Uniting African-Americans and Immigrants
By David Bacon
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 26 August 2005
If you listen to President George Bush, the only way Mexicans can avoid
the deadly and illegal trip across the US border is to come as guest workers -
temporary contract laborers for US industry and agriculture. The 12-14 million
immigrants already living in the US without visas, he says, must become guest
workers themselves if they want to get legal documents.
While the president's proposal is the most extreme of those before
Congress (and hasn't yet been formally introduced), all the other bills that
would reform US immigration law also have some temporary contract worker
proposal attached to them. All except one.
This spring, Houston Congress member Sheila Jackson Lee introduced the
most comprehensive immigration reform proposal so far, HR 2092, "Save America
Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2005." It not only has no provision for
temporary workers - she scorns the whole idea, particularly the Bush approach,
as a "flat earth program." Jackson Lee instead proposes to legalize
undocumented people who have lived 5 years in the US, have some understanding
of English and US culture, and have no criminal record. "These are hardworking,
taxpaying individuals," she says. "My system would give them permanent legal
residency."
Bush proposes that immigrants come for three or six years, and then
leave. "But people are human," Jackson Lee explains. "They might have married,
invested, or tried to buy a house. They might have children and roots here.
It's very difficult to imagine that a person with a three-year pass would
voluntarily leave, particularly if they faced an oppressive situation where
they came from."
The Jackson Lee bill is unique for another reason. Most of its
co-sponsors are members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including
California's Barbara Lee and Michigan's John Conyers. For many years, the
Caucus has been outspoken on other areas of social policy - every session, it
outlines an alternative Federal budget prioritizing social goals like
eliminating poverty, reducing military spending, and protecting social services
and benefits. This is the first time, however, that Caucus members have taken a
pro-active approach to immigration.
Jackson Lee's bill is not the only effort to find common ground between
African-Americans and immigrants. Another is a unique union proposal in the
current contract negotiations in San Francisco hotels. UNITE HERE Local 2 added
new language to its existing contract proposals on immigrant rights, and the
hotels agreed. But the Multi Employer Group didn't accept a new related
proposal asking the hotels to set up a diversity committee and hire an
ombudsman to begin increasing the percentage of African-American workers.
The proposal stems from an effort by the union to address the changing
demographics of the hotel work force. In the city's hotels, the percentage of
African-American workers is falling as employment continues to grow.
African-Americans now make up less than 6% of the San Francisco hotel work
force, a number that has declined in each of the past five years but one.
In San Francisco, this issue has a lot of history. The Sheraton Palace
Hotel was the scene of the city's most famous civil rights demonstration. In
1963, civil rights activists sat in, and were arrested, in the hotel lobby, as
they demanded that management hire Blacks into jobs in the visible
front-of-the-house locations, where the color line had kept them out. Richard
Lee Mason, an African-American banquet waiter at the St. Francis, remembers,
"African-Americans had been kept in the back of the house for far too long.
People wanted to be in the front of the house, and rightly so."
Employment prospects improved for Black workers for some years, but the
situation changed by the 1980s. Hotels hired increasing percentages of
immigrants, in a move they hoped would create a less demanding and expensive
work force.
"I suspect that because the industry had had a great struggle with
African-Americans, they thought we were too aggressive," Mason speculates. "A
lot of us had come out of the civil rights movement, and we were willing to
fight for higher wages and to make sure we were treated fairly." Steven Pitts,
an economist at the Center for Labor Research and Education at the University
of California in Berkeley, says Mason's experience was not uncommon. "This
perception by employers of African-American workers is true nationwide," he
says. "Blacks aren't perceived as compliant, and therefore when many employers
make hiring decisions, they simply don't hire them."
If the hotel industry hoped their new immigrant work force would be more
compliant, however, those hopes were not realized. Immigrants proved to be as
militant as the workers who came before - all the city's big hotels were struck
in 1980, and smaller strikes took place in the following two decades. But Black
employment fell nonetheless.
Today, this economic history shapes the political terrain of cities like
San Francisco and Los Angeles. Black workers make up only 6.4% of the present LA
hotel work force, for instance. Clyde Smith, a houseman at the Wilshire Grand,
remembers that when he was hired 35 years ago, African-Americans worked in
virtually all areas. "There are significantly less today," he says, "often only
one or two in each department, and sometimes none at all."
The union has asked companies to commit to a hiring ombudsman and a
Diversity in the Workplace Taskforce, to reach out to African-American
communities that need jobs and eliminate any hiring barriers. "Some people
would try to pit one race against another, especially Blacks against Latinos,"
Smith says. "I think we shouldn't blame any race or culture."
While demanding progress toward ending this de facto color line, the
union has proposed new protections for the job rights of the immigrants who
make up a majority of the hotel industry work force. The union proposal
strengthens an important ruling won four years ago by HERE in San Francisco,
when an arbitrator held that immigrant workers couldn't be fired just because
their Social Security numbers were in question, a problem faced by many
immigrants. Then in 2003, the union organized the Immigrant Workers Freedom
Ride, a national demonstration for immigration reform joining immigrants with
Black veterans of the original 1960s freedom rides.
Both UNITE HERE and Jackson Lee envision a new civil rights movement,
geared to a changed world of globalization. The key is prohibiting
discrimination - against immigrants because of their status and vulnerability,
and against displaced workers, by enforcing job creation and affirmative action
as national policy. Both proposals also share the same assumption that unions
and high wages are the best protection against job competition.
Jackson Lee is careful to note that she doesn't want her bill viewed as
just an African-American proposal, but her voice nevertheless carries a note of
pride in referring to her co-sponsors as "the conscience of America, the
conscience of the Congress." Bill Fletcher, president of TransAfrica Forum and
former education director of the AFL-CIO, rejects the idea that the changing
demographics of the US population are not a concern for African-Americans. He
recalls a time when even liberal politicians reacted to criticism by Black
political leaders who condemned the Vietnam War or widespread poverty in the
US, saying they should confine their concerns to civil rights in the South. "We
don't want to just react to demographic changes," he asserts. "As
African-Americans, we're saying that we have something to contribute to this
debate too."
Today a growing number of labor, immigrant rights and Black political
activists recognize the similarity between the denial of civil rights to
African-Americans and the second-class status of immigrants in the US. Jackson
Lee looks at the situation of immigrants and sees the historic discrimination
against people of color, especially Black people and women.
"I had the benefit of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, the 1964 Civil
Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the executive order signed by
Richard Nixon on affirmative action. Without them, I would never have seen the
inside of the United States Congress," she declares, while cautioning, "the
rights of minorities in this country are still a work in progress.
Nevertheless, someone recognized that the laws of America were broken as they
related to African-Americans - that we had to fix them. Now we have to fix
other laws to end discrimination against immigrants."
The Jackson Lee bill therefore prohibits discrimination based on
immigration status and makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to
threaten workers with deportation if they invoke their labor rights or worker
protection laws. It would also require the Secretary of Labor to conduct a
national workplace survey to determine the extent of the exploitation of
undocumented workers.
Jackson Lee opposes temporary worker programs because she believes they
inevitably result in second-class status, in which workers can't enforce labor
rights or use social benefits, if indeed they're entitled to them at all.
Fletcher agrees, and to those who assert that legislation expanding temporary
worker programs can also protect workers' rights, he answers: "maybe I'm from
Missouri - show me. If it's possible to protect their rights in real life, I
haven't seen it yet."
According to Jackson Lee, temporary status not only encourages abuse of
workers, but also has a high social cost. "Who pays for their housing and
healthcare?" she asks. "Do they pay into Social Security, or are they denied
benefits? What rights do they really have?"
The social cost of guest worker programs can also include the impact on
the jobs and wages of other workers. Here Jackson Lee and Fletcher are stepping
off into a political mine field, because of a widely held perception that Blacks
and immigrants, especially Latinos, compete for jobs. "Certainly you're made to
believe that," she says, "that one group hinders the other. That's absolutely
wrong, and I believe in fighting against it."
The heart of her bill makes a direct connection between immigration and
jobs. It would grant permanent legal status to undocumented immigrants who've
lived 5 years in the US, and have a basic understanding of English and US
culture. The money paid in application fees would fund a job creation and
training program for unemployed workers.
Creating jobs for the country's 9.4 million unemployed would require
more resources than this. But the bill recognizes that the issues of jobs and
immigration don't have to pit immigrants and native-born against each other.
Instead they can unite in a common pursuit of jobs, legal status and workplace
rights. And it recognizes that until immigrant workers have legal status and
the security to fight for better conditions and wages, all low-wage workers
will be harmed.
Last year, a study from the Center for Labor Market Studies at
Northeastern University demonstrated just how stark the current situation is -
and why native-born workers feel threatened. Between 2000 and 2004, jobs held
by immigrants rose by 2 million; the number of employed native-born workers
fell by 958,000, and of longtime resident immigrants by 352,000. According to
the report's authors, "the net growth in the nation's employed population
between 2000 and 2004 takes place among new immigrants, while the number of
native-born and established immigrant workers combined declines by more than
1.3 million."
Black unemployment nationally has grown at a catastrophic rate - from
10.8% to 11.8% in May alone. Nearly half (172,000) of the 360,000 people who
lost their jobs in June were African-American, although they're just 11% of the
work force. In New York City, only 51.8% of Black men from 16 to 65 had jobs in
2003, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For Latinos it was 65.7%,
and for whites 75.7%. June's overall unemployment rate in 2003 was 6.4%.
Very little of the rise in African-American unemployment is a result of
direct displacement by immigrants. It's caused overwhelmingly by the decline in
manufacturing and cuts in public employment. In the 2001 recession alone,
300,000 of 2,000,000 Black factory workers lost their jobs to relocation and
layoffs. Changing demographics in the workplace became a fact during a period
of massive plant closings that eliminated the jobs of hundreds of thousands of
African-American and Chicano workers in unionized industries. Through the
postwar decades, those workers had broken the color line, spent their lives in
steel mills and assembly plants, and wrested a standard of living able to
support stable families and communities. In the growing service and high tech
industries of the 80s, those displaced workers were anathema. Employers often
identified their race with pro-union militancy, according to sociologist
Patricia Fernandez Kelly.
Today, corporations in those same industries argue they need workers to
fill labor shortages to come, and promote temporary workers as the answer.
Fletcher argues "if there are people in communities destroyed because the
industry that employed them is gone, and a few miles away there are labor
shortages in other industries, then displaced people should fill the void.
Instead, now we're hearing proposals for guest workers. If African-Americans
were moving from lower to higher level jobs, there would be no reason for fear,
but that's not the case."
Giving employers the ability to bring in thousands of contract laborers,
by expanding existing temporary programs or establishing new ones, allows them
to sharpen job competition in areas and industries where workers are organizing
unions, trying to raise wages, or challenging past patterns of discrimination.
Jackson Lee's bill tries to balance these interests. For US citizens and
residents, she proposes retraining and jobs programs, while for immigrants she
proposes legalization and a ban on discrimination. Employers, she says, should
press for legalization instead of guest workers. "That would give industry a
pool of legal permanent residents or those seeking that status," she declares.
"Most work is not cyclical - restaurants don't close in the fall. They stay
open. They need people in permanent jobs, not temporary workers."
Fletcher also prizes unity across racial lines, and accuses President
Bush of playing racial and national groups off against each other to undermine
it. Bush takes his cue from large employer associations, who have been pushing
guest worker programs for years. These include the US Chamber of Commerce, the
National Retail Association (think Wal-Mart), the American Meat Institute and
the National Restaurant Association. Guest worker programs have a long record
of illegally low wages, hiring blacklists, and dangerous working conditions.
Employers particularly want to eliminate the requirement that they hire
unemployed workers before bringing in contract labor.
Immigration is not a conspiracy by employers to drive wages down.
Migration is a global phenomenon. According to Migrant Rights International,
over 130 million people today live outside the countries in which they were
born. The movement of people from developing countries to rich industrial ones
is not only happening everywhere, it is unstoppable. Poverty and war force
people to leave their homes. The deaths every year of hundreds of people trying
to cross the US/Mexico border is bitter testimony to the price paid by families
migrating north, desperate to survive.
Immigration law can't and doesn't stop people from coming, but it can
and does make people unequal here. Undocumented immigrants can't drive a car,
or collect unemployment or Social Security. The Immigration Reform and Control
Act of 1986 made the act of working itself illegal. When working becomes a
crime, workers must risk a lot to protest low wages and bad treatment, join
unions, and assert their rights.
With or without temporary programs, migration to the US and other
industrial countries is a fact of global life. The question is really whether
or not the purpose of US immigration policy should be supplying labor to
industry at a price it wants to pay.
Jackson Lee also recognizes that US foreign and trade policy often exert
great pressures on people to migrate, by spreading poverty and war. The country
should welcome the immigrants who continue to arrive, while attacking the
poverty and oppression that uproot people, she concludes: "We would do better
to build the economies of countries like Mexico, so people can live their own
dream in their own nation. If we don't help build the economy of the nations
who surround us, we will continue to have people fleeing for both economic
reasons and because they're being persecuted."
Unions have changed a great deal in the way they see immigration, and
are now part of a large national pro-legalization coalition. Fletcher
especially credits the Service Employees and the Hotel and Restaurant Employees
with changing the priority US labor gives to immigrant rights. But today, the
political strategists of those unions in Washington DC are supporting the
Kennedy/McCain bill, which would allow employers to recruit over 400,000 guest
workers each year and would strengthen employer sanctions, the provision of
immigration law that makes it a federal crime for an undocumented worker to
hold a job. Sanctions have led to the firings of thousands of immigrants in
recent years, and been a powerful tool by employers fighting unions. These
operatives argue that guest worker provisions and increased sanctions, while
violating the AFL-CIO's pro-immigrant program adopted in 1999, are necessary to
win employer support for immigration reform in a Republican-controlled Congress.
There's a disconnect, Fletcher asserts, between advocacy for immigrants
and looking at the role US policy plays in creating the poverty which makes
migration necessary. "There's very little understanding in the labor movement
about why people migrate. We don't look at the role of US foreign policy in
particular as an essential cause - the way the war in Central America forced
the migration of Salvadorans, or the Vietnam War the migration of people from
Southeast Asia. When we don't speak out on foreign policy, we don't anticipate
the human cost."
While the Jackson Lee bill doesn't address foreign or trade policy
directly, it does seek to correct some of the inequities created by an
immigration policy that often is used as an instrument of political reward or
punishment. The Congresswoman points to the huge backlog of applicants waiting
for visas in Third World countries, while many European countries can't even
fill their quotas. For Europeans, whose standard of living is often higher than
that in the US, there's very little pressure to use up their visa allotment. But
from Latin America to Africa, the poverty created by war and neoliberal economic
policies produces far more applicants than there are visas available. Jackson
Lee's approach is a diversity proposal that would take those differences into
account.
She further seeks to help refugees from two countries, Liberia and
Haiti, whose refugee status is imperiled or denied, and whose cause the Black
Caucus has championed in the past. Liberians were allowed to come as refugees a
decade ago as their country was engulfed in civil war, and her bill seeks to
give them permanent rather than temporary refuge. Haitians are victim of a
double standard that allows Cubans to become legal residents as soon as they
step onto US soil, while the Coast Guard picks up desperate refugees from
Haiti, fleeing repression in tiny boats, before they get to the Florida beach.
If they somehow reach it, they're held behind barbed wire as illegal refugees.
"There is an inequity between those fleeing from one island and those fleeing
another," the Congresswoman comments dryly.
Jackson Lee is the granddaughter of Jamaican immigrants, and sees in
their effort to build a home in the US the same daily struggle carried on by
the many immigrants in her own Houston district. But unlike her grandparents,
today's immigrants face a system she condemns as broken, and often pay a
painful price. She cites especially post-9/11 discrimination against immigrants
from the Middle East.
"Families are torn apart," Jackson Lee laments bitterly, "and we're not
adding to our security, but only to the misery of human beings who want to give
their best to this country. We have a system that's not helping anyone. It's not
helping to build the economy - it's helping to tear it down. For immigrants
here, we need an orderly system that allows them to do their jobs and build the
American economy, and allows US workers to have jobs and do likewise."
David Bacon is a west coast writer and photographer, and former factory
worker and union organizer. His book, The Children of NAFTA, Labor Wars on the
US/Mexico Border, was published last year by the University of California
Press. His photodocumentary project on immigration, Beyond Borders,
Transnational Working Communities, is due next year from ILR Press/Cornell
University Press.
This article also appeared in the Summer 2005 print edition of The Black
Scholar.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Haiti : action needed
----- Original Message -----
From: Sasha B. Kramer
To: sash@stanford.edu
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:12 PM
Subject: Father Jean Juste has fallen ill in jail
Friends,
Father Jean Juste has been in prison since Thursday July 21 when he was assaulted by a mob, beaten, then illegally detained without receiving medical care. Many of you have had the honor of meeting Father Jean Juste when he came to California in January, others have no doubt been moved by his statements of behalf of the poor. Those of you who have will understand the depth of my sadness at having to share this most recent news. I just returned from a week in Haiti where the human rights situation is steadily deteriorating in the run up to the elections. Before leaving I was talking with some friends and someone posed the question...if you could have dinner with anyone in the world from all history who would it be? Father Jean Juste was the first to come to my mind. He has taught me how to see hope in the midst of tremendous suffering and showed me the power of courage. Please hold him in your thoughts and prayers.
Peace, Sasha
LETTER FROM FATHER JEAN JUSTE IN PRISON: AUGUST 16, 2005
Port au Prince Haiti - Haiti National Penitentiary
Brothers and sisters around the world, allow me to thank you for what you have done for me personally, and what you have done for the poor ones I serve and stand with, for all prisoners, especially the political prisoners of Haiti.
I know that thousands of you are advocating on my behalf. People from Haiti, from the US, from Brazil, Canada, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Nicaragua and the Netherlands have sent letters and faxes to the US Embassy and the Haitian government trying to free me and to bring democracy and human rights back to Haiti.
Hundreds of churches and organizations who are helping out - I thank you. I especially thank the 29 members of US Congress who signed a letter for me. I read the letter and you are so strong and clear. Well said! I wish our church leaders were so strong and clear.
I must tell you I am not doing well physically. I was almost dead Sunday morning. I fell unconscious for some time but was rescued when some of the other prisoners took me on their backs to the dispensary. God sends me back to you! I do not know what happened. My neck hurts, my skin is very bad and I ache a lot. I need medical attention. But I am glad to be alive and join all of you in the struggle for freedom and real democracy.
My cell is 8 by 2 and is very hot and smelly. We have a bathroom in the hall that works when there is water. There are no beds. I sleep on a one inch thick mat on the floor. Yet I am very thankful to God who allows me to wake up to another life.
I now have discovered so much support for the Haitian people and me from people all over the world. I am in awe. I add my strength to those who stand all over the world for the rights of everyone whatever color, whatever creed, whatever nationality. To Cite Soleil, to Bel-Air, Veye Yo, the 10th department, the Lavalas family, to all of you around the world, to the churches especially my own St. Clare's, I say to you "Chapo Ba!" (I tip my hat!)
