs. Thibodeaux, an office manager at a towing company here in suburban Detroit, became politically active as she never had before. Guided by conservative Internet organizations, she made calls and sent e-mail messages to senators across the country and pushed her friends to do the same.

"“These people came in the wrong way, so they don’t belong here, period,” Mrs. Thibodeaux, a Republican, said of some 12 million illegal immigrants who would have been granted a path to citizenship under the Senate bill.

"“In my heart I knew it was wrong for our country,” she said of the measure."

I too hated the Senate Bill 1348 because it was harsh and punitive towards immigrants. I don't want to build a hated wall along the U.S. Mexican frontier. I don't want to penalize applicant immigrants with fines and long waits. I don't want to create a class of underclass temporary workers who would be deprived of any rights to petition for residency or citizenship. I therefore want S. 1348 to die once and for all.

"Here in Michigan, speaking at her neatly maintained home under hickory trees in Washington, a town north of Detroit that has been battered by auto company layoffs, Mrs. Thibodeaux said the immigration bill worried her like no other political issue. She believed it would reward undeserving immigrants who do not speak English and would soon become a burden on public services that Americans need in a time of economic uncertainty."

But I am also against "mean" Republicans like Mrs. Thibodeaux as reported in The NY Times piece. I suspect these people are not so much anti-immigrant as anti-Latino-immigrant. Just because an immigrant speaks Spanish, it seems the Republicans can generate a loud and racist group to lobby against giving immigrants any rights.

"Mrs. Thibodeaux said she favored orderly legal immigration, but did not think illegal immigrants should benefit from American generosity.

"“I have a very hard time with illegal,” she said. She proposes that all illegal immigrants be given a 90-day period to leave voluntarily. After that, immigration agents, local police and the National Guard, if necessary, should be mobilized to deport them, she said."

People like Mrs. Thibodeaux represent everything that's small and mean and racist about those who would so meanly deport 12 million undocumenteds and their families.

GOOD NEWS, IMMIGRATION BILL FALLS IN SENATE

Good news, the immigration bill stalled last night in the Senate, probably never to be revived in this Congress. Why good news?

Because the bill was excessively harsh on immigrants, especially on Latinos and Mexicans. It would make the 12 million undocumented workers currently jump through unreasonable hoops to stay in the United States. It would make them pay at a minimum $5,000 to apply for permanent residency. Heads of households would need to return to their country of origin to make application. It would complete the hated wall between the U.S. and Mexico, much like the wall in Berlin and Israel. It would increase criminal penalties for those immigrants in the future who tried to come to the U.S. to seek work and to support their families. It would create an underclass of "temporary workers" who would be disenfranchised from any benefits of citizenship and who would be required to return home after every work period of two years.

This was a bad bill. Bad for Latino immigrants. Bad for families. Bad for Americans' sense of their own inherent generosity and magnanimity towards immigration.

DEFEAT THE FLAWED IMMIGRATION BILL

I believe everyone should have the right to go anywhere he wants to find a job and build a decent life. I don't believe in borders. No country should have the right to physically prevent a person from entering and leaving freely.

But I am totally against the new immigration bill. For one thing, it proposes building more walls between the U.S. and Mexico. The United States is going to join Israel and East Germany in constructing a wall to keep people out and in some cases in. This would be a wall, hated by those on the other side, and its symbolism of U.S. exceptionalism cannot be missed by the millions of people in South and Latin America who would interpret it as American disdain of those who speak another language or who have darker skin.

Secondly, the immigration bill requires that people in the U.S. without documents jump through nigh impossible hoops to obtain permanent residency and a "green card." They must pay fines, the head of household must return to his/her country of origin to make the initial application, and they must wait too long a time for the process to come to fruition.

Thirdly, the bill allows for temporary guest workers, but after every period of two years, the worker must return to his country and wait one full year before returning and securing another temporary work permit. Furthermore six years of working in the U.S. is the maximum. This plan is unworkable. If a person works for six years in the U.S., it would be cruel to say that he/she could never return. The result would be to raise up an inferior class of workers who have little rights and little hope of acquiring property or possessions in the United States.

For all of these reasons, I hope congress defeats this defective attempt at immigration reform.

IRAN LIKE MANY IN THE U.S. TRIES TO EXPEL UNDOCUMENTEDS

BBC News on the radio reported this morning that Iran is expelling thousands of "undocumented" Afghanis who live and work in Iranian towns along Iran's eastern border with Afghansitan. Here is the BBC link.

