Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Transition Adviser Peter Thiel Could Directly Profit From Mass Deportations

Transition Adviser Peter Thiel Could Directly Profit From Mass Deportations

Building a super net of information sharing.

Miles Marcharon en Los Angeles Contra la Politica de Trump

LOS ÁNGELES, California.- Miles de personas marcharon este domingo por las calles de Los Ángeles para festejar el ‘Día Internacional del Migrante’ y mandar nuevamente un mensaje de unidad frente a las políticas de deportaciones masivas que se prevé llevará a cabo el próximo gobierno de EE.UU. que presidido por Donald Trump.
Bajo el lema ‘California sin miedo y unida’, legisladores estatales, políticos locales, así como representantes sindicales y organizaciones comunitarias y religiosas se manifestaron pacíficamente durante unas horas por el centro urbano hasta llegar al ayuntamiento de la ciudad, donde se reiteraron las promesas de más protestas en 2017.
"Las declaraciones nefastas del presidente electo sobre las deportaciones masivas han hecho que mucha gente trabajadora tenga preocupación, por eso tenemos que salir y decir que no vamos a dejar que esto pase" dijo a EFE el presidente pro tempore del Senado de California, Kevin de León.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Trump Appoints Another Anti Immigrant Advisor

IMMIGRATION HARDLINER GETS POLICY POST: President-elect Trump appointed immigration hardliner Stephen Miller his senior policy adviser Tuesday. Miller handled national policy issues for the Trump campaign and, before that, was communication director for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Trump's nominee for attorney general. In a June profile for POLITICO Magazine, Julia Ioffe called him "The Believer" and observed that he joined Trump's campaign at an opportune time. "He's deeply connected to some of the most powerful insurgent threads in the Washington GOP, most notably Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions and the Breitbart media machine," Ioffe wrote. "As an aide on Capitol Hill, he was a behind-the-scenes architect of the successful effort to kill comprehensive immigration reform in 2014." A former Senate colleague of Miller's told Ioffe that Miller's hawkish views on immigration derive from his upbringing in California, which he saw flip from red to blue as the immigrant population increased.
From Politico, Morning 

Presidente Trump, Mexico’s Worst Nightmare

Presidente Trump, Mexico’s Worst Nightmare

Tuesday, December 06, 2016

Fighting Back Against the White Revolt of 2016

Bill Fletcher, Jr. and Bob Wing

   November 28, 2016
Verso Press
On the left and within progressive movements there were two immediate responses to Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential elections. First, shock, frequently accompanied by despair. How could an openly racist, misogynist authoritarian — personally unstable to boot — be elected president? Second, anger with the Democrats for the sort of campaign that they waged.At that point, however, a division emerged around a third point: what, we asked, was the source of Trump’s victory? And, even more important, what are the strategic implications?
It is important to approach any examination of the November election with a degree of nuance. As widely noted, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by what now appears to be at least two million votes. The Libertarian and Green Parties received far more votes than the margin of victory in no less than eleven states, including Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
This election was decided by a razor-thin margin due to the undemocratic Electoral College.
Approximately 55% of eligible voters went to the polls, down from both 2008 (61.6%) and 2012 (58.6%). Trump, then, actually received around 25% of eligible votes. This figure of 25% is quite significant because it appears to be that percentage of the electorate that has, for at least a decade, been fairly consistently reactionary.
Senator Bernie Sanders and several other commentators have attributed most of Trump’s success to the fact that he played to allegedly legitimate concerns of the masses. We disagree quite strongly. The vast majority of the Trump vote was the Republican base. These are the voters who have long adamantly opposed the Obama agenda from a staunchly rightwing perspective and, for that matter oppose almost all progressive causes. In various opinion polls what is notable is that for this segment of the electorate, terrorism and immigration are a top concern. It is also worth noting that, at least during the primaries, Trump’s base had a median income above both the national median and the median for both Sanders and Clinton voters.
So, while it is true that Trump received 14% more votes from white people with less than a college education than did Romney, and 10% fewer from whites with a college degree, Trump voters were not mainly poor and unemployed. As Mike Davis points out in a recent blog post, there was no massive defection of white working class voters to Trump. [http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2948-not-a-revolution-yet] [1] In fact, Clinton won the majority of voters earning under $30,000 (53% to 41%) and voters under $50,000 (51% to 42%). These figures are critical to keep in mind when commentators describe the Trump victory as a working class vote. How are they defining “working class”?
Moreover, it is never to be forgotten that Hitler and Mussolini had large support in the working class. The full Nazi party name was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Mussolini was previously a top leader of the powerful left wing of the massive Italian Socialist Party. Even had November 8th been a working class revolt—which it was NOT—that could not be looked at in isolation from its politics and color.
Yet, Trump voters as a whole were overwhelmingly white, and herein lies the discussion that truly needs to happen.