There is a great fraternity in jail and with the poor. In jail we pray loudly - day and night. Our spirits are uplifted when we hear about your work for Haiti, because we hear hope coming. We hear hope coming and we know our victory for human rights and respect and democracy will be total one day.
Personally, regardless of all the hardship, I am still joining my voice to the voices of all democracy lovers to demand the return of constitutional order in Haiti, the physical return of our elected president Aristide, release of all political prisoners, respect of all human rights, and if that is done then real elections can happen.
Keep up the advocacy. Keep up the peaceful demonstrations. Keep up the prayers.
Ill and in jail, I humbly add my suffering to those of Jesus to hasten peace and justice and love for everyone.
Merci
** you can read about Father Jean Juste's arrest at: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/321949.shtml
To help free Father Jean Juste there are several things you can do:
1. Contact your member of Congress and urge them to join twenty-nine of their colleagues and sign the letter calling on President Bush to take action to secure Father Jean-Juste's immediate release. In Sacramento, contact Rep. Doris Matsui:
Mail: 501 I St, Suite 12-600, Sacramento, 95814
Phone: 916-498-5600
Fax: 916-444-6117
Email (through website): http://www.house.gov/matsui/
2. Sign Human Rights First's Online petition at:
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/defenders/hrd_haiti/alert072705_juste.htm
3. Yesterday, Father Jean Juste's lawyer Bill Quigley delivered thousands of letters and signatures demanding freedom for Jean Juste (see below for details). Bill is looking for more letters to deliver on his next trip, you may fax them to 1-504-861-5440, or mail to c/o Professor Bill Quigley, Loyola University School of Law, Box 902, New Orleans, LA 70118.
Dear Friends:
Thanks to your help, Bill Quigley, a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans USA, a volunteer lawyer for Fr. Gerard Jean-Juste with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti who is assisting Mario Joseph of BAI in working for the release of Fr. Jean-Juste, is hand delivering to U.S. Ambassador to Haiti:
1. 791 letters and faxes from people from 42 states and 10 countries (including Brazil, Canada, Jamaica, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Nicaragua, South Africa) calling on the U.S. Ambassador to Haiti to do everything in his power to gain the immediate release of Fr. Gerard Jean-Juste from the Haiti National Penitentiary.
2. Copy of letter signed by 29 U.S. Representatives to the U.S. Congress written to President Bush and the U.S. Ambassador to Haiti calling for the release of Fr. Jean-Juste. The letter is signed by Representatives: Maxine Waters, Jan Schakowsky, Barbara Lee, John Conyers, Charles Rangel, Barney Frank, Lynn Woolsey, Sherrod Brown, Maurice Hichey, Sheila jackson-Lee, Corinne Brown, Earl Blumenauer, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Edophus Brown, Melvin L. Watt, Tammy Baldwin, Kendrick B. Meek, Raul Grijalva, Donna Christensen, Al Green, Julia Carson, Carolyn
Kilpatrick, Gregory Meeks, Dennis Kucinich, Donald Payne, James P. McGovern, Robert Wexler, Major R. Owens, and Bob Filner.
3. Over 1200 names and emails of people calling for the release of Fr. Jean-Juste compiled by the US national human rights group, Human Rights First.
This is a total of over 2020 people as of 6 pm Sunday August 14, 2005. Many other letters and faxes and emails are known to be directed to the U.S. Ambassador and Haitian authorities calling for the immediate release of Fr. Jean-Juste as a result of the designation of Fr. Jean-Juste as a Prisoner of Conscience by Amnesty International.
The 791 people whose letters and faxes are being delivered are from a very broad range of university, legal, medical, religious, community, and private organizations including:
Adelante Youth Center
Adrian Dominican Sisters
Agenda for Children
American University
791 more
From: Sasha B. Kramer
To: sash@stanford.edu
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:12 PM
Subject: Father Jean Juste has fallen ill in jail
Friends,
Father Jean Juste has been in prison since Thursday July 21 when he was assaulted by a mob, beaten, then illegally detained without receiving medical care. Many of you have had the honor of meeting Father Jean Juste when he came to California in January, others have no doubt been moved by his statements of behalf of the poor. Those of you who have will understand the depth of my sadness at having to share this most recent news. I just returned from a week in Haiti where the human rights situation is steadily deteriorating in the run up to the elections. Before leaving I was talking with some friends and someone posed the question...if you could have dinner with anyone in the world from all history who would it be? Father Jean Juste was the first to come to my mind. He has taught me how to see hope in the midst of tremendous suffering and showed me the power of courage. Please hold him in your thoughts and prayers.
Peace, Sasha
LETTER FROM FATHER JEAN JUSTE IN PRISON: AUGUST 16, 2005
Port au Prince Haiti - Haiti National Penitentiary
Brothers and sisters around the world, allow me to thank you for what you have done for me personally, and what you have done for the poor ones I serve and stand with, for all prisoners, especially the political prisoners of Haiti.
I know that thousands of you are advocating on my behalf. People from Haiti, from the US, from Brazil, Canada, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Nicaragua and the Netherlands have sent letters and faxes to the US Embassy and the Haitian government trying to free me and to bring democracy and human rights back to Haiti.
Hundreds of churches and organizations who are helping out - I thank you. I especially thank the 29 members of US Congress who signed a letter for me. I read the letter and you are so strong and clear. Well said! I wish our church leaders were so strong and clear.
I must tell you I am not doing well physically. I was almost dead Sunday morning. I fell unconscious for some time but was rescued when some of the other prisoners took me on their backs to the dispensary. God sends me back to you! I do not know what happened. My neck hurts, my skin is very bad and I ache a lot. I need medical attention. But I am glad to be alive and join all of you in the struggle for freedom and real democracy.
My cell is 8 by 2 and is very hot and smelly. We have a bathroom in the hall that works when there is water. There are no beds. I sleep on a one inch thick mat on the floor. Yet I am very thankful to God who allows me to wake up to another life.
I now have discovered so much support for the Haitian people and me from people all over the world. I am in awe. I add my strength to those who stand all over the world for the rights of everyone whatever color, whatever creed, whatever nationality. To Cite Soleil, to Bel-Air, Veye Yo, the 10th department, the Lavalas family, to all of you around the world, to the churches especially my own St. Clare's, I say to you "Chapo Ba!" (I tip my hat!)
There is a great fraternity in jail and with the poor. In jail we pray loudly - day and night. Our spirits are uplifted when we hear about your work for Haiti, because we hear hope coming. We hear hope coming and we know our victory for human rights and respect and democracy will be total one day.
Personally, regardless of all the hardship, I am still joining my voice to the voices of all democracy lovers to demand the return of constitutional order in Haiti, the physical return of our elected president Aristide, release of all political prisoners, respect of all human rights, and if that is done then real elections can happen.
Keep up the advocacy. Keep up the peaceful demonstrations. Keep up the prayers.
Ill and in jail, I humbly add my suffering to those of Jesus to hasten peace and justice and love for everyone.
Merci
** you can read about Father Jean Juste's arrest at: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/321949.shtml
To help free Father Jean Juste there are several things you can do:
1. Contact your member of Congress and urge them to join twenty-nine of their colleagues and sign the letter calling on President Bush to take action to secure Father Jean-Juste's immediate release. In Sacramento, contact Rep. Doris Matsui:
Mail: 501 I St, Suite 12-600, Sacramento, 95814
Phone: 916-498-5600
Fax: 916-444-6117
Email (through website): http://www.house.gov/matsui/
2. Sign Human Rights First's Online petition at:
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/defenders/hrd_haiti/alert072705_juste.htm
3. Yesterday, Father Jean Juste's lawyer Bill Quigley delivered thousands of letters and signatures demanding freedom for Jean Juste (see below for details). Bill is looking for more letters to deliver on his next trip, you may fax them to 1-504-861-5440, or mail to c/o Professor Bill Quigley, Loyola University School of Law, Box 902, New Orleans, LA 70118.
Dear Friends:
Thanks to your help, Bill Quigley, a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans USA, a volunteer lawyer for Fr. Gerard Jean-Juste with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti who is assisting Mario Joseph of BAI in working for the release of Fr. Jean-Juste, is hand delivering to U.S. Ambassador to Haiti:
1. 791 letters and faxes from people from 42 states and 10 countries (including Brazil, Canada, Jamaica, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Nicaragua, South Africa) calling on the U.S. Ambassador to Haiti to do everything in his power to gain the immediate release of Fr. Gerard Jean-Juste from the Haiti National Penitentiary.
2. Copy of letter signed by 29 U.S. Representatives to the U.S. Congress written to President Bush and the U.S. Ambassador to Haiti calling for the release of Fr. Jean-Juste. The letter is signed by Representatives: Maxine Waters, Jan Schakowsky, Barbara Lee, John Conyers, Charles Rangel, Barney Frank, Lynn Woolsey, Sherrod Brown, Maurice Hichey, Sheila jackson-Lee, Corinne Brown, Earl Blumenauer, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Edophus Brown, Melvin L. Watt, Tammy Baldwin, Kendrick B. Meek, Raul Grijalva, Donna Christensen, Al Green, Julia Carson, Carolyn
Kilpatrick, Gregory Meeks, Dennis Kucinich, Donald Payne, James P. McGovern, Robert Wexler, Major R. Owens, and Bob Filner.
3. Over 1200 names and emails of people calling for the release of Fr. Jean-Juste compiled by the US national human rights group, Human Rights First.
This is a total of over 2020 people as of 6 pm Sunday August 14, 2005. Many other letters and faxes and emails are known to be directed to the U.S. Ambassador and Haitian authorities calling for the immediate release of Fr. Jean-Juste as a result of the designation of Fr. Jean-Juste as a Prisoner of Conscience by Amnesty International.
The 791 people whose letters and faxes are being delivered are from a very broad range of university, legal, medical, religious, community, and private organizations including:
Adelante Youth Center
Adrian Dominican Sisters
Agenda for Children
American University
791 more
Farmworker History Project
I mentioned that a project was collecting the personal histories of staff of the UFW.
the histories are now on line.
Great material. Great histories.
See
http://www.farmworkermovement.org/news/index.php
the histories are now on line.
Great material. Great histories.
See
http://www.farmworkermovement.org/news/index.php
Monday, August 15, 2005
Important Voting Rights march
Over 10,000 Take to the Streets in Support of the Voting Rights Act
By Alysia Fischer, PDA Policy Director
August 6, 2005--August in Atlanta is hot and muggy, but that didn't stop over 10,000 marchers determined to voice their support for the strengthening and reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA). The event was organized by Rainbow/PUSH, and the crowd was made up of various civil rights organizations, labor unions and peace and justice groups. Marchers and rally speakers spoke of the need to reauthorize the VRA, and addressed other concerns such as the failing economy and the need to end the occupation of Iraq. Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) was proud to play a part in this historic event as a co-sponsor.
The Voting Rights Act, created under pressure from the Civil Rights movement, has been called the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United States Congress. President Johnson issued the call for this legislation following the unprovoked attack by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on March 7th 1965. Five months later, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. This Act ended the use of a variety of disenfranchisement schemes, including literacy tests, poll taxes and constant moving of polling sites in many southern states. It made racially gerrymandered districting plans in those states subject to scrutiny and rejection. Where necessary, it authorized the Attorney General to appoint federal voting examiners and observers.
Later additions to the Voting Rights Act in 1975 made certain that Hispanic voters had access to ballots in Spanish. What makes the Voting Rights Act so important is that it put restraints on states and counties where discrimination was historically proven to affect the vote. Removal of these restraints significantly increased the numbers of African Americans registered to vote, and the 1975 addition has also increased the percentage of Hispanic voters. In Alabama, for example, in 1965 less than 20% of the African American population was registered to vote, contrasted with almost 70% of the White population. By 1988, almost 70% of African Americans in Alabama were registered to vote, compared with 75% of Whites.
The speakers in Atlanta on August 6th recognized that the Voting Rights Act is not simply an historical document, it is still important and necessary. They reflected the broad range of Americans working in the struggle to ensure that all Americans have access to the vote. In addition to luminaries from the civil rights movement, nine members of congress were in attendance. Members of the Congressional Black Congress, including Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) were joined by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) in their call for reauthorization of the VRA.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) both spoke in support of reauthorization at the rally, and their presence indicates the Democratic Party is taking both the Voting Rights Act and the South seriously. It is our hope that paying attention to the disenfranchisement of southern voters is an indicator that the Democratic Party will be putting more time and resources into these states. PDA Advisory Board Member John Bonifaz gave a rousing speech in support of strengthening our democracy near the close of the afternoon.
What you can do to help:
Sign the Rainbow/PUSH petition in support of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.
By Alysia Fischer, PDA Policy Director
August 6, 2005--August in Atlanta is hot and muggy, but that didn't stop over 10,000 marchers determined to voice their support for the strengthening and reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA). The event was organized by Rainbow/PUSH, and the crowd was made up of various civil rights organizations, labor unions and peace and justice groups. Marchers and rally speakers spoke of the need to reauthorize the VRA, and addressed other concerns such as the failing economy and the need to end the occupation of Iraq. Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) was proud to play a part in this historic event as a co-sponsor.
The Voting Rights Act, created under pressure from the Civil Rights movement, has been called the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United States Congress. President Johnson issued the call for this legislation following the unprovoked attack by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on March 7th 1965. Five months later, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. This Act ended the use of a variety of disenfranchisement schemes, including literacy tests, poll taxes and constant moving of polling sites in many southern states. It made racially gerrymandered districting plans in those states subject to scrutiny and rejection. Where necessary, it authorized the Attorney General to appoint federal voting examiners and observers.
Later additions to the Voting Rights Act in 1975 made certain that Hispanic voters had access to ballots in Spanish. What makes the Voting Rights Act so important is that it put restraints on states and counties where discrimination was historically proven to affect the vote. Removal of these restraints significantly increased the numbers of African Americans registered to vote, and the 1975 addition has also increased the percentage of Hispanic voters. In Alabama, for example, in 1965 less than 20% of the African American population was registered to vote, contrasted with almost 70% of the White population. By 1988, almost 70% of African Americans in Alabama were registered to vote, compared with 75% of Whites.
The speakers in Atlanta on August 6th recognized that the Voting Rights Act is not simply an historical document, it is still important and necessary. They reflected the broad range of Americans working in the struggle to ensure that all Americans have access to the vote. In addition to luminaries from the civil rights movement, nine members of congress were in attendance. Members of the Congressional Black Congress, including Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) were joined by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) in their call for reauthorization of the VRA.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) both spoke in support of reauthorization at the rally, and their presence indicates the Democratic Party is taking both the Voting Rights Act and the South seriously. It is our hope that paying attention to the disenfranchisement of southern voters is an indicator that the Democratic Party will be putting more time and resources into these states. PDA Advisory Board Member John Bonifaz gave a rousing speech in support of strengthening our democracy near the close of the afternoon.
What you can do to help:
Sign the Rainbow/PUSH petition in support of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
People of Color Conference
United, We Can Win
Come to Reflect, Consider and Plan
Peoples of Color have necessarily led the fight for liberation in this
country. Our struggle continues against the ravages of capitalism,
imperialism, patriarchy and white supremacy.
Millions of people are unemployed and without health care while
billions of dollars go to war and welfare for the rich. Vigilante
groups hunt down immigrants and government agencies harass and detain
immigrants without cause or charges. Prisons are built at a record
rate while public schools crumble. Our communities are far more likely
to be exposed to industrial pollution and poison than are white
communities.
If you are a person of African, American Indian, Arab, Asian or Latino
descent you should join us at the Sonya Haynes Stone Black Cultural
Center at UNC-Chapel Hill, November 18-20, 2005. Revolutionary people
of color will gather in Chapel Hill to discuss strategies to end a
prison system that places millions behind bars as a workforce for
capitalist exploitation. We will gather to reflect on our
participation in the movement to end US imperialist war. We will come
together from around the country to move the struggle to another
level, to analyze together and seek strategies to overcome the systems
of oppression that plague us. We understand the economic and social
oppressions we face are linked and that we can only overcome them by
linking the struggles against them together.
Join those of us dedicated to an economy in the hands of the people, a
society with quality health care for all, publicly funded education
from cradle to grave. We are committed to the fight to end white
supremacy, bigotry, patriarchy, sexism and homophobia. Our struggles
are connected, so we need to be connected.
The Stone Center gathering will create a space for analysis and
reflection. What is the role of revolutionaries in each of our
communities? How should we relate to each other across community lines
and across organizational lines? How do we build multinational
revolutionary organizations?
And, on another level, what is the relationship between imperialism,
class exploitation, white supremacy and patriarchy? What kind of
revolutionaries must we become to effectively challenge all the
systems of oppression including the corrupting manifestations of
patriarchy, racism, and class privilege within the revolutionary left?
What kind of revolutionary organizations do we have? What kind of
revolutionary movement must we build to win? How do we use what we
have to execute strategies to win? These are some of the questions we
will explore.
If you are a person of color who believes in the struggle for a just
world, then come to the Stone Center, November 18-20, 2005. Register
at www.peopleofcolorworkshop.org.
"The revolution has not yet triumphed. In your hands still are the
will and the power to save it. But, if unfortunately you do not . the
heroes of all times will stir in their graves to ask, what have you
done with the blood of your people?"--Emiliano Zapata
[Borrador de la traducción -- draft translation]
Unidos Venceremos
Vengan a reflexionar, analizar y planificar
Por necesidad los pueblos oprimidos por el racismo han encabezado las
luchas por la liberación en este país. Nuestra lucha contra los
estragos que causan el capitalismo, el imperialismo, el patriarcado y
la supremacía blanca continúa.
Hay millones de desempleados y sin acceso a la atención médica
mientras que miles de millones de dólares se despilfarran en la guerra
y regalías para los ricos. Escuadrones parapoliciales se dedican a la
caza de inmigrantes mientras que las agencias del gobierno los
hostigan y detienen sin causa ni acusación. La construcción de
cárceles bate todos los récords mientras que las escuelas se
desmoronan. Nuestras comunidades sufren mucho mas de la contaminación
y los venenos industriales que las comunidades del hombre blanco.
Si usted es una persona de ascendencia Africana, Indígena, Árabe,
Asiática o Latina, debe unirse con nosotros del 18 al 20 de noviembre
en el Centro Cultural Negro "Sonya Hayes Stone" en la Universidad de
Carolina del Norte en Chapel Hill. Revolucionarios de los pueblos
oprimidos van a reunirse en Chapel Hill para analizar estrategias
contra un sistema que coloca a millones de personas en cárcel como
fuerza de trabajo explotada por los capitalistas. Nos reuniremos para
reflexionar sobre nuestra participación en el movimiento en contra de
la guerra imperialista. Nos uniremos de todo el país para llevar la
lucha a un nivel superior, para juntos analizar y buscar estrategias
en contra de los sistemas de opresión que nos acosan. Entendemos que
las opresiones económicas y sociales que encaramos están entrelazadas
y que sólo las podremos superar al entrelazar las luchas en su contra.
Súmate a los que estamos dedicados a una economía en las manos del
pueblo, a una sociedad con atención médica de primera para todos, con
educación gratuita de la infancia hasta la vejez. Estamos
comprometidos con la lucha para acabar con la supremacía blanca, los
perjuicios, el patriarcado, el machismo, y la homofobia. Nuestras
luchas están entrelazadas; necesitamos vincularnos entre sí.