How similar to what many U.S. politicians and their mean followers would like to do with Mexicans and other undocumenteds! The same inflexible feelings of antipathy towards the foreigner, the same xenophobia, the same lack of respect for a different language and culture, exists in Iran as it does in the United States.

The United States has always been the refuge for immigrants, a place of opportunity where if you worked hard you could make it. The same people here in the U.S. who won't give undocumented Latinos and others a chance to find work and feed their families are the very same children of immigrants who came here but a generation or two ago.

REJECT THE CURRENT IMMIGRATION AGREEMENT

The New York Times has an editorial today on the recent immigration deal arrived at in the Senate that has Bush's approval.

I fully agree with the NYT's position:

"It is the nation’s duty to welcome immigrants, to treat them decently and give them the opportunity to assimilate. But if it does so according to the outlines of the deal being debated this week, the change will come at too high a price: The radical repudiation of generations of immigration policy, the weakening of families and the creation of a system of modern peonage within our borders."

However, I must be even more pessimistic about the current agreement. I think it is unworkable because it contains a requirement that heads of households engage in a "touchback," i.e., returning to their countries of origin and making official application there for permanent residency. The New York Times calls this provision "foolish." I believe hardly any head of household will do this, because 1) it will separate them from their families for at least a year, maybe two or three, in the process of waiting for their applications to be processed; and 2) people will be afraid that once they leave the U.S., the law will change and they will never be allowed back.

The New York Times talks about the "awful" rules on temporary workers:

"The agreement fails most dismally in its temporary worker program. “Temporary means temporary” has been a Republican mantra, motivated by the thinly disguised impulse to limit the number of workers, Latinos mostly, doing the jobs Americans find most distasteful. The deal calls for the creation of a new underclass that could work for two years at a time, six at the most, but never put down roots. Immigrants who come here under that system — who play by its rules, work hard and gain promotions, respect and job skills — should be allowed to stay if they wish. But this deal closes the door. It offers a way in but no way up, a shameful repudiation of American tradition that will encourage exploitation — and more illegal immigration."

This agreement will spawn a permanent class of subsistence laborers who will work only in dead-end jobs and have no economic security or hope to better their lives. To say that a worker may work for only two years and then either go back or apply for another period of two years, with a maximum of six, is wrong and will create huge social upheaval for the laborers. What does a worker do after his term of six years in the United States has been used up? I doubt that such workers will want to go back permanently to their home countries. They will stay in the U.S. one way or other.

This is a bad immigration package. The Congress should reject it or change it. Bush is so eager for anything which will cause his "legacy" to look good that he will sign any immigration bill. But apart from preventing Bush any credit, the terms are on balance anti-immigrant. Congress should let this one go, and wait till the country has a Democratic president in the White House who will take a more principled stand than Bush in protecting immigrant rights.

LATINOS MARCH FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Yesterday, most major cities had marches by Latinos and other immigrants, many undocumented, for a saner U.S. immigration policy. I saw one sign, "JUSTICIA PARA TODOS." Or JUSTICE FOR ALL. By "justice," the marchers mean they want the U.S. authorities to accord them human dignity, respect and basic human rights. Undocumented immigrants want to live their lives in peaceful quiet, without having to live in fear at every moment that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will bust into their homes at night, take their spouses away to some jail far away, and deport them. Undocumented immigrants want their children to grow up without the recurrent nightmares that their parents will disappear into ICE's prisons.

A just immigration policy should recognize that human beings have a right to go where they want, no matter what or where the artificial borders. Every person has a right to seek a job by which he/she can put food on the table. Every person has a right to provide for his/her family. A just and sane immigration policy will recognize these human rights and allow unrestricted access to our country to anyone with peaceful intentions.

One last point. I hear the derogatory term used by ICE officials and others, "illegal aliens." Immigrants without documents are not "aliens." They are human beings, made of flesh and blood. Are they considered by some to be "aliens" because they speak Spanish instead of English? I thought American society wanted to include people with differing language skills. Consider Switzerland where most educated people speak fluent German, Italian, French and English. We send our children to school to learn a foreign language, such as Spanish, then we consider those who actually are fluent in Spanish to be "aliens?" Furthermore we hear people call immigrants "illegal." Unless you are a lawyer or a judge, I suggest that we drop this term. How does a person know that some other person is "illegal?" "Legality" is a matter for courts and for lawyers, not for non-legally trained persons to judge.