Monday, December 05, 2016

Statement of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe - Pipeline Blocked

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s Statement on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Decision to Not Grant Easement

Portside Date: 
December 4, 2016
Dave Archambault II
Date of Source: 
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
Cannon Ball, N.D.- The department of the Army will not approve an easement that will allow the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe. The following statement was released by Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault II.
"Today, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will not be granting the easement to cross Lake Oahe for the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline. Instead, the Corps will be undertaking an environmental impact statement to look at possible alternative routes. We wholeheartedly support the decision of the administration and commend with the utmost gratitude the courage it took on the part of President Obama, the Army Corps, the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior to take steps to correct the course of history and to do the right thing.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and all of Indian Country will be forever grateful to the Obama Administration for this historic decision.
We want to thank everyone who played a role in advocating for this cause. We thank the tribal youth who initiated this movement. We thank the millions of people around the globe who expressed support for our cause. We thank the thousands of people who came to the camps to support us, and the tens of thousands who donated time, talent, and money to our efforts to stand against this pipeline in the name of protecting our water. We especially thank all of the other tribal nations and jurisdictions who stood in solidarity with us, and we stand ready to stand with you if and when your people are in need.
Throughout this effort I have stressed the importance of acting at all times in a peaceful and prayerful manner - and that is how we will respond to this decision. With this decision we look forward to being able to return home and spend the winter with our families and loved ones, many of whom have sacrificed as well. We look forward to celebrating in wopila, in thanks, in the coming days.
We hope that Kelcey Warren, Governor Dalrymple, and the incoming Trump administration respect this decision and understand the complex process that led us to this point. When it comes to infrastructure development in Indian Country and with respect to treaty lands, we must strive to work together to reach decisions that reflect the multifaceted considerations of tribes.
Treaties are paramount law and must be respected, and we welcome dialogue on how to continue to honor that moving forward. We are not opposed to energy independence, economic development, or national security concerns but we must ensure that these decisions are made with the considerations of our Indigenous peoples.
To our local law enforcement, I hope that we can work together to heal our relationship as we all work to protect the lives and safety of our people. I recognize the extreme stress that the situation caused and look forward to a future that reflects more mutual understanding and respect.
Again, we are deeply appreciative that the Obama Administration took the time and effort to genuinely consider the broad spectrum of tribal concerns. In a system that has continuously been stacked against us from every angle, it took tremendous courage to take a new approach to our nation-to-nation relationship, and we will be forever grateful.
Learn more about the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe at standwithstandingrock.net [1]. For incremental updates please follow our Facebook page at Standing Rock Sioux Tribe or follow us on Twitter @standingrockst.

The System IS Rigged!—The Electoral College and the 2016 Election | Portside

The System IS Rigged!—The Electoral College and the 2016 Election | Portside

Slave holding and the Electoral College.  Bob Wing, Bill Fletcher Jr.

Sunday, December 04, 2016

California Legislature to Protect Undocumented Immigrants

New York Times.
LOS ANGELES — Top Democratic lawmakers in California are moving to enact sweeping legislation to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation, the first sign of what they say will be an effort to resist immigration policies championed by President-elect Donald J. Trump.

The measures, which will be introduced Monday, would provide free legal help to undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings, offer more assistance in criminal court, and further limit local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration agents. The measures contrast sharply with the kind of policies that Mr. Trump pressed on the campaign trail.

“Throughout the presidential campaign and since, the president-elect has made many troubling statements that run counter to the principles that define California today,” said Kevin de León, the Senate president pro tempore, who is backing the package. “There is no greater policy area than immigration where the comments run headlong to the values we share as Californians.”

The legislation suggests the level of opposition Mr. Trump may face in California, a state where 40 percent of the population is Latino. The leaders of both chambers of the Legislature are Latino, as is the state’s attorney general-designee, Xavier Becerra. Mr. de León said that pushing immigration measures would be a priority of the Legislature.

The bills are likely to pass, as both the chambers of California’s Legislature, as well as the governor’s office, are controlled by Democrats. The measures are the latest in a long line of immigrant-friendly policies passed by the Legislature, whose members include a number of immigrants and the children of immigrants. The state already offers in-state college tuition rates and driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants.

Thursday, December 01, 2016

The Coming Immigration Wars: How can communities resist Trump's Immigration Actions ?

Maria Elena Durazo knows about immigrant workers, labor and civil rights. She has been the hospitality union UNITE HERE’s General Vice President for Immigration, Civil Rights and Diversity since 2014. Before that she was the first woman executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, which represents 600,000 workers, many of whom are immigrants and Latinos. She became a force for labor and living standards in the nation’s second-largest city—and a thought-leader for the rest of the nation.
When she was growing up, Durazo’s farm-worker family picked crops up and down the West Coast. Recalling that time, she told film maker Jesús Treviño, “As migrant farm workers, my dad would load us up on a flatbed truck and we would go from town to town and pick whatever crop was coming up. I think of my dad when he had to negotiate with contratistas [contractors]. I knew we worked so hard and the contratistas were chiseling us down to pennies. What was pennies to them meant food on the table for us.”
Durazo spoke with Capital & Main about the threats to working people and immigrants from a new Trump administration—and how to fight back.