La reunión en el centro Stone creará un espacio para análisis y
reflexión. ¿Cuál es el papel de los revolucionarios en cada una de
nuestras comunidades? ¿Como deberíamos de relacionarnos entre sí,
cruzando líneas comunitarias y organizativas? ¿Cómo deben construirse
organizaciones revolucionarias multinacionales?
Y, a otro nivel, cual es la relación entre el imperialismo, la
explotación de clase, la supremacía blanca, y el patriarcado. ¿Qué
tipo de revolucionarios debemos ser para impugnar eficazmente todos
los sistemas de opresión, incluyendo las manifestaciones viciadas del
patriarcado, el racismo y el privilegio de clase dentro de la
izquierda revolucionaria?
¿Qué tipo de organizaciones revolucionarias tenemos? ¿Que clase de
movimiento revolucionario debemos forjar para triunfar? ¿Cómo podemos
usar lo que tenemos para ejecutar estrategias vencedoras? Estos son
algunos de los interrogantes que vamos a explorar.
Si usted es una persona de los pueblos oprimidos que está comprometida
con la lucha por un mundo justo, venga al Centro Stone del 18 al 20 de
noviembre del 2005. Se pueden inscribir en nuestro sitio web,
www.peopleofcolorworkshop.org.
[Retraducida]
"La Revolución aún no ha triunfado. En sus manos están la voluntad y
el poder para salvarla. Pero si desafortunadamente no lo hacen ... los
héroes de todas las épocas se conmoverán en sus tumbas para preguntar
¿qué han hecho con la sangre del pueblo?"
-Emiliano Zapata.
HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis
Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk
www.hunterbear.org
Protected by Na´shdo´i´ba´i´
and Ohkwari'
Check out Surprise Tribute:
http://www.hunterbear.org/special_tribute_page_for_hunter.htm
In our Gray Hole, the ghosts often dance in the junipers and sage, on the
game trails, in the tributary canyons with the thick red maples, and on the
high windy ridges -- and they dance from within the very essence of our own
inner being. They do this especially when the bright night moon shines down
on the clean white snow that covers the valley and its surroundings. Then
it is as bright as day -- but in an always soft and mysterious and
remembering way. [Hunter Bear]
Come to Reflect, Consider and Plan
Peoples of Color have necessarily led the fight for liberation in this
country. Our struggle continues against the ravages of capitalism,
imperialism, patriarchy and white supremacy.
Millions of people are unemployed and without health care while
billions of dollars go to war and welfare for the rich. Vigilante
groups hunt down immigrants and government agencies harass and detain
immigrants without cause or charges. Prisons are built at a record
rate while public schools crumble. Our communities are far more likely
to be exposed to industrial pollution and poison than are white
communities.
If you are a person of African, American Indian, Arab, Asian or Latino
descent you should join us at the Sonya Haynes Stone Black Cultural
Center at UNC-Chapel Hill, November 18-20, 2005. Revolutionary people
of color will gather in Chapel Hill to discuss strategies to end a
prison system that places millions behind bars as a workforce for
capitalist exploitation. We will gather to reflect on our
participation in the movement to end US imperialist war. We will come
together from around the country to move the struggle to another
level, to analyze together and seek strategies to overcome the systems
of oppression that plague us. We understand the economic and social
oppressions we face are linked and that we can only overcome them by
linking the struggles against them together.
Join those of us dedicated to an economy in the hands of the people, a
society with quality health care for all, publicly funded education
from cradle to grave. We are committed to the fight to end white
supremacy, bigotry, patriarchy, sexism and homophobia. Our struggles
are connected, so we need to be connected.
The Stone Center gathering will create a space for analysis and
reflection. What is the role of revolutionaries in each of our
communities? How should we relate to each other across community lines
and across organizational lines? How do we build multinational
revolutionary organizations?
And, on another level, what is the relationship between imperialism,
class exploitation, white supremacy and patriarchy? What kind of
revolutionaries must we become to effectively challenge all the
systems of oppression including the corrupting manifestations of
patriarchy, racism, and class privilege within the revolutionary left?
What kind of revolutionary organizations do we have? What kind of
revolutionary movement must we build to win? How do we use what we
have to execute strategies to win? These are some of the questions we
will explore.
If you are a person of color who believes in the struggle for a just
world, then come to the Stone Center, November 18-20, 2005. Register
at www.peopleofcolorworkshop.org.
"The revolution has not yet triumphed. In your hands still are the
will and the power to save it. But, if unfortunately you do not . the
heroes of all times will stir in their graves to ask, what have you
done with the blood of your people?"--Emiliano Zapata
[Borrador de la traducción -- draft translation]
Unidos Venceremos
Vengan a reflexionar, analizar y planificar
Por necesidad los pueblos oprimidos por el racismo han encabezado las
luchas por la liberación en este país. Nuestra lucha contra los
estragos que causan el capitalismo, el imperialismo, el patriarcado y
la supremacía blanca continúa.
Hay millones de desempleados y sin acceso a la atención médica
mientras que miles de millones de dólares se despilfarran en la guerra
y regalías para los ricos. Escuadrones parapoliciales se dedican a la
caza de inmigrantes mientras que las agencias del gobierno los
hostigan y detienen sin causa ni acusación. La construcción de
cárceles bate todos los récords mientras que las escuelas se
desmoronan. Nuestras comunidades sufren mucho mas de la contaminación
y los venenos industriales que las comunidades del hombre blanco.
Si usted es una persona de ascendencia Africana, Indígena, Árabe,
Asiática o Latina, debe unirse con nosotros del 18 al 20 de noviembre
en el Centro Cultural Negro "Sonya Hayes Stone" en la Universidad de
Carolina del Norte en Chapel Hill. Revolucionarios de los pueblos
oprimidos van a reunirse en Chapel Hill para analizar estrategias
contra un sistema que coloca a millones de personas en cárcel como
fuerza de trabajo explotada por los capitalistas. Nos reuniremos para
reflexionar sobre nuestra participación en el movimiento en contra de
la guerra imperialista. Nos uniremos de todo el país para llevar la
lucha a un nivel superior, para juntos analizar y buscar estrategias
en contra de los sistemas de opresión que nos acosan. Entendemos que
las opresiones económicas y sociales que encaramos están entrelazadas
y que sólo las podremos superar al entrelazar las luchas en su contra.
Súmate a los que estamos dedicados a una economía en las manos del
pueblo, a una sociedad con atención médica de primera para todos, con
educación gratuita de la infancia hasta la vejez. Estamos
comprometidos con la lucha para acabar con la supremacía blanca, los
perjuicios, el patriarcado, el machismo, y la homofobia. Nuestras
luchas están entrelazadas; necesitamos vincularnos entre sí.
La reunión en el centro Stone creará un espacio para análisis y
reflexión. ¿Cuál es el papel de los revolucionarios en cada una de
nuestras comunidades? ¿Como deberíamos de relacionarnos entre sí,
cruzando líneas comunitarias y organizativas? ¿Cómo deben construirse
organizaciones revolucionarias multinacionales?
Y, a otro nivel, cual es la relación entre el imperialismo, la
explotación de clase, la supremacía blanca, y el patriarcado. ¿Qué
tipo de revolucionarios debemos ser para impugnar eficazmente todos
los sistemas de opresión, incluyendo las manifestaciones viciadas del
patriarcado, el racismo y el privilegio de clase dentro de la
izquierda revolucionaria?
¿Qué tipo de organizaciones revolucionarias tenemos? ¿Que clase de
movimiento revolucionario debemos forjar para triunfar? ¿Cómo podemos
usar lo que tenemos para ejecutar estrategias vencedoras? Estos son
algunos de los interrogantes que vamos a explorar.
Si usted es una persona de los pueblos oprimidos que está comprometida
con la lucha por un mundo justo, venga al Centro Stone del 18 al 20 de
noviembre del 2005. Se pueden inscribir en nuestro sitio web,
www.peopleofcolorworkshop.org.
[Retraducida]
"La Revolución aún no ha triunfado. En sus manos están la voluntad y
el poder para salvarla. Pero si desafortunadamente no lo hacen ... los
héroes de todas las épocas se conmoverán en sus tumbas para preguntar
¿qué han hecho con la sangre del pueblo?"
-Emiliano Zapata.
HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis
Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk
www.hunterbear.org
Protected by Na´shdo´i´ba´i´
and Ohkwari'
Check out Surprise Tribute:
http://www.hunterbear.org/special_tribute_page_for_hunter.htm
In our Gray Hole, the ghosts often dance in the junipers and sage, on the
game trails, in the tributary canyons with the thick red maples, and on the
high windy ridges -- and they dance from within the very essence of our own
inner being. They do this especially when the bright night moon shines down
on the clean white snow that covers the valley and its surroundings. Then
it is as bright as day -- but in an always soft and mysterious and
remembering way. [Hunter Bear]
Venezuela Indigenous get land titles
washingtonpost.com
Chavez Gives Land Titles to the Indigenous
By THAIS LEON
The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 9, 2005; 10:02 PM
KARI'NA LA ISLA, Venezuela -- Six of Venezuela's indigenous communities
received title to their ancestral lands on Tuesday in a ceremony that
Venezuela's president said reversed centuries of injustice.
President Hugo Chavez said he hoped the government would be able to turn
over titles to 15 other indigenous communities by the end of the year.
"What we're recognizing is the original ownership of these lands," Chavez
said during the ceremony. "Now no one will be able to come and trample over
you in the future."
He was joined by Kari'na Indians wearing traditional dress, face paint and
strings of colored beads.
But Chavez warned that the process of granting legal ownership must respect
Venezuela's "territorial unity," and he urged other indigenous groups not to
ask for "infinite expanses of territory."
"Don't ask me to give you the state's rights to exploit mines, to exploit
oil," Chavez said. "Before all else comes national unity."
The documents recognize land ownership by six indigenous communities with
some 4,000 people and territory covering 314,000 acres in the eastern states
of Anzoategui and Monagas.
One woman from the Kari'na community thanked Chavez, saying: "He has been
the first president who has kept his word to a people who have been stripped
of their lands."
An estimated 300,000 Venezuelans belong to 28 indigenous groups, many living
in the country's sparsely populated southeast.
South American countries have made various efforts to grant indigenous
groups legal ownership and control over their traditional territories.
In neighboring Colombia, indigenous groups in officially recognized
communities can administer justice, receive state funds and have their own
government.
Brazil has set aside more than 12 percent of its territory for indigenous
communities, and in Peru various laws declare the rights of indigenous
groups to ancestral territory in the Amazon.
But problems have arisen in some countries as miners and loggers have moved
onto Indian lands. And in various countries, a key debate has revolved
around the state's rights to what lies underground, such as oil and mineral
wealth.
HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis
Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk
www.hunterbear.org
Protected by Na´shdo´i´ba´i´
and Ohkwari'
Chavez Gives Land Titles to the Indigenous
By THAIS LEON
The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 9, 2005; 10:02 PM
KARI'NA LA ISLA, Venezuela -- Six of Venezuela's indigenous communities
received title to their ancestral lands on Tuesday in a ceremony that
Venezuela's president said reversed centuries of injustice.
President Hugo Chavez said he hoped the government would be able to turn
over titles to 15 other indigenous communities by the end of the year.
"What we're recognizing is the original ownership of these lands," Chavez
said during the ceremony. "Now no one will be able to come and trample over
you in the future."
He was joined by Kari'na Indians wearing traditional dress, face paint and
strings of colored beads.
But Chavez warned that the process of granting legal ownership must respect
Venezuela's "territorial unity," and he urged other indigenous groups not to
ask for "infinite expanses of territory."
"Don't ask me to give you the state's rights to exploit mines, to exploit
oil," Chavez said. "Before all else comes national unity."
The documents recognize land ownership by six indigenous communities with
some 4,000 people and territory covering 314,000 acres in the eastern states
of Anzoategui and Monagas.
One woman from the Kari'na community thanked Chavez, saying: "He has been
the first president who has kept his word to a people who have been stripped
of their lands."
An estimated 300,000 Venezuelans belong to 28 indigenous groups, many living
in the country's sparsely populated southeast.
South American countries have made various efforts to grant indigenous
groups legal ownership and control over their traditional territories.
In neighboring Colombia, indigenous groups in officially recognized
communities can administer justice, receive state funds and have their own
government.
Brazil has set aside more than 12 percent of its territory for indigenous
communities, and in Peru various laws declare the rights of indigenous
groups to ancestral territory in the Amazon.
But problems have arisen in some countries as miners and loggers have moved
onto Indian lands. And in various countries, a key debate has revolved
around the state's rights to what lies underground, such as oil and mineral
wealth.
HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis
Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk
www.hunterbear.org
Protected by Na´shdo´i´ba´i´
and Ohkwari'
Thursday, August 04, 2005
U.S. Social forum to be in Atlanta
The World Social Forum (WSF) model is spreading around the world and a wide range of grassroots organizations and networks have just announced the location of the first ever U.S. Social Forum (USSF) Atlanta, GA. In January 2005 the WSF drew over 150,000 people to Porto Alegre, Brazil and this year with a decentralized model of regional forums it is expected to draw even more participants. 20,000 participants are expected to convene during the summer of 2006 in Atlanta to build a broader national movement for social justice around the world; the exact dates are yet to be determined.
The USSF Planning Committee decided on the site on June 30th after an extensive criteria-setting and selection process that looked at more than a dozen cities across the U.S. In the final round of selections, full proposals from San Francisco, Albuquerque, and Atlanta (including support from local mayors and city councils) were considered before Atlanta was chosen to be the host of the first USSF. All three proposals exhibited inspiring commitments towards building a national progressive movement for social and economic justice.
Atlanta organizers were thrilled that their city was selected. “The U.S. South and especially Atlanta welcomes the opportunity to host the first U.S. Social Forum at this critical juncture in the development of our movement for social and economic justice” said Jerome Scott of Project South, one of the lead organizations on the Atlanta host committee.
The planning group chose Atlanta because of its, and the U.S. South’s, significance as the site of past and ongoing struggles for social and economic justice. The South has been the site of the most determined and consistent fights for black freedom, indigenous self-determination, and working class emancipation. The South has also been a historically exploited region that has restricted unions and deterred environmental regulations, while creating a legal system that defended capitalism’s right to exploit working people.
In an endorsement letter for Atlanta’s proposal, Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin writes, “As the birthplace of Dr. Martin Luther King III, Atlanta has a very proud history of promoting and celebrating human rights. It is a history we continue to appreciate and build upon for the future. Serving as the host city for the US Social Forum is a continuation of our legacy.”
Currently, the region is home to new immigrant-groups from Latin America, Africa and Asia. Many of these new immigrants are political or economic refugees whose situation is the result of corporate globalization and who seek to find common ground in order to build a powerful movement for social and economic justice. Planners hope that holding the USSF in Atlanta will give space for the bottom-up movement building that has been emerging throughout the region and that it will, in turn, significantly impact the rest of the country.
“The US Social Forum is an important space for the people most affected by neo-liberal policies in the U.S. to share and learn from each other's struggles. Another world is possible and we must begin to envision it now” said Scott.
###
USSF Planning Committee: 50 Years Is Enough Network, American Friends Service Committee, Commission for Religion in Appalachia, Community Voices Heard, DARE, RI, Grassroots Global Justice, Indigenous Environmental Network, Indigenous Women’s Network, Jobs With Justice, Just Transition Alliance, Labor/Community Strategy Center, Listen, Inc., National Center for Human Rights Education, National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Native American Representatives for youth and Alaska, Native Social and Civic Justice, Northwest Social Forum Representatives, NYC AIDS Housing Network, Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign, Project South, Service Employees international Union (SEIU) Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, Southwest Workers Union, Tennessee Economic Renewal Network, United Students Against Sweatshops.
The USSF Planning Committee decided on the site on June 30th after an extensive criteria-setting and selection process that looked at more than a dozen cities across the U.S. In the final round of selections, full proposals from San Francisco, Albuquerque, and Atlanta (including support from local mayors and city councils) were considered before Atlanta was chosen to be the host of the first USSF. All three proposals exhibited inspiring commitments towards building a national progressive movement for social and economic justice.
Atlanta organizers were thrilled that their city was selected. “The U.S. South and especially Atlanta welcomes the opportunity to host the first U.S. Social Forum at this critical juncture in the development of our movement for social and economic justice” said Jerome Scott of Project South, one of the lead organizations on the Atlanta host committee.
The planning group chose Atlanta because of its, and the U.S. South’s, significance as the site of past and ongoing struggles for social and economic justice. The South has been the site of the most determined and consistent fights for black freedom, indigenous self-determination, and working class emancipation. The South has also been a historically exploited region that has restricted unions and deterred environmental regulations, while creating a legal system that defended capitalism’s right to exploit working people.
In an endorsement letter for Atlanta’s proposal, Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin writes, “As the birthplace of Dr. Martin Luther King III, Atlanta has a very proud history of promoting and celebrating human rights. It is a history we continue to appreciate and build upon for the future. Serving as the host city for the US Social Forum is a continuation of our legacy.”
Currently, the region is home to new immigrant-groups from Latin America, Africa and Asia. Many of these new immigrants are political or economic refugees whose situation is the result of corporate globalization and who seek to find common ground in order to build a powerful movement for social and economic justice. Planners hope that holding the USSF in Atlanta will give space for the bottom-up movement building that has been emerging throughout the region and that it will, in turn, significantly impact the rest of the country.
“The US Social Forum is an important space for the people most affected by neo-liberal policies in the U.S. to share and learn from each other's struggles. Another world is possible and we must begin to envision it now” said Scott.
###
USSF Planning Committee: 50 Years Is Enough Network, American Friends Service Committee, Commission for Religion in Appalachia, Community Voices Heard, DARE, RI, Grassroots Global Justice, Indigenous Environmental Network, Indigenous Women’s Network, Jobs With Justice, Just Transition Alliance, Labor/Community Strategy Center, Listen, Inc., National Center for Human Rights Education, National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Native American Representatives for youth and Alaska, Native Social and Civic Justice, Northwest Social Forum Representatives, NYC AIDS Housing Network, Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign, Project South, Service Employees international Union (SEIU) Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, Southwest Workers Union, Tennessee Economic Renewal Network, United Students Against Sweatshops.
Voting Rights Act
VOTING RIGHTS ACT: THE BATTLE CONTINUES
Wednesday, August 3, 2005: 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM EST
August 6, 2005 marks the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). While the VRA has been extremely successful in ending discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes work remains to ensuring that everyone has the opportunity. Learn what’s next for the Voting Rights Act, how you can plug in to local events celebrating its 40th anniversary and how you can get involved in the fight to ensure that voting rights are secured for everyone.
http://www.movingideas.org/chat/VRA/VRA.php
http://www.keepthevotealive.org/
Wednesday, August 3, 2005: 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM EST
August 6, 2005 marks the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). While the VRA has been extremely successful in ending discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes work remains to ensuring that everyone has the opportunity. Learn what’s next for the Voting Rights Act, how you can plug in to local events celebrating its 40th anniversary and how you can get involved in the fight to ensure that voting rights are secured for everyone.
http://www.movingideas.org/chat/VRA/VRA.php
http://www.keepthevotealive.org/
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Undocumented
Solo,
Frente a luces ajenas
Oye otras voces calladas, distantes:
Este puente te lleva al olvido,
Te cambia de nombre.
Ya nada será tuyo
Escucha el sonido del tren que se aleja,
El viento que roza la tarde.
Ya nada será tuyo
Y cuando vuelvas
Traerás en las uñas, en el tacto, en tu aliento,
La sensación de haber visitado
El envés de tus sueños.
Ya nada será tuyo
Como lo fueron una vez los juegos de niño.
Aquellos jardines del pueblo,
El mismo recuerdo.
Alone,
Facing foreign lights
He hears whispered voices, distantly:
This bridge takes you to oblivion,
It changes your name.
Nothing will be yours now,
Listen to the departing train,
The wind rubbing against the evening.
Nothing will be yours now
And when you return
You'll bring under your fingernails, your touch, your breath,
The feeling of having visited
The underside of your dreams.
Nothing will be yours now
As were the games of childhood,
Those village gardens,
The same memory.
[This moving poem by Enrique Cortázar originally appeared in Espejos y Ventanas/Mirrors and Windows (eds. Mark Lyons and August Tarrier), a new collection of oral histories of Mexican farmworkers published last year by New City Community Press, whose work is "grounded in the belief that writing is an implicit organizing tool that can produce social change." It is reprodued here with the author's and publisher's kind permissions. -- Ed.]
Enrique Cortázar obtuvo su maestría en educación y literatura en la Universidad de Harvard donde fue estudiante de Octavio Paz. Algunas de sus publicaciones incluyen La Vida Escrita con Mala Gramática/Life Written with Bad Grammar (Ediciones de Cultura Popular, 1983) y Variaciones Sobre una Nostalgia/Variations upon a Nostalgia (UNAM, 1998). Fue catedrático de la Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua durante más de 28 años y actualmente dirige el Instituto de México en San Antonio, Texas.
Enrique Cortazar earned a Master's degree in education and literature at Harvard University where he was a student of Octavio Paz. Some of his publications include Life Written with Bad Grammar (Popular Editions of Culture, 1983) and Variations upon a Nostalgia (UNAM, 1998). He was a professor at the Autonomous University of Chihuahua for more than 28 years and presently directs the institute of Mexico in San Antonio, Texas.
From Monthly Reviewe zine
Frente a luces ajenas
Oye otras voces calladas, distantes:
Este puente te lleva al olvido,
Te cambia de nombre.
Ya nada será tuyo
Escucha el sonido del tren que se aleja,
El viento que roza la tarde.
Ya nada será tuyo
Y cuando vuelvas
Traerás en las uñas, en el tacto, en tu aliento,
La sensación de haber visitado
El envés de tus sueños.
Ya nada será tuyo
Como lo fueron una vez los juegos de niño.
Aquellos jardines del pueblo,
El mismo recuerdo.
Alone,
Facing foreign lights
He hears whispered voices, distantly:
This bridge takes you to oblivion,
It changes your name.
Nothing will be yours now,
Listen to the departing train,
The wind rubbing against the evening.
Nothing will be yours now
And when you return
You'll bring under your fingernails, your touch, your breath,
The feeling of having visited
The underside of your dreams.
Nothing will be yours now
As were the games of childhood,
Those village gardens,
The same memory.
[This moving poem by Enrique Cortázar originally appeared in Espejos y Ventanas/Mirrors and Windows (eds. Mark Lyons and August Tarrier), a new collection of oral histories of Mexican farmworkers published last year by New City Community Press, whose work is "grounded in the belief that writing is an implicit organizing tool that can produce social change." It is reprodued here with the author's and publisher's kind permissions. -- Ed.]
Enrique Cortázar obtuvo su maestría en educación y literatura en la Universidad de Harvard donde fue estudiante de Octavio Paz. Algunas de sus publicaciones incluyen La Vida Escrita con Mala Gramática/Life Written with Bad Grammar (Ediciones de Cultura Popular, 1983) y Variaciones Sobre una Nostalgia/Variations upon a Nostalgia (UNAM, 1998). Fue catedrático de la Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua durante más de 28 años y actualmente dirige el Instituto de México en San Antonio, Texas.
Enrique Cortazar earned a Master's degree in education and literature at Harvard University where he was a student of Octavio Paz. Some of his publications include Life Written with Bad Grammar (Popular Editions of Culture, 1983) and Variations upon a Nostalgia (UNAM, 1998). He was a professor at the Autonomous University of Chihuahua for more than 28 years and presently directs the institute of Mexico in San Antonio, Texas.
From Monthly Reviewe zine
UFW joins the Change to Win Coalition in labor
The AFL-CIO Convention:
Will It Improve the Plight of America’s Workers?
Whether this week's AFL-CIO Conventioneers, celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the merger of the American Federation of Labor (founded in 1886) and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (founded in 1935), could produce a united front to combat the long ignored "one-sided class war being waged [relentlessly] on workers in this country" was never really in question. They can't! Labor's leadership is organized in a "circular firing squad."
It's not in question whether this convention of the self-described "House of Labor" will provide an unusual measure of drama, with major players pushing competing proposals for the revitalization of our beleaguered labor movement. That, in a surreal sense, is assured. Five of the most influential and numerically potent affiliated unions, under the banner of Change To Win Coalition (CTW), have issued a challenge to the existing direction of the Federation and seem equally passionate about replacing its top officers, particularly AFL-CIO President John Sweeney. This conflict has been brewing for over a year. There have been open skirmishes and rancorous internal debates. A threat by the CTW unions to disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO is also in play. Some observers have described the situation as "a train wreck in the making."
What's it all about? Each side cites the precipitous decline in the percentage of union members in the total U.S. work force as the driving imperative behind the need to change course. However, the bulk of the debate, as initiated by CTW, has been focused on "restructuring" and resource reallocation (how much Federation dues dollars to rebate to affiliates that meet new organizing criteria goals). The argument is underpinned by buzz phrases like "achieving density" and strong initiatives to merge a number of existing unions into industrial sector blocks with Industrial Coordinating Committees (ICCs) to assist in strategic targeting and police the bargaining standards of each sector's member unions.
The positions of each side have changed over the course of the debate. And, in the days just before the Convention, additional discussions were underway between representatives of the each faction. The detailed positions of the current competing proposals are available online. For the Change to Win Coalition, check their web sites: unitetowin.org and changetowin.org, titled "Change To Win Amendments & Resolutions." The counter-positions of the current AFL-CIO Officers can be found at.
A larger question being raised by a number of unionists and labor-friendly observers, myself included, is what is not included in the current top-down debate. Neither side offers an overall vision of how a just society should be organized. Nothing in this fractious exchange provides or encourages greater internal democracy. And, despite the 30-year long corporate war on workers' wages, conditions of employment, and the quality of life in working class communities, little in the dueling proposals suggests how to wage a concerted counterattack. There is also a very limited appreciation in this debate of the depth of the collusion of government with the corporate aggressors. In the positions of either side, there is only an oblique nod to the need for international solidarity among unions and labor movements within the global economy.
In a very recent analysis of the current debate, RoseAnn DeMoro, Executive Director of the independent California Nurses Association, published a piece posted on Counterpunch (21 July 2005), entitled “Top 10 Problems with the Current Debate in the Labor Movement.” One of the ten, for example, suggests that:
No issues affecting the majority of working Americans are being debated -- declining real wages, the health care crisis, the continued erosion of democracy in the workplace, outsourcing of jobs across the skill and pay spectrum, a deteriorating social safety net, declining support for public education, environmental degradation, social justice and ongoing racial and gender inequality, alienation and disaffection from the political process.
Bill Fletcher, a former labor organizer and one time top staffer in the AFL-CIO, and currently President of TransAfrica, in a recent TruthOut interview (David Bacon, "Labor Needs a Hard Left Turn," 21 July 2005), noted how conservative U.S. unions are compared to the labor movements of many other countries. He further argued that "if we are going to have a renewed labor movement . . . we need radical solutions!"
That would be a historical new direction. For this now third generation of merged Federation leaders, however, despite the depth of the current crisis, "radical solutions" have never on the table. To be sure, there's a lot of sound, and even a little fury, in the air as the leadership of our decimated union ranks gather, but very little of it is focused on those who are concertedly widening the gulf of inequality.
As a historical aside: this gathering can not, in any way, be compared to the collection of intrepid radicals and activists who in this same Chicago 100 years ago gathered under the unifying banner of the Continental Congress of the Working Class and gave birth to the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).
Jerry Tucker
Will It Improve the Plight of America’s Workers?
Whether this week's AFL-CIO Conventioneers, celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the merger of the American Federation of Labor (founded in 1886) and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (founded in 1935), could produce a united front to combat the long ignored "one-sided class war being waged [relentlessly] on workers in this country" was never really in question. They can't! Labor's leadership is organized in a "circular firing squad."
It's not in question whether this convention of the self-described "House of Labor" will provide an unusual measure of drama, with major players pushing competing proposals for the revitalization of our beleaguered labor movement. That, in a surreal sense, is assured. Five of the most influential and numerically potent affiliated unions, under the banner of Change To Win Coalition (CTW), have issued a challenge to the existing direction of the Federation and seem equally passionate about replacing its top officers, particularly AFL-CIO President John Sweeney. This conflict has been brewing for over a year. There have been open skirmishes and rancorous internal debates. A threat by the CTW unions to disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO is also in play. Some observers have described the situation as "a train wreck in the making."
What's it all about? Each side cites the precipitous decline in the percentage of union members in the total U.S. work force as the driving imperative behind the need to change course. However, the bulk of the debate, as initiated by CTW, has been focused on "restructuring" and resource reallocation (how much Federation dues dollars to rebate to affiliates that meet new organizing criteria goals). The argument is underpinned by buzz phrases like "achieving density" and strong initiatives to merge a number of existing unions into industrial sector blocks with Industrial Coordinating Committees (ICCs) to assist in strategic targeting and police the bargaining standards of each sector's member unions.
The positions of each side have changed over the course of the debate. And, in the days just before the Convention, additional discussions were underway between representatives of the each faction. The detailed positions of the current competing proposals are available online. For the Change to Win Coalition, check their web sites: unitetowin.org and changetowin.org, titled "Change To Win Amendments & Resolutions." The counter-positions of the current AFL-CIO Officers can be found at
A larger question being raised by a number of unionists and labor-friendly observers, myself included, is what is not included in the current top-down debate. Neither side offers an overall vision of how a just society should be organized. Nothing in this fractious exchange provides or encourages greater internal democracy. And, despite the 30-year long corporate war on workers' wages, conditions of employment, and the quality of life in working class communities, little in the dueling proposals suggests how to wage a concerted counterattack. There is also a very limited appreciation in this debate of the depth of the collusion of government with the corporate aggressors. In the positions of either side, there is only an oblique nod to the need for international solidarity among unions and labor movements within the global economy.
In a very recent analysis of the current debate, RoseAnn DeMoro, Executive Director of the independent California Nurses Association, published a piece posted on Counterpunch (21 July 2005), entitled “Top 10 Problems with the Current Debate in the Labor Movement.” One of the ten, for example, suggests that:
No issues affecting the majority of working Americans are being debated -- declining real wages, the health care crisis, the continued erosion of democracy in the workplace, outsourcing of jobs across the skill and pay spectrum, a deteriorating social safety net, declining support for public education, environmental degradation, social justice and ongoing racial and gender inequality, alienation and disaffection from the political process.
Bill Fletcher, a former labor organizer and one time top staffer in the AFL-CIO, and currently President of TransAfrica, in a recent TruthOut interview (David Bacon, "Labor Needs a Hard Left Turn," 21 July 2005), noted how conservative U.S. unions are compared to the labor movements of many other countries. He further argued that "if we are going to have a renewed labor movement . . . we need radical solutions!"
That would be a historical new direction. For this now third generation of merged Federation leaders, however, despite the depth of the current crisis, "radical solutions" have never on the table. To be sure, there's a lot of sound, and even a little fury, in the air as the leadership of our decimated union ranks gather, but very little of it is focused on those who are concertedly widening the gulf of inequality.
As a historical aside: this gathering can not, in any way, be compared to the collection of intrepid radicals and activists who in this same Chicago 100 years ago gathered under the unifying banner of the Continental Congress of the Working Class and gave birth to the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).
Jerry Tucker
Friday, July 22, 2005
An appeal to union members
Urgent letter to union members - Action Needed Prior to Start of AFL-CIO Convention
Urgent letter to union members - Action Needed Prior to
Start of AFL-CIO Convention
Dear friend,
If you are a member of a union please pay special
attention to this letter. If you are not, please bring
it to the attention of union members you know
immediately.
>From July 24-28th the AFL-CIO will be holding it's
national convention in Chicago. Much attention has be
focused on the leadership question and differences
between groups of unions. This letter is NOT about
that.
Also before the convention will be a resolution titled
"Build Unity and Trust Among Workers Worldwide,"
dealing with AFL-CIO activities in the field of foreign
relations. This resolution was passed unanimously by
the California Labor Federation which represents 2.4
million workers (1/6 of the AFL-CIO). It would
radically alter AFL-CIO ties to government policy.
"Build Unity and Trust" calls upon the AFL-CIO to
accept money from the National Endowment for Democracy
(NED) or other government agencies ONLY with "extreme
caution" and "ONLY to pursue the goals of honest
international labor solidarity...and renounce any tie
that would make us paid agents of the United States
Government or the forces of corporate economic
globalization."
We are told that the Build Unity & Trust Resolution has
been endorsed by various Central Labor Councils,
including; Rochester, NY, Tucson, AZ, Denver,CO,
Seattle,WA, San Jose,CA, Monterey-Santa Cruz,CA, and
San Francisco,CA.
Because of growing support against the NED and NED
funding, several southern state federation executive
boards have submitted a self serving resolution written
by the AFL-CIO¹s "Solidarity Center" which gets most of
its money from the NED and other government agencies.
Their resolution avoids any mention of "solidarity
Center" funding by the NED and the Bush administration.
With more than one resolution submitted on the same
general topic, the Convention Resolutions Committee
will most likely draft a "composite" resolution and
present it to the Convention. Debate will then be on
their recommendation.
Attached to this letter are the members of the
Resolution Committee and their union affiliation.
If you are a member of any of their unions or central
labor councils or know anyone who is, we URGE you to
communicate with them, in a respectful way, your views
on the Build Unity & Trust Resolution.
In other words, we are asking you to do what you, and
anyone else you may know, can do right now.
It is urgent that letters be sent or faxed immediately
as some members of the Resolutions Committee are
already on their way to Chicago.
IN SOLIDARITY,
FRED HIRSCH
VICE PRESIDENT PLUMBERS & FITTERS LOCAL 393
LATIN AMERICA SOLIDARITY COMMITTEE
S A M P L E L E T T E R
Dear _________,
As a member of __________________ I'm writing to you
today to ask you, as our representative on the
Resolutions Committee at the AFL-CIO Convention, to
support the "Build Unity and Trust Among Workers
Worldwide" resolution.
The resolution, which was passed by the 2.4 million
member California Labor Federation, cites some very
questionable AFL-CIO work abroad, recently in
Venezuela, financed through the government funded
National Endowment for Democracy (NED). It calls into
question the "dubious" history of the NED for
"assisting in overthrowing democratically elected
governments and interfering in the internal affairs of
the labor movements of other countries." The resolution
calls for "extreme caution in seeking or accepting"
government funds "and to accept these funds only to
further the goals of honest international labor
solidarity..." It calls upon the AFL-CIO to "renounce
any such tie that would make us paid agents of
government or the forces of corporate economic
globalization."
The resolution asks for transparency in AFL-CIO
activities abroad. The same kind of transparency
demanded in the finances of our own unions. "Build
Unity and Trust" would allow the AFL-CIO to continue
genuine solidarity work. It urges the Federation to
turn, not to funding sources such as the Bush
administration, but to its affiliates and members.
Real solidarity has to be independently offered our
unions. We cannot continue to pass through Bush
administration resources dubiously labeled as
"solidarity."
Thank you for giving "Build Unity and Trust" your
careful attention. I hope it will be benefited by your
support and leadership on the Convention Resolutions
committee and that you will help get it to the floor of
the convention with a positive recommendation. Its
passage will enable Federation foreign affairs
activities that are newly independent of government
ties and which can be trusted by workers and unions in
other countries.
In Solidarity,
(Your name and the name of your local union)
=======
Members of the Resolutions Committee:
Gerald McIntee, President, AFSCME - Chair
Linda Chavez-Thompson, AFL-CIO Executive Vice
President, Vice Chair
Leo Gerard, President, USWA, Secretary
Jim Andrews, President, No. Carolina State AFL-CIO
Stuart Appelbaum, RWDSU/UFCW President
Baxter Atkinson, American Federation of School
Administrators
Rick Bender, President, Washington State AFL-CIO
Clayola Brown, Unite
Jeff Crosby, President, No. Shore, MA CLC
Jeff Fiedler, Food & Allied Service Trades Dept.
John Flynn, President, Bricklayers
Fred Frost, President, So. Florida AFL-CIO
John Gage, President, AFGE
Mike Goodwin, President, OPEIU
Bob Haynes, President, MA State AFL-CIO
William Hite, General President, UA (Plumbers & Pipe
Fitters)
Frank Hurt, President, Bakery, Confectionary & Tobacco
Workers
Cheryl Johnson, President, United American Nurses
Gloria Johnson, IUE/CWA
Leon Lynch, Vice President, USWA
David Newby, President, WI State AFL-CIO
Terry O'Sullivan, President, Laborers Intl. Union
Clyde Rivers, President, CA School Employees
Association (CSEA)
John Ryan, President, Cleveland CLC
John Wilhelm, President, Unite HERE
Bill Young, President, NALC
Previous message: Debating Labor's Future
Next message: HEALTH: Sick of Globalisation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the portside mailing list
Urgent letter to union members - Action Needed Prior to
Start of AFL-CIO Convention
Dear friend,
If you are a member of a union please pay special
attention to this letter. If you are not, please bring
it to the attention of union members you know
immediately.
>From July 24-28th the AFL-CIO will be holding it's
national convention in Chicago. Much attention has be
focused on the leadership question and differences
between groups of unions. This letter is NOT about
that.
Also before the convention will be a resolution titled
"Build Unity and Trust Among Workers Worldwide,"
dealing with AFL-CIO activities in the field of foreign
relations. This resolution was passed unanimously by
the California Labor Federation which represents 2.4
million workers (1/6 of the AFL-CIO). It would
radically alter AFL-CIO ties to government policy.
"Build Unity and Trust" calls upon the AFL-CIO to
accept money from the National Endowment for Democracy
(NED) or other government agencies ONLY with "extreme
caution" and "ONLY to pursue the goals of honest
international labor solidarity...and renounce any tie
that would make us paid agents of the United States
Government or the forces of corporate economic
globalization."