About This Series

Capital & Main: Let’s begin with the Big Question: What do you see as the next battle fronts for labor and immigration — what needs defending?
Maria Elena Durazo: There is a great degree of worry about Trump giving permission to do harm in our communities, to immigrant families and immigrant neighborhoods–permission for people to attack, to harass kids, adults.
Our job in the labor movement is to create safe-work places. Here in Los Angeles, and in a number of cities, officials are standing up and saying we’re not going to allow our local police to cooperate with ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.] Our schools are saying we’re not going to allow ICE to come in.
Families have an earthquake plan. Who do you call? How do you react? How do we protect ourselves? That’s the very first level, and we have to give confidence to our communities. We know how to be safe. Let’s remember that and do that stuff right away.
The president-elect has said he intends to cut federal funds to cities that don’t collaborate with federal authorities on immigration policies. Local municipalities are saying no—Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has staked out his position–but what happens? Los Angeles could lose $500 million this fiscal year.
Remember the threats around apartheid? There were threats that pension funds in cities that divested from South Africa would be breaking the law…threats of lawsuits. Then divestment happened across the board. But it took a few to start it, to have the courage to say we’re not going to be threatened that way.
Some people called President Obama the “deporter-in-chief”—news reports cite 2.4 million “removals” during his administration. Is that title fair? 
He certainly dramatically increased the number of border patrol agents. We in the labor and immigrant rights movement had big clashes with President Obama. He did try to do a version of [having] local law enforcement cooperate with ICE. We fought that.
At first he didn’t agree with giving deferred action to young people. [DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — the Dreamers.] We pushed back, and he eventually agreed with it. He tried very hard to get a complete overhaul of the immigration laws and immigration system. He tried in his way. We certainly pushed in our way. We got as far as bipartisan Senate approval of a piece of legislation.
Other Republicans were adamant about blocking him at every single step. He only got as far as the enforcement part of it, which is why he was given the title. But other than DACA, he was never able to get the other pieces of legislative immigration reform.
What lies ahead for the DACA students? There are some 750,000 young people completing their educations and working under a temporary protected status — it seems that makes them a very vulnerable population for deportation.
Unless we fight back harder they present an opportunity for Trump to be able to say, “See? I’m doing things. I told you I was going to do something.”
How real is President-elect Trump’s immigration rhetoric–“round them all up”? Should people be as afraid as they feel?
We should be worried about that. Not just worried, we should be acting on what he pledged to do, and what he continues to say he’s going to do.
The people that he’s considering for these different [government] positions are very serious. It’s not a threat. It’s a very explicit promise.
The other danger is to use the term “criminals” as a pretext to deport millions. [Trump] never said the majority of immigrants are hard-working men and women. There are at maximum a few hundred thousand immigrants [and] some that have had a run-in with law enforcement. That’s the pretext for going after millions. That’s the scary part because he knows people in this country could fall for that.
How many civil rights laws in our history have been violated–as recently as George W. Bush, as far back as what was done to Japanese Americans? In the 1950s we had the deportations of Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants. It wasn’t in the millions, but it certainly was at least in the hundreds of thousands. We’ve been through this. Are we in a position to fight back and refuse?
How do we refuse?
There’s no doubt in my mind we have all the makings across this country to push back and show him. We won marriage equality, we’ve pushed and we’ve won a number of things on the environmental front.
A million people march in the streets. We’ll disobey and we’ll have solidarity. We’re showing that in Los Angeles. We’re showing that in other cities. We have police chiefs saying they will not cooperate. That’s a very powerful thing that we have on our side. Community-based organizations saying we’re going to set up family safety procedures. The school districts saying, “We’re not going to allow that.”
I spoke with Reverend James Lawson, the other day– when I talked to him he said, “We know how to win. We’ve got these victories. Feel proud and great about them. This guy, there’s no way we’re going to let him destroy our country.”
Major industries in this country benefit from the immigration system being broken. Are they going to go along with mass deportations– an enormous disruption in the economic system?
It’s a new opportunity to exploit immigrant workers even more. Wage theft will just go through the roof because there will be such a dramatic increase in this atmosphere of fear. There are sectors of our economy where employers will love it because they’ll be more in control. They know that 12 million people are not going to be deported overnight. But they’re going to take advantage of that fear.
A chicken-processing plant in a Southern right-to-work state wouldn’t be happy if all its undocumented workers were deported.
No, they wouldn’t be happy, but let’s say Trump says, “You’re not going to like that. But how about if I give you unfettered guest workers?” They’ll be provided an alternative on that level. That’s one way that they could look at it.
Look at these high-tech industry leaders that pretend to be so liberal. What do they want? Guest worker status for “highly skilled” workers—to be able to have them here, to work them. They don’t care about them being permanently allowed to live in this country.
There are industries like hospitality, where I expect those employers to defend their work force. In the past they’ve shown courage by publicly being on the side of [immigration] legislation. But they haven’t really taken much risk. Now it’s going to take more risk to defend their work force. Courage. Leadership. They’re going to have to do more than just sign off on legislation.
Reposted from Capital & Main