We are told that the Build Unity & Trust Resolution has
been endorsed by various Central Labor Councils,
including; Rochester, NY, Tucson, AZ, Denver,CO,
Seattle,WA, San Jose,CA, Monterey-Santa Cruz,CA, and
San Francisco,CA.
Because of growing support against the NED and NED
funding, several southern state federation executive
boards have submitted a self serving resolution written
by the AFL-CIO¹s "Solidarity Center" which gets most of
its money from the NED and other government agencies.
Their resolution avoids any mention of "solidarity
Center" funding by the NED and the Bush administration.
With more than one resolution submitted on the same
general topic, the Convention Resolutions Committee
will most likely draft a "composite" resolution and
present it to the Convention. Debate will then be on
their recommendation.
Attached to this letter are the members of the
Resolution Committee and their union affiliation.
If you are a member of any of their unions or central
labor councils or know anyone who is, we URGE you to
communicate with them, in a respectful way, your views
on the Build Unity & Trust Resolution.
In other words, we are asking you to do what you, and
anyone else you may know, can do right now.
It is urgent that letters be sent or faxed immediately
as some members of the Resolutions Committee are
already on their way to Chicago.
IN SOLIDARITY,
FRED HIRSCH
VICE PRESIDENT PLUMBERS & FITTERS LOCAL 393
LATIN AMERICA SOLIDARITY COMMITTEE
S A M P L E L E T T E R
Dear _________,
As a member of __________________ I'm writing to you
today to ask you, as our representative on the
Resolutions Committee at the AFL-CIO Convention, to
support the "Build Unity and Trust Among Workers
Worldwide" resolution.
The resolution, which was passed by the 2.4 million
member California Labor Federation, cites some very
questionable AFL-CIO work abroad, recently in
Venezuela, financed through the government funded
National Endowment for Democracy (NED). It calls into
question the "dubious" history of the NED for
"assisting in overthrowing democratically elected
governments and interfering in the internal affairs of
the labor movements of other countries." The resolution
calls for "extreme caution in seeking or accepting"
government funds "and to accept these funds only to
further the goals of honest international labor
solidarity..." It calls upon the AFL-CIO to "renounce
any such tie that would make us paid agents of
government or the forces of corporate economic
globalization."
The resolution asks for transparency in AFL-CIO
activities abroad. The same kind of transparency
demanded in the finances of our own unions. "Build
Unity and Trust" would allow the AFL-CIO to continue
genuine solidarity work. It urges the Federation to
turn, not to funding sources such as the Bush
administration, but to its affiliates and members.
Real solidarity has to be independently offered our
unions. We cannot continue to pass through Bush
administration resources dubiously labeled as
"solidarity."
Thank you for giving "Build Unity and Trust" your
careful attention. I hope it will be benefited by your
support and leadership on the Convention Resolutions
committee and that you will help get it to the floor of
the convention with a positive recommendation. Its
passage will enable Federation foreign affairs
activities that are newly independent of government
ties and which can be trusted by workers and unions in
other countries.
In Solidarity,
(Your name and the name of your local union)
=======
Members of the Resolutions Committee:
Gerald McIntee, President, AFSCME - Chair
Linda Chavez-Thompson, AFL-CIO Executive Vice
President, Vice Chair
Leo Gerard, President, USWA, Secretary
Jim Andrews, President, No. Carolina State AFL-CIO
Stuart Appelbaum, RWDSU/UFCW President
Baxter Atkinson, American Federation of School
Administrators
Rick Bender, President, Washington State AFL-CIO
Clayola Brown, Unite
Jeff Crosby, President, No. Shore, MA CLC
Jeff Fiedler, Food & Allied Service Trades Dept.
John Flynn, President, Bricklayers
Fred Frost, President, So. Florida AFL-CIO
John Gage, President, AFGE
Mike Goodwin, President, OPEIU
Bob Haynes, President, MA State AFL-CIO
William Hite, General President, UA (Plumbers & Pipe
Fitters)
Frank Hurt, President, Bakery, Confectionary & Tobacco
Workers
Cheryl Johnson, President, United American Nurses
Gloria Johnson, IUE/CWA
Leon Lynch, Vice President, USWA
David Newby, President, WI State AFL-CIO
Terry O'Sullivan, President, Laborers Intl. Union
Clyde Rivers, President, CA School Employees
Association (CSEA)
John Ryan, President, Cleveland CLC
John Wilhelm, President, Unite HERE
Bill Young, President, NALC
Previous message: Debating Labor's Future
Next message: HEALTH: Sick of Globalisation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the portside mailing list
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Support Farm Workers Union
Friends,
Help us in the struggle for immigrant workers rights.
go to this link to join United Farm Workers "No Gallo!" campaign
http://www.gallounfair.com/
and sign the Gallo Boycott petition
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/nogallo71905S
Help us in the struggle for immigrant workers rights.
go to this link to join United Farm Workers "No Gallo!" campaign
http://www.gallounfair.com/
and sign the Gallo Boycott petition
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/nogallo71905S
Haiti action
Thursday, July 21
EMERGENCY PROTEST!
STOP U.N. "PEACEKEEPER" MASSACRES IN HAITI!
Gather: 4 P.M. - Powell and Market, San Francisco
March to Brazilian Consulate, 300 Montgomery: 4:30 P.M.
Followed by Picket at the Brazilian Consulate.
On the morning of July 6, 2005, more than 350 heavily armed United Nations "peacekeeping" forces killed at least 23 unarmed people in the densely populated Port-au-Prince neighborhood of Cite Soleil. Some estimates indicate that 50 or more may have died. The UN Force Commander, Brazilian Lt. General Augusto Heleno, claims there was a "firefight," yet there were no UN deaths or injuries.
THIS WAS A MASSACRE. Photographic evidence and eyewitness testimony confirm that the U.N. murdered unarmed civilians, including a 4-year old child, shot through the head.
Cite Soleil has been the focus of attacks by both UN forces and the Haitian police because it remains a powerful base of support for the democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and the Lavalas movement. The U.N. operation targeted and killed Emmanuel "Dred" Wilme, a well-known community leader in Cite Soleil, who had been in the forefront of the neighborhood's resistance to the illegal coup regime. The attack came just a few days after U.S. Ambassador to Haiti James Foley labeled Haitian grassroots activists as "terrorists" and "gang members", sending a clear signal that it was now open season on civilians.
Since a U.S.-orchestrated coup overthrew the democratic government in February 2004, a United Nations force of 7500 troops has occupied Haiti. The U.N. has supported the coup regime, which has killed and imprisoned thousands of innocent people. As the U.N. mouths its concerns for human rights around the world, it attacks the poorest communities in Haiti and backs up the violent repression carried out by the Haitian police. Brazil continues to do the bidding of the United States by heading-up this brutal U.N. military operation in Haiti.
On July 21, there will be coordinated protests in many U.S. and Canadian cities to condemn the U.N. massacre in Cite Soleil. Please join us!
END THE U.S./U.N. OCCUPATION OF HAITI!
RESTORE DEMOCRACY AND PRESIDENT ARISTIDE!
Sponsored by the HAITI ACTION COMMITTEE. Endorsed by the ANSWER Coalition.
For more information: visit www.haitiaction.net or contact haitiaction@yahoo.com or 510.483.7481.
----------
EMERGENCY PROTEST!
STOP U.N. "PEACEKEEPER" MASSACRES IN HAITI!
Gather: 4 P.M. - Powell and Market, San Francisco
March to Brazilian Consulate, 300 Montgomery: 4:30 P.M.
Followed by Picket at the Brazilian Consulate.
On the morning of July 6, 2005, more than 350 heavily armed United Nations "peacekeeping" forces killed at least 23 unarmed people in the densely populated Port-au-Prince neighborhood of Cite Soleil. Some estimates indicate that 50 or more may have died. The UN Force Commander, Brazilian Lt. General Augusto Heleno, claims there was a "firefight," yet there were no UN deaths or injuries.
THIS WAS A MASSACRE. Photographic evidence and eyewitness testimony confirm that the U.N. murdered unarmed civilians, including a 4-year old child, shot through the head.
Cite Soleil has been the focus of attacks by both UN forces and the Haitian police because it remains a powerful base of support for the democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and the Lavalas movement. The U.N. operation targeted and killed Emmanuel "Dred" Wilme, a well-known community leader in Cite Soleil, who had been in the forefront of the neighborhood's resistance to the illegal coup regime. The attack came just a few days after U.S. Ambassador to Haiti James Foley labeled Haitian grassroots activists as "terrorists" and "gang members", sending a clear signal that it was now open season on civilians.
Since a U.S.-orchestrated coup overthrew the democratic government in February 2004, a United Nations force of 7500 troops has occupied Haiti. The U.N. has supported the coup regime, which has killed and imprisoned thousands of innocent people. As the U.N. mouths its concerns for human rights around the world, it attacks the poorest communities in Haiti and backs up the violent repression carried out by the Haitian police. Brazil continues to do the bidding of the United States by heading-up this brutal U.N. military operation in Haiti.
On July 21, there will be coordinated protests in many U.S. and Canadian cities to condemn the U.N. massacre in Cite Soleil. Please join us!
END THE U.S./U.N. OCCUPATION OF HAITI!
RESTORE DEMOCRACY AND PRESIDENT ARISTIDE!
Sponsored by the HAITI ACTION COMMITTEE. Endorsed by the ANSWER Coalition.
For more information: visit www.haitiaction.net or contact haitiaction@yahoo.com or 510.483.7481.
----------
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
David Bacon on Guest Workers
David is an excellent journalist on labor and immigration issues.
Talking Points on Guest Workers
Prepared by David Bacon
7/6/05
Who are guest workers?
Guest workers are given a visa to enter the US to work
on a temporary basis. To obtain a guest worker visa, a
worker must have an offer of employment, or a job
waiting in the US. This requirement sets up a system
of labor recruitment, in which labor contractors offer
workers jobs, and make the travel arrangements for them
to come. Usually, workers then have to pay at least
for the cost of the transportation, and often much
more. While the terms of the visa vary from one
program to another, they all require workers to be
employed while they're in the US. In most programs,
workers have to remain employed under the original
contract they sign with the contractor, or the US
employer. If they leave their job, or incur the
displeasure of their employer, they can be fired, lose
their visa status and forced to return home.
What was the bracero program?
The bracero program was the US' first big experiment in
using guest workers. Thousands of Mexicans were
recruited to come to the US as farm workers from 1942
to 1964, and for the first two years worked on the
railroads as well. They were recruited at centers in
Mexico, and had to obtain (usually through bribes) a
letter from the local authorities testifying that they
were good workers. They were fumigated on arrival in
the US with DDT, and then county grower associations
parceled the workers out among various local ranchers.
Workers were housed in military-style barracks, and
generally treated in an abusive way. If they
complained or tried to strike or stop work, they were
sent back to Mexico. Money was deducted from each
worker's paycheck, to create an incentive to them to
return to Mexico at the end of their contracts. Most
of this money disappeared. Since then former braceros
in the US and Mexico have been trying to force the
Mexican government to pay the money owed them.
Despite the abuse, many Mexicans used the program to
send money back to their families and home communities.
Some stayed behind illegally when their work contracts
ran out, and eventually were able to gain legal status
and bring their families to live in the US.
Why was the bracero program ended? Who fought to end
it?
Some braceros did strike to try to improve conditions,
and were often supported by local Mexicano/Chicano
communities and activists, like Bert Corona, founder of
the Mexican American Political Association. Despite
those efforts, most Mexicano/Chicano activists tried
for years to end the program. The leader of those
efforts was Ernesto Galarza, a former diplomat and
labor organizer. Galarza and his coworkers charged
that the program was inherently abusive to immigrants,
who should be given equal status instead of being
treated as disposable labor. He also charged that
growers would bring in braceros when local farm workers
tried to organize unions and strike.
Another opponent of the program was Cesar Chavez. He
organized campaigns in Oxnard, California, and other
barrios to prove that growers were not trying to hire
workers from local communities, even when there was
high unemployment. Chavez later said he could never
have organized the United Farm Workers until growers
could no longer hire braceros during strikes. The
great 5-year grape strike in which the UFW was born
began the year after the bracero program ended. Chavez
believed agribusiness' chief farm labor strategy for
decades was maintaining a surplus labor supply to keep
wages and benefits depressed, and fight unionization.
What kind of abuses do modern guest workers endure?
Guest workers recruited under modern programs are often
cheated of the pay they're promised. Employers and
contractors are required to obtain certification from
the Department of Labor, but certification is almost
never denied, even to contractors with long records of
labor law violations. Employers routinely violate
overtime, minimum pay, travel and housing requirements.
Contractors must also demonstrate that there are no
local workers available to perform the work, and that
they've tried to find them, but this requirement is
rarely enforced. Many current programs allow the use
of a blacklist, or a record of workers who are
ineligible for rehire because of alleged misconduct,
because they've worked too slow, or have protested and
caused trouble. Even when there is no formal
blacklist, contractors decide who will work from one
season to the next. Abuse is unavoidable.
Are there meaningful, effective protections for the
labor rights of guest workers?
The record shows that even when there are minimal
standards for pay, overtime, housing and other
requirements, employers violate them with impunity.
Although workers do have some legal recourse on paper,
they are unable to use the legal process effectively in
practice. One worker, hired to plant and tend pine
trees grown for the paper industry, explained that he
didn't file a legal complaint even when he knew he was
being cheated. "We didn't protest because we couldn't.
We were far away from the company office, and maybe the
next year they wouldn't give us the chance to go [to
the US again]... My idea was to escape from the job
right away. Otherwise, I wouldn't make any money."
Guest workers are commonly told that if they speak to
priests, legal aid attorneys, or union organizers
they'll be fired, deported, and blacklisted.
Often the most important factor for workers is the debt
they face at home, in the communities from which they
come. Workers have to take out huge loans to pay the
costs of coming to the US. If they lose their job,
their families lose their homes or land. John Wilhelm,
president of UNITE HERE, who heads the AFL-CIO's
immigration committee, says, "I don't think it's
possible to have labor protections for contract
workers." Even U.S. citizen workers lose their jobs
during union organizing campaigns, he says. "To think
the law will protect people whose right to stay in the
country ends with their job is not living in the real
world."
If these programs are so abusive, why do workers want
to enroll in them?
Poverty in rural communities of Mexico, Central
America, the Caribbean and Southeast Asia drives people
to leave in order to ensure the survival of their
families. Poverty is often the product of economic
reforms imposed by the International Monetary Fund and
World Bank, to create profitable investment
opportunities for large multinational corporations.
Trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and FTAA make
poverty worse, by ending subsidies on food and
transportation, encouraging low wages, and mandating
privatization and the loss of public sector jobs.
Workers trying to survive under these conditions often
see migration as their only option. Work in the United
States, even under abusive conditions, can seem an
economic necessity, when the alternative is hunger,
unemployment, and lack of a decent future for their
children.
Who wants these programs?
Proposals for a new temporary worker program are
popular in corporate America. President Bush has been
their main proponent, and calls instead for linking
"willing employees with willing employers." Bush
opposes legalization for undocumented workers, His
program calls for 300,000 people to be given temporary
visas for three years, renewable for another three. It
was adopted point-for-point from a report written by
the conservative Cato Institute in 2002. Corporate
pressure has grown so strong that even bipartisan
proposals for immigration reform now include guest
workers. A bill introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy
and John McCain includes a program even larger than
that proposed by Bush - 400,000 temporary visas per
year.
These proposals incorporate demands by the Essential
Worker Immigration Coalition - 36 of the US's largest
trade and manufacturers' associations, headed by the US
Chamber of Commerce. This organization includes the
National Association of Chain Drug Stores (think Wal-
Mart), the American Health Care Association, the
American Hotel and Lodging Association, the National
Council of Chain Restaurants, the National Retail
Federation, and the Associated Builders and
Contractors. These industries are already heavily
dependent on immigrant labor. Their program is
supported by the ultra-right Manhattan Institute.
Despite their claims, there is no great shortage of
workers in the US. There is a shortage of workers at
the low wages industry would like to pay. Today's
immigrants are actively organizing unions and fighting
for better conditions. Guest worker programs would
supply employers with a more vulnerable workforce.
Is the United States the only country considering
large-scale guest worker programs?
There is already a large guest worker program in
Canada. Immigrant advocates charge that the Canadian
government discriminates against them. Guest workers
pay into Employment Insurance funds but are
disqualified from collecting benefits, receive lower
wages than other workers doing the same job, and are
not covered by health and safety legislation. Workers
who demand better conditions are deported. In Britain,
the government has sought to end asylum programs for
refugees, while setting up programs to supply temporary
workers to British industry and agriculture, referred
to as "managed migration." Other Europeans countries
are also setting up similar programs.
The economies of all industrial countries have become
dependent on immigrant labor. There is a huge flow of
millions of migrant workers from developing to
developed countries all over the world. Governments
want to manage it in the interests of large
corporations, creating a second-class workforce with
fewer rights and lower wages.
What effect do guest worker programs have on families
and communities?
Guest worker programs encourage the migration of young
unaccompanied men, which has a big effect on sending
communities. Ghost towns appear in rural Mexico and
Central America during the peak work seasons in the US,
with many villages losing most of their best workers
during their most productive years. Villages become
places for idle recreation and retirement, rather than
domestic production. Inflation of land prices makes
land unavailable to residents who stay behind and seek
work in their native areas.
Periods when whole families were able to settle in the
United States, because of the availability of permanent
residence visas, produced much better conditions in
migrant communities. So did the legalization program
in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
Labor unionization, civic participation and wage levels
all improved, as settled immigrants demanded better
conditions. Families are better at protecting their
rights than single migrants. Wives and mothers
frequently become involved in US institutions and learn
about their rights, helping to mobilize workers to
stand their ground against employers.
Real immigration reform could enable immigrants to form
stable communities in the US. Temporary workers cannot
do this, since they have no right to live with their
families, to develop their culture, including religion
and music, to housing and healthcare, or to political
representation. When the work is done, they have to
move on. The Indigenous Front of Binational
Organizations, an organization of Mexican immigrants,
"disapproves of the Bush initiative for temporary, or
'guest' workers because it doesn't guarantee respect
for labor and human rights." Instead, it calls for
legalizing undocumented workers.
What impact will expanded guest worker programs have on
communities and unions in the US?
Guest worker programs also have an impact on the jobs
and wages of other workers. Employers want the
programs because they offer a workforce that can be
paid less than one hired from local communities. The
US paper industry, for instance, lowered the prices it
paid contractors for planting pine tree plantations.
Contractors stopped hiring a US-resident workforce, and
began hiring workers under the H2-B program as a
result.
Job competition is a fact of life for workers in the US
economic system. Employers often use the pressure of
unemployment to depress wages, and pit one community
against another. Guest worker programs give them a
powerful tool to increase this competition. Employers
could especially sharpen job competition where workers
are organizing unions, trying to raise wages, or
challenging past patterns of discrimination.
Workplace surveys show a pattern of discrimination
against African-American workers in some industries
employing large numbers of immigrants, such as
electronics assembly, semiconductor production, hotels,
building services, construction and others. Some
unions are addressing this history by supporting the
rights of all workers. UNITE HERE, for instance, calls
for enforcing the workplace rights of immigrant workers
in the hotel industry, while asking hotels to make
special efforts to hire from communities that have been
the victims of past discrimination, and suffer high
unemployment. This particularly affects African
Americans, but also established immigrants. Large
guest worker programs would give hotel corporations the
ability to bring in a new, low-wage workforce, instead
of agreeing to the remedies proposed by the union.
Is there a connection between new guest worker
proposals and enforcement of employer sanctions?
Employer sanctions, or the law which makes it a crime
for an undocumented person to hold a job, have been
justified as a means of discouraging people from
immigrating illegally. In this respect, they've been a
total failure. They have, however, made undocumented
workers more vulnerable to employer pressure, and have
been used to prevent workers from organizing unions and
defending their workplace rights.
With new guest worker proposals, employer sanctions
have acquired a bigger purpose. Many guest workers
find they can earn more money, and work in a less
pressured environment, if they leave the jobs for which
they were contracted. Employer sanctions become a
means to force them to stay with their contracted
employer, since finding another job becomes riskier and
more difficult.
Some proposals, like the Kennedy-McCain bill, propose
that current undocumented workers should work for six
years as guest workers, and pay a $2000 fine, in order
to obtain legal status. They would have to give
authorities all the information needed to deport them
if their application failed, and would become
disqualified if they were unemployed for as little as
30 days. Employer sanctions then become a means to
pressure undocumented immigrants into enrolling in
those guest worker programs, by making it much more
difficult for them to work if they chose not to.
Don't many workers come to the United States to work
for just a short period anyway?
A better solution is to expand the number of permanent
residence visas, allowing workers to travel between
their countries of origin and the US freely, rather
than as contract labor. They would be able to bring
families with them, and settle in the US if they
choose. They would be free to exercise their rights in
a way that contract workers are not. They could become
integrated into the communities around them on the
basis of equality.
Is there an alternative that would give undocumented
immigrants legal status?
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee proposes a
legalization program that would allow undocumented
immigrants to normalize their status if they've lived
in the US for five years, and gain some knowledge of
English. This proposal is like the legalization
provision passed by Congress in 1986, and signed into
law by President Ronald Reagan. The Jackson Lee bill
does not contain a guest worker program, and increases
the enforcement of immigrant rights, rather than the
enforcement of employer sanctions.
The UN Convention on the Status of Migrants and Their
Families guarantees a new set of rights for migrants
corresponding to this new era of heightened global
migration. It holds both sending and receiving
countries responsible for their welfare, and proposes
the goal of equal status of migrant and non-migrant
people. Countries maintain control of their borders,
and determine the rules for access to employment. The
US has not yet ratified this basic statement of human
rights.
Talking Points on Guest Workers
Prepared by David Bacon
7/6/05
Who are guest workers?
Guest workers are given a visa to enter the US to work
on a temporary basis. To obtain a guest worker visa, a
worker must have an offer of employment, or a job
waiting in the US. This requirement sets up a system
of labor recruitment, in which labor contractors offer
workers jobs, and make the travel arrangements for them
to come. Usually, workers then have to pay at least
for the cost of the transportation, and often much
more. While the terms of the visa vary from one
program to another, they all require workers to be
employed while they're in the US. In most programs,
workers have to remain employed under the original
contract they sign with the contractor, or the US
employer. If they leave their job, or incur the
displeasure of their employer, they can be fired, lose
their visa status and forced to return home.
What was the bracero program?
The bracero program was the US' first big experiment in
using guest workers. Thousands of Mexicans were
recruited to come to the US as farm workers from 1942
to 1964, and for the first two years worked on the
railroads as well. They were recruited at centers in
Mexico, and had to obtain (usually through bribes) a
letter from the local authorities testifying that they
were good workers. They were fumigated on arrival in
the US with DDT, and then county grower associations
parceled the workers out among various local ranchers.
Workers were housed in military-style barracks, and
generally treated in an abusive way. If they
complained or tried to strike or stop work, they were
sent back to Mexico. Money was deducted from each
worker's paycheck, to create an incentive to them to
return to Mexico at the end of their contracts. Most
of this money disappeared. Since then former braceros
in the US and Mexico have been trying to force the
Mexican government to pay the money owed them.
Despite the abuse, many Mexicans used the program to
send money back to their families and home communities.
Some stayed behind illegally when their work contracts
ran out, and eventually were able to gain legal status
and bring their families to live in the US.
Why was the bracero program ended? Who fought to end
it?
Some braceros did strike to try to improve conditions,
and were often supported by local Mexicano/Chicano
communities and activists, like Bert Corona, founder of
the Mexican American Political Association. Despite
those efforts, most Mexicano/Chicano activists tried
for years to end the program. The leader of those
efforts was Ernesto Galarza, a former diplomat and
labor organizer. Galarza and his coworkers charged
that the program was inherently abusive to immigrants,
who should be given equal status instead of being
treated as disposable labor. He also charged that
growers would bring in braceros when local farm workers
tried to organize unions and strike.
Another opponent of the program was Cesar Chavez. He
organized campaigns in Oxnard, California, and other
barrios to prove that growers were not trying to hire
workers from local communities, even when there was
high unemployment. Chavez later said he could never
have organized the United Farm Workers until growers
could no longer hire braceros during strikes. The
great 5-year grape strike in which the UFW was born
began the year after the bracero program ended. Chavez
believed agribusiness' chief farm labor strategy for
decades was maintaining a surplus labor supply to keep
wages and benefits depressed, and fight unionization.
What kind of abuses do modern guest workers endure?
Guest workers recruited under modern programs are often
cheated of the pay they're promised. Employers and
contractors are required to obtain certification from
the Department of Labor, but certification is almost
never denied, even to contractors with long records of
labor law violations. Employers routinely violate
overtime, minimum pay, travel and housing requirements.
Contractors must also demonstrate that there are no
local workers available to perform the work, and that
they've tried to find them, but this requirement is
rarely enforced. Many current programs allow the use
of a blacklist, or a record of workers who are
ineligible for rehire because of alleged misconduct,
because they've worked too slow, or have protested and
caused trouble. Even when there is no formal
blacklist, contractors decide who will work from one
season to the next. Abuse is unavoidable.
Are there meaningful, effective protections for the
labor rights of guest workers?
The record shows that even when there are minimal
standards for pay, overtime, housing and other
requirements, employers violate them with impunity.
Although workers do have some legal recourse on paper,
they are unable to use the legal process effectively in
practice. One worker, hired to plant and tend pine
trees grown for the paper industry, explained that he
didn't file a legal complaint even when he knew he was
being cheated. "We didn't protest because we couldn't.
We were far away from the company office, and maybe the
next year they wouldn't give us the chance to go [to
the US again]... My idea was to escape from the job
right away. Otherwise, I wouldn't make any money."
Guest workers are commonly told that if they speak to
priests, legal aid attorneys, or union organizers
they'll be fired, deported, and blacklisted.
Often the most important factor for workers is the debt
they face at home, in the communities from which they
come. Workers have to take out huge loans to pay the
costs of coming to the US. If they lose their job,
their families lose their homes or land. John Wilhelm,
president of UNITE HERE, who heads the AFL-CIO's
immigration committee, says, "I don't think it's
possible to have labor protections for contract
workers." Even U.S. citizen workers lose their jobs
during union organizing campaigns, he says. "To think
the law will protect people whose right to stay in the
country ends with their job is not living in the real
world."
If these programs are so abusive, why do workers want
to enroll in them?
Poverty in rural communities of Mexico, Central
America, the Caribbean and Southeast Asia drives people
to leave in order to ensure the survival of their
families. Poverty is often the product of economic
reforms imposed by the International Monetary Fund and
World Bank, to create profitable investment
opportunities for large multinational corporations.
Trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and FTAA make
poverty worse, by ending subsidies on food and
transportation, encouraging low wages, and mandating
privatization and the loss of public sector jobs.
Workers trying to survive under these conditions often
see migration as their only option. Work in the United
States, even under abusive conditions, can seem an
economic necessity, when the alternative is hunger,
unemployment, and lack of a decent future for their
children.
Who wants these programs?
Proposals for a new temporary worker program are
popular in corporate America. President Bush has been
their main proponent, and calls instead for linking
"willing employees with willing employers." Bush
opposes legalization for undocumented workers, His
program calls for 300,000 people to be given temporary
visas for three years, renewable for another three. It
was adopted point-for-point from a report written by
the conservative Cato Institute in 2002. Corporate
pressure has grown so strong that even bipartisan
proposals for immigration reform now include guest
workers. A bill introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy
and John McCain includes a program even larger than
that proposed by Bush - 400,000 temporary visas per
year.
These proposals incorporate demands by the Essential
Worker Immigration Coalition - 36 of the US's largest
trade and manufacturers' associations, headed by the US
Chamber of Commerce. This organization includes the
National Association of Chain Drug Stores (think Wal-
Mart), the American Health Care Association, the
American Hotel and Lodging Association, the National
Council of Chain Restaurants, the National Retail
Federation, and the Associated Builders and
Contractors. These industries are already heavily
dependent on immigrant labor. Their program is
supported by the ultra-right Manhattan Institute.
Despite their claims, there is no great shortage of
workers in the US. There is a shortage of workers at
the low wages industry would like to pay. Today's
immigrants are actively organizing unions and fighting
for better conditions. Guest worker programs would
supply employers with a more vulnerable workforce.
Is the United States the only country considering
large-scale guest worker programs?
There is already a large guest worker program in
Canada. Immigrant advocates charge that the Canadian
government discriminates against them. Guest workers
pay into Employment Insurance funds but are
disqualified from collecting benefits, receive lower
wages than other workers doing the same job, and are
not covered by health and safety legislation. Workers
who demand better conditions are deported. In Britain,
the government has sought to end asylum programs for
refugees, while setting up programs to supply temporary
workers to British industry and agriculture, referred
to as "managed migration." Other Europeans countries
are also setting up similar programs.
The economies of all industrial countries have become
dependent on immigrant labor. There is a huge flow of
millions of migrant workers from developing to
developed countries all over the world. Governments
want to manage it in the interests of large
corporations, creating a second-class workforce with
fewer rights and lower wages.
What effect do guest worker programs have on families
and communities?
Guest worker programs encourage the migration of young
unaccompanied men, which has a big effect on sending
communities. Ghost towns appear in rural Mexico and
Central America during the peak work seasons in the US,
with many villages losing most of their best workers
during their most productive years. Villages become
places for idle recreation and retirement, rather than
domestic production. Inflation of land prices makes
land unavailable to residents who stay behind and seek
work in their native areas.
Periods when whole families were able to settle in the
United States, because of the availability of permanent
residence visas, produced much better conditions in
migrant communities. So did the legalization program
in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
Labor unionization, civic participation and wage levels
all improved, as settled immigrants demanded better
conditions. Families are better at protecting their
rights than single migrants. Wives and mothers
frequently become involved in US institutions and learn
about their rights, helping to mobilize workers to
stand their ground against employers.
Real immigration reform could enable immigrants to form
stable communities in the US. Temporary workers cannot
do this, since they have no right to live with their
families, to develop their culture, including religion
and music, to housing and healthcare, or to political
representation. When the work is done, they have to
move on. The Indigenous Front of Binational
Organizations, an organization of Mexican immigrants,
"disapproves of the Bush initiative for temporary, or
'guest' workers because it doesn't guarantee respect
for labor and human rights." Instead, it calls for
legalizing undocumented workers.
What impact will expanded guest worker programs have on
communities and unions in the US?
Guest worker programs also have an impact on the jobs
and wages of other workers. Employers want the
programs because they offer a workforce that can be
paid less than one hired from local communities. The
US paper industry, for instance, lowered the prices it
paid contractors for planting pine tree plantations.
Contractors stopped hiring a US-resident workforce, and
began hiring workers under the H2-B program as a
result.
Job competition is a fact of life for workers in the US
economic system. Employers often use the pressure of
unemployment to depress wages, and pit one community
against another. Guest worker programs give them a
powerful tool to increase this competition. Employers
could especially sharpen job competition where workers
are organizing unions, trying to raise wages, or
challenging past patterns of discrimination.
Workplace surveys show a pattern of discrimination
against African-American workers in some industries
employing large numbers of immigrants, such as
electronics assembly, semiconductor production, hotels,
building services, construction and others. Some
unions are addressing this history by supporting the
rights of all workers. UNITE HERE, for instance, calls
for enforcing the workplace rights of immigrant workers
in the hotel industry, while asking hotels to make
special efforts to hire from communities that have been
the victims of past discrimination, and suffer high
unemployment. This particularly affects African
Americans, but also established immigrants. Large
guest worker programs would give hotel corporations the
ability to bring in a new, low-wage workforce, instead
of agreeing to the remedies proposed by the union.
Is there a connection between new guest worker
proposals and enforcement of employer sanctions?
Employer sanctions, or the law which makes it a crime
for an undocumented person to hold a job, have been
justified as a means of discouraging people from
immigrating illegally. In this respect, they've been a
total failure. They have, however, made undocumented
workers more vulnerable to employer pressure, and have
been used to prevent workers from organizing unions and
defending their workplace rights.
With new guest worker proposals, employer sanctions
have acquired a bigger purpose. Many guest workers
find they can earn more money, and work in a less
pressured environment, if they leave the jobs for which
they were contracted. Employer sanctions become a
means to force them to stay with their contracted
employer, since finding another job becomes riskier and
more difficult.
Some proposals, like the Kennedy-McCain bill, propose
that current undocumented workers should work for six
years as guest workers, and pay a $2000 fine, in order
to obtain legal status. They would have to give
authorities all the information needed to deport them
if their application failed, and would become
disqualified if they were unemployed for as little as
30 days. Employer sanctions then become a means to
pressure undocumented immigrants into enrolling in
those guest worker programs, by making it much more
difficult for them to work if they chose not to.
Don't many workers come to the United States to work
for just a short period anyway?
A better solution is to expand the number of permanent
residence visas, allowing workers to travel between
their countries of origin and the US freely, rather
than as contract labor. They would be able to bring
families with them, and settle in the US if they
choose. They would be free to exercise their rights in
a way that contract workers are not. They could become
integrated into the communities around them on the
basis of equality.
Is there an alternative that would give undocumented
immigrants legal status?
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee proposes a
legalization program that would allow undocumented
immigrants to normalize their status if they've lived
in the US for five years, and gain some knowledge of
English. This proposal is like the legalization
provision passed by Congress in 1986, and signed into
law by President Ronald Reagan. The Jackson Lee bill
does not contain a guest worker program, and increases
the enforcement of immigrant rights, rather than the
enforcement of employer sanctions.
The UN Convention on the Status of Migrants and Their
Families guarantees a new set of rights for migrants
corresponding to this new era of heightened global
migration. It holds both sending and receiving
countries responsible for their welfare, and proposes
the goal of equal status of migrant and non-migrant
people. Countries maintain control of their borders,
and determine the rules for access to employment. The
US has not yet ratified this basic statement of human
rights.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Oppose anti immigrant activity
Public Meeting to Strategize and Fight Against the Racist Minuteman Project!
Thursday, July 21st, 7 PM
New College of California, Room 23
766 Valencia (btwn 18th and 19th)
near 16th St./Mission BART
San Francisco
They'll be here in September, let's
get organized now!
We hope to discuss various possible responses to the Minutemen and their
allies and to come up with a plan of action that we can implement as soon as
possible.
Organized by the recently formed Bay Area Coalition to
Fight the Minutemen
Thursday, July 21st, 7 PM
New College of California, Room 23
766 Valencia (btwn 18th and 19th)
near 16th St./Mission BART
San Francisco
They'll be here in September, let's
get organized now!
We hope to discuss various possible responses to the Minutemen and their
allies and to come up with a plan of action that we can implement as soon as
possible.
Organized by the recently formed Bay Area Coalition to
Fight the Minutemen
Sunday, July 03, 2005
A Battle of ideas
Hello. I have been away for a couple of weeks traveling in Brazil.
This blog is established to engage in the battle of ideas about race and racism within our political culture. It was created to resist the current Right Wing effort to establish control over governments.
There are at least two parts to any political struggle: one is to organize and mobilize voters; the second is to engage in the battle of ideas.
This second task is to develop arguments to promote democracy and public education and to oppose those who use racial prejudice and wedge issues to divide.
For past work see www.dsausa.org/antiracism
Readers are invited to post responses to entries.
Duane Campbell
Sacramento
This blog is established to engage in the battle of ideas about race and racism within our political culture. It was created to resist the current Right Wing effort to establish control over governments.
There are at least two parts to any political struggle: one is to organize and mobilize voters; the second is to engage in the battle of ideas.
This second task is to develop arguments to promote democracy and public education and to oppose those who use racial prejudice and wedge issues to divide.
For past work see www.dsausa.org/antiracism
Readers are invited to post responses to entries.
Duane Campbell
Sacramento
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Racism in the desert
Xenophobia in the Desert:
Racist Fever Becomes Law in Arizona
By MARGOT VERANES and ADRIAN NAVARRO
June 7, 2005
Reacting to a barrage of anti-immigrant messaging and
misinformation, Proposition 200 was approved by 56% of
Arizonavoters on November 2, 2004. Prop. 200 forces all
Arizonans to present proof of U.S. citizenship, such as
a birth certificate or passport, to receive basic
publicservices and to register to vote.
Arizona's Attorney General has limited its application
to five public benefits programs, but Prop. 200's most
far-reaching impact has been one of widespread fear
and intimidation. Immigrants are afraid to access even
programs to which they areentitled. The voter-
registration component of Prop. 200 constitutes
a modern-day poll tax that often keeps low-income people
and communities of color from voting.
Since Proposition 200 passed last fall, its backers have
presented an alarming 20 bills targeting immigrants in
the Arizonalegislature, have cheered the vigilante
Minuteman Project on the Arizona-Mexico border, and have
worked to sponsor similar bills in other states. But
there isa growing grassroots mobilization against the
resurgence of racist policies in Arizona, and the
threat of an international and national boycott of the
state looms.
Prop. 200 Passed After a Campaign Rife with
Xenophobia and Half-Truths
In 2004, anti-immigrant groups nationwide with intimate
ties to white national istorganizations focused their
attention on Arizona.Residents there were frustrated
with low-wage jobs, poor healthcare, and funding being
directed away from schools and public benefits
programs. Extremists joined with a handful of fringe
local groups to promote a hateful agenda of blaming
immigrants for the state's woes.
By the time election season rolled around in 2004,
Arizona voters had already been primed foran anti-
immigrant message thanks to a campaign of lies and
race-baiting thatbuilt upon a decade of intense border
militarization. Early polling in August of 2004 showed
high rates of approval for Prop. 200.1 However, local
communityorganizations mobilized against fringe groups
from outside the state, and by mid-October,approval had
dropped from 64% to 42%, and appeared to be falling
further.2
Backin the spring of 2004, signature-gathering to place
Prop. 200 on the Novemberballot was waning. A fringe
group calling itself, "Protect Arizona Now," had
initiated the signature-gathering with support from
national anti-immigrant figureheads and organizations.
When Protect Arizona Now'sefforts lagged, the
Washington, DC-based Federation for American
ImmigrationReform (FAIR), an anti-immigrant
organization with white supremacist ties, moved into
Arizonaand began paying signature gatherers, investing
$500,000 to ensure Prop. 200would appear on the
ballot.3 FAIR also wooed voters with a bogus study
allegingthat undocumented immigrants "cost Arizona $1.3
billion per year." Their study, among other
inaccuracies,misleadingly included $810 million per
year worth of state spending on education provided to
children of immigrants who were U.S. citizens.4FAIR
refers to such children as "immigrant stock," language
that offersa glimpse of the white supremacy inherent in
their analysis of immigrants.5
Infact, immigrants, both documented and undocumented,
contribute heavily to Arizona's economy. The Thunderbird
School of International Management and Wells Fargo
Bank, in theirreport Economic Impact of the Mexico-
Arizona Relationship, demonstrated that immigrants make
enormous tax contributions, paying annually $300
million more than they receive in services in Arizona.6
In 2001, Mexican immigrants in Arizona paid $1.5 billion
in mortgages and rent, and Arizona banks and
other financial institutions received $57 million in
transaction costs and fees from remittances sent to
Mexico from the state. In addition, Mexican
immigrant purchasing power in Arizonawas estimated at
$3.9 billion in 2001.7
Further contradicting FAIR's numbers, the New York Times
recently reported that the 8to 10 million undocumented
immigrant workers in the U. S. are now providing the
Social Security system with a subsidy of as much as $7
billion a year. This money willnever be collected by
undocumented immigrants themselves and will help fund
theretirement of U.S.citizens for decades to come.8
Nevertheless, FAIR continues to peddle its
ownstatistics to promote Prop. 200 copycats in other
states, scapegoating immigrants--not the federal
government--for the severe cutbacks in state social and
health services.
Sincethe approval of Prop. 200 by Arizona
voters, immigrants have come under further attack from
the Arizona legislature. This legislatives ession there
were more than 20 anti-immigrant bills that sought to
expand Prop. 200's application and many of them have
been approved or are still pending.
"The Minutemen vigilantes have diverted the attention of
the public and the mediawhile their counterparts
sporting suits and ties in the State Capitol
promoteracist laws," said Luis Herrera, an organizer
with the St. Peter's Housing Committee in San
Francisco."A war against immigrants and people of color
has been declared in Arizona."
Voting Rights of U.S. CitizensUnder Attack
Prop.200 backers also made unfounded accusations that
undocumented immigrants votedin Arizona. Their true aim
was to suppress voting by people of color. They openly
declared during a televised debate, "Too many Latinos
are voting." The impactof Prop. 200 identification
requirements on voter registration has been staggering--
in Pima County, over a two-week period early this
month, 423 of 712voter registration forms were
rejected, or 59% of new voters. Last year, when 6times
as many people were registering because of the
presidential election, novoter registration forms were
rejected.9
Arizona isalready red-flagged by the U.S. Justice
Department (USDOJ) because of its history of widespread
voter intimidation against people of color.
Consequently,all changes to the state's voting laws
must be approved by the federalgovernment. Despite
Prop. 200's blatant discriminatory intent, in January
2005the USDOJ ruled that forcing people to show proof
of citizenship whenregistering to vote does not deter
people of color from voting.
Arizona is now the first state in the U.S.to require
that anyone registering to vote present a birth
certificate, passport, or tribal identity card. In
Arizona, approximately one-third of the Latino and
African American populations live inpoverty. Citizens
who cannot afford to purchase a birth certificate ($15
in Arizona), or passport($85) will be prohibited from
registering to vote. Civil rights leaders saythis is
eerily reminiscent of racist poll taxes. Prop. 200 also
wipes outclipboard voter registration drives because
making copies of the requireddocuments at a potential
new voter's doorstep is practically impossible. A number
of bills currently before the legislature seek to
further restrict voting rights and are sponsored by the
same anti-immigrant contingent of legislators.
Arizona Becomes the Vanguard State for Anti-Immigrant
Measures
Prop.200's legalization of racial profiling has had a
detrimental impact onU.S.-Mexico relations, as well as
earned Arizonaa reputation for intolerance within the
United States. Recent headlines in Arizona's Spanish-
language newspapers included, "Enriesgo imagen de
Arizona [ Arizona'sImage at Risk]," and "Peligroso
racismo en Arizona[Dangerous Racism in Arizona]."Harry
Garewal, the president of Arizona's Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce, warnedthat Arizona is being singled out at a
national level as the most intolerant and racist
state.10
InMarch, a 7-member delegation of Mexican senators
visited Arizona to investigate the effects of Prop.200.
The senators, seeking to analyze the law and its
effects on Mexicannationals, had appointments with
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and Phoenix Mayor
Phil Gordon. However, Governor Janet Napolitano, a one-
time opponent of Proposition 200, announced her refusal
to receive the delegation and later Mayor Gordon, also a
one-time opponent of the measure, canceled hismeeting
with the Mexican legislators.11
Followingtheir three-day visit to Arizona,their
official report described a "desolate panorama" of
rising anti-immigrant sentiment. "The anti-Mexican
atmosphere that prevails there, far from diminishing, is
being felt with ever-increasing force,"delegation
member Miguel Sadot Sánchez noted.12
Prop.200-like legislation is actively being promoted by
FAIR and other anti-immigrant organizations around the
country. Emboldened by Prop. 200'spassage in Arizona,
Arkansas,Colorado, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee,Virginia,
and Ohio are all facing similar measures. In Arkansas,
Joe McCutchen recently became the chair of "Protect
Arkansas Now," a group supporting the "Arkansas Taxpayer
and Citizen Protection Act,"closely modeled on
Proposition 200. A recent report by the Southern
Poverty LawCenter notes that Joe McCutchen was a member
of the white supremacist Councilof Conservative
Citizens (CCC) in 2001, according to the CCC's
newspaper.13
A Post-Prop. 200 Nightmare
The Arizona legislature is now debating 20 additional
bills that seek to criminalize and further marginalize
immigrant workers and their families.
*HB 2030 expands Prop. 200 to prohibit undocumented
immigrants from attending public universities and
community colleges, as well as Adult Education and
Family Literacy programs. It also blocks access to
utility and child care assistance. It is based on the
false premise that immigrants are a net economic drain
onthe state. HB 2030 passed the Arizona Legislature and
was vetoed by theGovernor.
*HB 2592 bans state funding for day labor centers. It
would prohibit cities and towns from maintaining or
building a day labor center if it is used to "facilitate
the hiring of undocumented workers." Day labor
centers provide safe, organized, and convenient
locations for both workers andemployers. HB 2592 passed
the Arizona Legislature and has already been signedby
Governor Napolitano.
*SB 1306 allows for police and Border Patrol
cooperation. Police would be ableto detain immigrants
for the purpose of calling Border Patrol, creating
further abuse and policing in low-income communities of
color. SB 1306 passed the Arizona Legislature but was
recently vetoed by the governor.
*HB 2709 would build a private prison in Mexicoto jail
undocumented immigrants arrested in Arizona. Private
prisons are already cashingin on immigrant detention
and are notorious for human rights violations. This
bill would require a new treaty between the U.S.and
Mexico.HB 2709 passed the Arizona Legislature and was
vetoed by Governor Napolitano.
*SB 1511 prohibits public entities from accepting the
matrícula consular as aform of identification. The
matrícula consular is an official I.D. card issued by
the Mexican Government through its consular offices. SB
1511 passed the Arizona Legislature and was vetoed by
Governor Napolitano.
National and International Boycott of Arizona Imminent
Prop.200, the rapid advance of its legislative
offspring, and the upsurge of armed paramilitaries on
the border, have prompted communities in Mexico,
Arizona,and across the United Statesto begin organizing
a boycott of Arizona. The boycott will target
Arizona businesses, conventions, and tourism, and will
ask individuals and businesses to shop, travel, and
conduct business elsewhere.
The communities most affected by Prop. 200 and its
offspring bills in the Arizona Legislature wield
considerable economic power. Mexican tourists alone
spend anestimated $1.6 billion in Arizonaevery year,
and Mexican immigrant purchasing power is close to $4
billion.Mexicans who might normally visit Arizonato
shop would be asked not to purchase anything in the
state. In addition, immigrants, Latinos, and their
allies in Arizonahave begun to engage in work
stoppages, and are considering boycotting
specificindustries or companies that support anti-
immigrant legislation.
The boycott will coincide with a petition drive to
repeal Prop. 200. Arizonans helda series of community
meetings in May, 2005, to decide what industries
theboycott will target and to consult the communities
that would be most impacted by such an action.
Inthe early 1990s, Arizonans challenged white
supremacists with a boycott andwon. When a ballot
initiative to recognize the Martin Luther King Jr.
holidayfailed to pass, local and national civil rights
groups initiated a national boycott of Arizona. The year-
long boycott cost Arizona$200 million, its reputation,
and an NFL Superbowl. When given the chance tovote on
the holiday again, Arizona voters approved it.
Arizona currently isat the epicenter of a national and
international struggle to defend the humanrights of
immigrants and U.S. citizens of color. The passage of
Prop. 200 here marked the kick-off of adangerous state-
by-state drive to hide a racist campaign behind a
strategic front of blaming immigrants for economic and
social ills.
Almost completely missing from the heated contest
playing out in Arizonaand nationally is a discussion of
the unjust U.S. trade policies that propel migration.
Immigrants suffer increasing imprisonment and policing
for simply crossing a border. Instead of imposing
harsher restrictions on the First World's exploitation
of Third World peoples, U.S. laws punish the victims of
theglobal economic system even further.
"Wesee the effects of these free trade policies every
day in the faces of the workers at our Centers," said
Salvador Reza, director of the Macehualli Work Center in
Phoenix, a day labor center that could soonbe banned
under HB 2592. "Prop. 200 and its henchmen have got to
bestopped, or this place is in for a boycott."
--------------------------------------------------
Margot Veranes and Adriana Navarro are members of
Defeat 200 in Tucson, Arizona.For more information on
Prop. 200 and similar bills currently before the
Arizona Legislature, the Boycott of Arizona, and
other ways to support immigrantrights campaigns
in Arizona,please contact Defeat 200 at
defeat200@yahoo.com.
Racist Fever Becomes Law in Arizona
By MARGOT VERANES and ADRIAN NAVARRO
June 7, 2005
Reacting to a barrage of anti-immigrant messaging and
misinformation, Proposition 200 was approved by 56% of
Arizonavoters on November 2, 2004. Prop. 200 forces all
Arizonans to present proof of U.S. citizenship, such as
a birth certificate or passport, to receive basic
publicservices and to register to vote.
Arizona's Attorney General has limited its application
to five public benefits programs, but Prop. 200's most
far-reaching impact has been one of widespread fear
and intimidation. Immigrants are afraid to access even
programs to which they areentitled. The voter-
registration component of Prop. 200 constitutes
a modern-day poll tax that often keeps low-income people
and communities of color from voting.
Since Proposition 200 passed last fall, its backers have
presented an alarming 20 bills targeting immigrants in
the Arizonalegislature, have cheered the vigilante
Minuteman Project on the Arizona-Mexico border, and have
worked to sponsor similar bills in other states. But
there isa growing grassroots mobilization against the
resurgence of racist policies in Arizona, and the
threat of an international and national boycott of the
state looms.
Prop. 200 Passed After a Campaign Rife with
Xenophobia and Half-Truths
In 2004, anti-immigrant groups nationwide with intimate
ties to white national istorganizations focused their
attention on Arizona.Residents there were frustrated
with low-wage jobs, poor healthcare, and funding being
directed away from schools and public benefits
programs. Extremists joined with a handful of fringe
local groups to promote a hateful agenda of blaming
immigrants for the state's woes.
By the time election season rolled around in 2004,
Arizona voters had already been primed foran anti-
immigrant message thanks to a campaign of lies and
race-baiting thatbuilt upon a decade of intense border
militarization. Early polling in August of 2004 showed
high rates of approval for Prop. 200.1 However, local
communityorganizations mobilized against fringe groups
from outside the state, and by mid-October,approval had
dropped from 64% to 42%, and appeared to be falling
further.2
Backin the spring of 2004, signature-gathering to place
Prop. 200 on the Novemberballot was waning. A fringe
group calling itself, "Protect Arizona Now," had
initiated the signature-gathering with support from
national anti-immigrant figureheads and organizations.
When Protect Arizona Now'sefforts lagged, the
Washington, DC-based Federation for American
ImmigrationReform (FAIR), an anti-immigrant
organization with white supremacist ties, moved into
Arizonaand began paying signature gatherers, investing
$500,000 to ensure Prop. 200would appear on the
ballot.3 FAIR also wooed voters with a bogus study
allegingthat undocumented immigrants "cost Arizona $1.3
billion per year." Their study, among other
inaccuracies,misleadingly included $810 million per
year worth of state spending on education provided to
children of immigrants who were U.S. citizens.4FAIR
refers to such children as "immigrant stock," language
that offersa glimpse of the white supremacy inherent in
their analysis of immigrants.5
Infact, immigrants, both documented and undocumented,
contribute heavily to Arizona's economy. The Thunderbird
School of International Management and Wells Fargo
Bank, in theirreport Economic Impact of the Mexico-
Arizona Relationship, demonstrated that immigrants make
enormous tax contributions, paying annually $300
million more than they receive in services in Arizona.6
In 2001, Mexican immigrants in Arizona paid $1.5 billion
in mortgages and rent, and Arizona banks and
other financial institutions received $57 million in
transaction costs and fees from remittances sent to
Mexico from the state. In addition, Mexican
immigrant purchasing power in Arizonawas estimated at
$3.9 billion in 2001.7
Further contradicting FAIR's numbers, the New York Times
recently reported that the 8to 10 million undocumented
immigrant workers in the U. S. are now providing the
Social Security system with a subsidy of as much as $7
billion a year. This money willnever be collected by
undocumented immigrants themselves and will help fund
theretirement of U.S.citizens for decades to come.8
Nevertheless, FAIR continues to peddle its
ownstatistics to promote Prop. 200 copycats in other
states, scapegoating immigrants--not the federal
government--for the severe cutbacks in state social and
health services.
Sincethe approval of Prop. 200 by Arizona
voters, immigrants have come under further attack from
the Arizona legislature. This legislatives ession there
were more than 20 anti-immigrant bills that sought to
expand Prop. 200's application and many of them have
been approved or are still pending.
"The Minutemen vigilantes have diverted the attention of
the public and the mediawhile their counterparts
sporting suits and ties in the State Capitol
promoteracist laws," said Luis Herrera, an organizer
with the St. Peter's Housing Committee in San
Francisco."A war against immigrants and people of color
has been declared in Arizona."
Voting Rights of U.S. CitizensUnder Attack
Prop.200 backers also made unfounded accusations that
undocumented immigrants votedin Arizona. Their true aim
was to suppress voting by people of color. They openly
declared during a televised debate, "Too many Latinos
are voting." The impactof Prop. 200 identification
requirements on voter registration has been staggering--
in Pima County, over a two-week period early this
month, 423 of 712voter registration forms were
rejected, or 59% of new voters. Last year, when 6times
as many people were registering because of the
presidential election, novoter registration forms were
rejected.9
Arizona isalready red-flagged by the U.S. Justice
Department (USDOJ) because of its history of widespread
voter intimidation against people of color.
Consequently,all changes to the state's voting laws
must be approved by the federalgovernment. Despite
Prop. 200's blatant discriminatory intent, in January
2005the USDOJ ruled that forcing people to show proof
of citizenship whenregistering to vote does not deter
people of color from voting.
Arizona is now the first state in the U.S.to require
that anyone registering to vote present a birth
certificate, passport, or tribal identity card. In
Arizona, approximately one-third of the Latino and
African American populations live inpoverty. Citizens
who cannot afford to purchase a birth certificate ($15
in Arizona), or passport($85) will be prohibited from
registering to vote. Civil rights leaders saythis is
eerily reminiscent of racist poll taxes. Prop. 200 also
wipes outclipboard voter registration drives because
making copies of the requireddocuments at a potential
new voter's doorstep is practically impossible. A number
of bills currently before the legislature seek to
further restrict voting rights and are sponsored by the
same anti-immigrant contingent of legislators.
Arizona Becomes the Vanguard State for Anti-Immigrant
Measures
Prop.200's legalization of racial profiling has had a
detrimental impact onU.S.-Mexico relations, as well as
earned Arizonaa reputation for intolerance within the
United States. Recent headlines in Arizona's Spanish-
language newspapers included, "Enriesgo imagen de
Arizona [ Arizona'sImage at Risk]," and "Peligroso
racismo en Arizona[Dangerous Racism in Arizona]."Harry
Garewal, the president of Arizona's Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce, warnedthat Arizona is being singled out at a
national level as the most intolerant and racist
state.10
InMarch, a 7-member delegation of Mexican senators
visited Arizona to investigate the effects of Prop.200.
The senators, seeking to analyze the law and its
effects on Mexicannationals, had appointments with
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and Phoenix Mayor
Phil Gordon. However, Governor Janet Napolitano, a one-
time opponent of Proposition 200, announced her refusal
to receive the delegation and later Mayor Gordon, also a
one-time opponent of the measure, canceled hismeeting
with the Mexican legislators.11
Followingtheir three-day visit to Arizona,their
official report described a "desolate panorama" of
rising anti-immigrant sentiment. "The anti-Mexican
atmosphere that prevails there, far from diminishing, is
being felt with ever-increasing force,"delegation
member Miguel Sadot Sánchez noted.12
Prop.200-like legislation is actively being promoted by
FAIR and other anti-immigrant organizations around the
country. Emboldened by Prop. 200'spassage in Arizona,
Arkansas,Colorado, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee,Virginia,
and Ohio are all facing similar measures. In Arkansas,
Joe McCutchen recently became the chair of "Protect
Arkansas Now," a group supporting the "Arkansas Taxpayer
and Citizen Protection Act,"closely modeled on
Proposition 200. A recent report by the Southern
Poverty LawCenter notes that Joe McCutchen was a member
of the white supremacist Councilof Conservative
Citizens (CCC) in 2001, according to the CCC's
newspaper.13
A Post-Prop. 200 Nightmare
The Arizona legislature is now debating 20 additional
bills that seek to criminalize and further marginalize
immigrant workers and their families.
*HB 2030 expands Prop. 200 to prohibit undocumented
immigrants from attending public universities and
community colleges, as well as Adult Education and
Family Literacy programs. It also blocks access to
utility and child care assistance. It is based on the
false premise that immigrants are a net economic drain
onthe state. HB 2030 passed the Arizona Legislature and
was vetoed by theGovernor.
*HB 2592 bans state funding for day labor centers. It
would prohibit cities and towns from maintaining or
building a day labor center if it is used to "facilitate
the hiring of undocumented workers." Day labor
centers provide safe, organized, and convenient
locations for both workers andemployers. HB 2592 passed
the Arizona Legislature and has already been signedby
Governor Napolitano.
*SB 1306 allows for police and Border Patrol
cooperation. Police would be ableto detain immigrants
for the purpose of calling Border Patrol, creating
further abuse and policing in low-income communities of
color. SB 1306 passed the Arizona Legislature but was
recently vetoed by the governor.
*HB 2709 would build a private prison in Mexicoto jail
undocumented immigrants arrested in Arizona. Private
prisons are already cashingin on immigrant detention
and are notorious for human rights violations. This
bill would require a new treaty between the U.S.and
Mexico.HB 2709 passed the Arizona Legislature and was
vetoed by Governor Napolitano.
*SB 1511 prohibits public entities from accepting the
matrícula consular as aform of identification. The
matrícula consular is an official I.D. card issued by
the Mexican Government through its consular offices. SB
1511 passed the Arizona Legislature and was vetoed by
Governor Napolitano.
National and International Boycott of Arizona Imminent
Prop.200, the rapid advance of its legislative
offspring, and the upsurge of armed paramilitaries on
the border, have prompted communities in Mexico,
Arizona,and across the United Statesto begin organizing
a boycott of Arizona. The boycott will target
Arizona businesses, conventions, and tourism, and will
ask individuals and businesses to shop, travel, and
conduct business elsewhere.
The communities most affected by Prop. 200 and its
offspring bills in the Arizona Legislature wield
considerable economic power. Mexican tourists alone
spend anestimated $1.6 billion in Arizonaevery year,
and Mexican immigrant purchasing power is close to $4
billion.Mexicans who might normally visit Arizonato
shop would be asked not to purchase anything in the
state. In addition, immigrants, Latinos, and their
allies in Arizonahave begun to engage in work
stoppages, and are considering boycotting
specificindustries or companies that support anti-
immigrant legislation.
The boycott will coincide with a petition drive to
repeal Prop. 200. Arizonans helda series of community
meetings in May, 2005, to decide what industries
theboycott will target and to consult the communities
that would be most impacted by such an action.
Inthe early 1990s, Arizonans challenged white
supremacists with a boycott andwon. When a ballot
initiative to recognize the Martin Luther King Jr.
holidayfailed to pass, local and national civil rights
groups initiated a national boycott of Arizona. The year-
long boycott cost Arizona$200 million, its reputation,
and an NFL Superbowl. When given the chance tovote on
the holiday again, Arizona voters approved it.
Arizona currently isat the epicenter of a national and
international struggle to defend the humanrights of
immigrants and U.S. citizens of color. The passage of
Prop. 200 here marked the kick-off of adangerous state-
by-state drive to hide a racist campaign behind a
strategic front of blaming immigrants for economic and
social ills.
Almost completely missing from the heated contest
playing out in Arizonaand nationally is a discussion of
the unjust U.S. trade policies that propel migration.
Immigrants suffer increasing imprisonment and policing
for simply crossing a border. Instead of imposing
harsher restrictions on the First World's exploitation
of Third World peoples, U.S. laws punish the victims of
theglobal economic system even further.
"Wesee the effects of these free trade policies every
day in the faces of the workers at our Centers," said
Salvador Reza, director of the Macehualli Work Center in
Phoenix, a day labor center that could soonbe banned
under HB 2592. "Prop. 200 and its henchmen have got to
bestopped, or this place is in for a boycott."
--------------------------------------------------
Margot Veranes and Adriana Navarro are members of
Defeat 200 in Tucson, Arizona.For more information on
Prop. 200 and similar bills currently before the
Arizona Legislature, the Boycott of Arizona, and
other ways to support immigrantrights campaigns
in Arizona,please contact Defeat 200 at
defeat200@yahoo.com.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Labor and immigrant workers
An important viewpoint.
Labor Needs a Radical Vision
by David Bacon
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0605bacon.htm
Labor Needs a Radical Vision
by David Bacon
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0605bacon.htm
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Left Victories in Latin America Create New Opportunities for SOA Opponents
Leftist Victories in Latin America Create New Opportunities for SOA Opponents
by Dan Bacher
The increasing number of leftist, populist led governments winning elections in Latin America means a new opportunity for Fr. Roy Bourgeois and other opponents of the School of the Americas (SOA) to close the institution down.
The left is on an unprecedented ascendance in Latin America. After years of suffering under U.S. backed dictatorships, the majority of the people in South America have rejected neo-liberal policies and have voted for left-leaning governments in the most recent elections. SOA Watch, the organization started by Bourgeois, now has the chance to ask the elected leaders of these countries to pull their troops out of training at the school.
The triumph of Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela, Lula's Workers Party in Brazil, Nestor Kirchner's populist government in Argentina, socialist President Tabare Vasquez in Uruguay and President Ricardo Lagos in Chile are the result of a popular upsurge by populations sick of corporate globalization and the predations of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.
"The victory of the socialist doctor, Tabare Vazquez, in February's elections in Uruguay has prompted analysts and left-wing presidents to talk of a 'new South America,'" observed James Painter, BBC Latin American analyst. "They point out that left-leaning leaders run the big three economies of Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, and now predominate in most of the rest of the region. The only exception is President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, who remains adamantly pro- Washington and free market policies."
Both President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva of Brazil did extremely well in recent local elections. Pro-government candidates won in 20 of Venezuela's 22 states, according to Painter. Lula's Workers Party in Brazil won the most number of votes nationwide and doubled the number of local councils it won in 2000 - even though it lost Sao Paulo and Porto Alegre.
In Central America, the left is also on the upsurge. The Sandinista Front (FSLN) won 87 of Nicaragua's 152 mayoral posts in the November 2004 elections. The victories will boost Ortega's chances in 2006 of winning back the presidency he lost in the election of 1990.
Likewise in El Salvador, the leftist FMLN saw an increase in seats in the parliament and municipal government posts in the 2003 elections, though the presidency is still controlled by the right wing. The FMLN won 31 deputy seats against the right wing ARENA Party’s 27 deputies in the parliamentary elections, although ARENA won the presidential election of March 2004 by a margin of 57% to 35% against the FMLN.
The focus of SOA Watch, founded by Father Roy Bourgeois, continues to be the passage of legislation in the U.S. Congress to close down the School of the Americas. However, his efforts to get progressive Latin American governments to pull their troops out of training at the "School of the Assassins" are already beginning to bear fruit, something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. A new front has been opened in the battle to close the SOA.
Bourgeois recently met with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, a country that has sent 4,000 troops to the school. Chavez agreed to stop sending troops to the school - a historic moment in the long struggle to shut the institution down.
"We are very hopeful that we will get Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil and other countries to withdraw from participation in the school this year," said Bourgeois at an appearance in Sacramento this spring. "We are very encouraged by Chavez's decision to no longer send troops to the SOA."
"For many years, the eyes of Latin America were focused on Nicaragua," explained Bourgeois. "The Sandinistas did a lot of good things, like redistribute land, conduct a literacy campaign and empower the powerless."
However, the United States' intervention in Nicaragua resulted in many of the revolution's gains being set back after the U.S. battered the population with the brutal Contra War. The result was the loss of the presidency by Daniel Ortega to Violetta Chamorro in 1990.
The political situation now has changed dramatically from those bleak years right after the Sandinistas were defeated. "After years under the IMF and World Bank structural adjustment policies, the people and their governments are realizing these policies are not working and they are moving away from them. The majority of people are poor and struggling for their survival," said Bourgeois.
"The populist victories in Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and Uruguay are all about bringing poor people into the circle and addressing the issues of poverty and health care," he added. "This will cause a conflict with the people in Washington, but these countries have the right to self-determination. Our country has been on the wrong side, on the side of the small elite and the corporations, rather being on the side of the people."
The growing groundswell against U.S. military and economic domination makes this year a key time to pressure the U.S. to shut down the SOA. "We must close down the SOA because it provides the muscle for U.S. foreign policy and protects the economic interests of the corporate giants," said Bourgeois.
In March, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) reintroduced legislation in the 109th Congress to suspend operations of the School of the Americas (now renamed -- WHINSEC -- the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation).
HR 1217, "The Latin America Military Training Review Act of 2005," had 78 bi-partisan introductory co- sponsors -- thanks to intense lobbying efforts by activists during the February Lobby Day and National Call-in Day by SOA Watch. The bill currently has 105 bi-partisan co-sponsors; Representative Doris Matsui became the 105th after a delegation by local SOA Watch activists Leisa Faulkner Barnes and Janice Freeman, supported by Lorraine Krofchok of Grandmothers For Peace, in May.
The School of the Americas has trained a majority of the dictators and military officers responsible for the killing, massacre and torture of hundreds of thousands of people in Latin America. Many of the soldiers and officers responsible for the Guatemalan Genocide of the 1980's, where over 200,000 people were killed and 637 Mayan villages were wiped off the face of the map, were SOA graduates.
Of the 28 soldiers involved in the slaughter of the 9 Jesuits, their housekeeper and her daughter at the Central American University in November 1989, 19 were SOA graduates.
Since SOA Watch has been demonstrating at Fort Benning, 200 courageous activists have been jailed, spending a total of 85 years in federal prison. Sacramento's Leisa Faulkner Barnes last year completed a three-month sentence in the women's federal prison in Dublin for participation in the protest at the SOA in November 2003.
"We will keep coming back to Fort Benning until we shut the SOA down," said Bourgeois. "We will again demonstrate at the school on November 19 to 20 this year."
Please take the time to call your Congress Member by DC office by calling the Capitol Hill Switchboard (202-224-3121) and ask them to support Rep. Jim McGovern's HR 1217. For more information, contact SOA Watch at: www.soaw.org. For more information about the Sacramento SOA Watch, call Janice Freeman, 916-812-7680, or Leisa Faulkner Barnes, 916-801-4184
Here is a suggested message for you to convey: "I am calling Congressman/woman ________ to remind him/her that Rep. Jim McGovern has introduced HR 1217, The Latin America Military Training Review Act of 2005, which would suspend and investigate the School of the Americas, which now uses the acronym WHINSEC. I urge the Congressman/woman to contact Rep. McGovern's office to become a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill. This would be one very concrete step to support human rights and promote peace and justice for the people of Latin America."
by Dan Bacher
The increasing number of leftist, populist led governments winning elections in Latin America means a new opportunity for Fr. Roy Bourgeois and other opponents of the School of the Americas (SOA) to close the institution down.
The left is on an unprecedented ascendance in Latin America. After years of suffering under U.S. backed dictatorships, the majority of the people in South America have rejected neo-liberal policies and have voted for left-leaning governments in the most recent elections. SOA Watch, the organization started by Bourgeois, now has the chance to ask the elected leaders of these countries to pull their troops out of training at the school.
The triumph of Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela, Lula's Workers Party in Brazil, Nestor Kirchner's populist government in Argentina, socialist President Tabare Vasquez in Uruguay and President Ricardo Lagos in Chile are the result of a popular upsurge by populations sick of corporate globalization and the predations of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.
"The victory of the socialist doctor, Tabare Vazquez, in February's elections in Uruguay has prompted analysts and left-wing presidents to talk of a 'new South America,'" observed James Painter, BBC Latin American analyst. "They point out that left-leaning leaders run the big three economies of Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, and now predominate in most of the rest of the region. The only exception is President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, who remains adamantly pro- Washington and free market policies."
Both President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva of Brazil did extremely well in recent local elections. Pro-government candidates won in 20 of Venezuela's 22 states, according to Painter. Lula's Workers Party in Brazil won the most number of votes nationwide and doubled the number of local councils it won in 2000 - even though it lost Sao Paulo and Porto Alegre.
In Central America, the left is also on the upsurge. The Sandinista Front (FSLN) won 87 of Nicaragua's 152 mayoral posts in the November 2004 elections. The victories will boost Ortega's chances in 2006 of winning back the presidency he lost in the election of 1990.
Likewise in El Salvador, the leftist FMLN saw an increase in seats in the parliament and municipal government posts in the 2003 elections, though the presidency is still controlled by the right wing. The FMLN won 31 deputy seats against the right wing ARENA Party’s 27 deputies in the parliamentary elections, although ARENA won the presidential election of March 2004 by a margin of 57% to 35% against the FMLN.
The focus of SOA Watch, founded by Father Roy Bourgeois, continues to be the passage of legislation in the U.S. Congress to close down the School of the Americas. However, his efforts to get progressive Latin American governments to pull their troops out of training at the "School of the Assassins" are already beginning to bear fruit, something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. A new front has been opened in the battle to close the SOA.
Bourgeois recently met with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, a country that has sent 4,000 troops to the school. Chavez agreed to stop sending troops to the school - a historic moment in the long struggle to shut the institution down.
"We are very hopeful that we will get Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil and other countries to withdraw from participation in the school this year," said Bourgeois at an appearance in Sacramento this spring. "We are very encouraged by Chavez's decision to no longer send troops to the SOA."
"For many years, the eyes of Latin America were focused on Nicaragua," explained Bourgeois. "The Sandinistas did a lot of good things, like redistribute land, conduct a literacy campaign and empower the powerless."
However, the United States' intervention in Nicaragua resulted in many of the revolution's gains being set back after the U.S. battered the population with the brutal Contra War. The result was the loss of the presidency by Daniel Ortega to Violetta Chamorro in 1990.
The political situation now has changed dramatically from those bleak years right after the Sandinistas were defeated. "After years under the IMF and World Bank structural adjustment policies, the people and their governments are realizing these policies are not working and they are moving away from them. The majority of people are poor and struggling for their survival," said Bourgeois.
"The populist victories in Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and Uruguay are all about bringing poor people into the circle and addressing the issues of poverty and health care," he added. "This will cause a conflict with the people in Washington, but these countries have the right to self-determination. Our country has been on the wrong side, on the side of the small elite and the corporations, rather being on the side of the people."
The growing groundswell against U.S. military and economic domination makes this year a key time to pressure the U.S. to shut down the SOA. "We must close down the SOA because it provides the muscle for U.S. foreign policy and protects the economic interests of the corporate giants," said Bourgeois.
In March, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) reintroduced legislation in the 109th Congress to suspend operations of the School of the Americas (now renamed -- WHINSEC -- the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation).
HR 1217, "The Latin America Military Training Review Act of 2005," had 78 bi-partisan introductory co- sponsors -- thanks to intense lobbying efforts by activists during the February Lobby Day and National Call-in Day by SOA Watch. The bill currently has 105 bi-partisan co-sponsors; Representative Doris Matsui became the 105th after a delegation by local SOA Watch activists Leisa Faulkner Barnes and Janice Freeman, supported by Lorraine Krofchok of Grandmothers For Peace, in May.
The School of the Americas has trained a majority of the dictators and military officers responsible for the killing, massacre and torture of hundreds of thousands of people in Latin America. Many of the soldiers and officers responsible for the Guatemalan Genocide of the 1980's, where over 200,000 people were killed and 637 Mayan villages were wiped off the face of the map, were SOA graduates.
Of the 28 soldiers involved in the slaughter of the 9 Jesuits, their housekeeper and her daughter at the Central American University in November 1989, 19 were SOA graduates.
Since SOA Watch has been demonstrating at Fort Benning, 200 courageous activists have been jailed, spending a total of 85 years in federal prison. Sacramento's Leisa Faulkner Barnes last year completed a three-month sentence in the women's federal prison in Dublin for participation in the protest at the SOA in November 2003.
"We will keep coming back to Fort Benning until we shut the SOA down," said Bourgeois. "We will again demonstrate at the school on November 19 to 20 this year."
Please take the time to call your Congress Member by DC office by calling the Capitol Hill Switchboard (202-224-3121) and ask them to support Rep. Jim McGovern's HR 1217. For more information, contact SOA Watch at: www.soaw.org. For more information about the Sacramento SOA Watch, call Janice Freeman, 916-812-7680, or Leisa Faulkner Barnes, 916-801-4184
Here is a suggested message for you to convey: "I am calling Congressman/woman ________ to remind him/her that Rep. Jim McGovern has introduced HR 1217, The Latin America Military Training Review Act of 2005, which would suspend and investigate the School of the Americas, which now uses the acronym WHINSEC. I urge the Congressman/woman to contact Rep. McGovern's office to become a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill. This would be one very concrete step to support human rights and promote peace and justice for the people of Latin America."
Friday, June 03, 2005
Taking Back America ( or at least the U.S.A.)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mayor2jun02,1,3826372.story
Villaraigosa Wins Over Crowds in Nation's Capital
By Patrick McGreevy
Times Staff Writer
June 2, 2005
WASHINGTON — Los Angeles' new political celebrity, Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa, took his victory tour to the nation's capital Wednesday, receiving rave reviews for appearances that included a national conference of Democratic activists and a lunch with some of the nation's most influential Latinos.
The city councilman does not take office as mayor until July 1, which limited the substantive opportunities in his daylong swing but not the reaction he earned. Everywhere he went, supporters fawned, many of them asking him to autograph their copies of this week's Newsweek magazine, which bears his smiling face on the cover.
"He represents the future of progressive politics in America," said Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, as he introduced Villaraigosa to an audience of more than 1,000 activists who gave him three standing ovations.
Villaraigosa won over the crowd at the group's Take Back America conference, even as he complained that it was not diverse enough, and that the Democratic Party had not done enough to strike a chord with ordinary Americans. He said neither main political party has made urban issues, including poverty and homelessness, enough of a priority .
"I think we need to look long and hard within our movement," Villaraigosa told the largely white group. "You look at this room today, and you don't see the kind of diversity we need to build a strong movement in America. We are not reaching out enough."
A politician who won by reaching out to conservative San Fernando Valley voters as well as Westside liberals, Villaraigosa told the group he is "an unabashed progressive but I'm not a knee-jerk."
Activists, some of whom were not familiar with Villaraigosa, said they found his speech powerful and refreshing.
"I'm a big fan," said Tony Simone of New York City, who had Villaraigosa sign his copy of Newsweek. "I completely agree with what he says."
Villaraigosa had planned to make the trip even before he won the runoff election against Mayor James K. Hahn two weeks ago, and the event was one of five public appearances and private meetings for him. The whirlwind visit started when he arrived by red-eye flight Wednesday morning. He was scheduled to fly back to Los Angeles on Wednesday night to meet today with the head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Villaraigosa also received an enthusiastic reception at a Latino Leadership lunch attended by 200 influential Latinos, including U.S. Treasurer Anna Escobedo Cabral, deputy assistant to the president Ruben Barrales, ambassadors, city council members, corporate executives and labor leaders, including Linda Chavez Thompson, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO. Many stood in line to tell him how much his victory meant to them.
Jesse Rios, a labor leader from Chicago, said Villaraigosa's victory would open the door for others.
"I'm so proud of him. It's a tremendous victory for Latinos throughout the country," said Rios, who is executive director of the Labor Council for Latino American Advancement.
Villaraigosa's lunch appearance drew a surprise visit from Washington Mayor Anthony Williams, a former Los Angeles resident who had counseled Villaraigosa after his loss to Hahn in the 2001 mayor's race.
"He's going to do an incredible job," Williams told reporters as he and Villaraigosa clasped each other on the shoulders.
Barrales, a Californian who is White House director of governmental affairs, told Villaraigosa the Bush administration would work closely with him.
"The White House is open to you," he said. "We are there to work with you on issues important to Los Angeles and the United States of America."
Villaraigosa, who was accompanied by City Council President Alex Padilla, said he owed his election to support from voters across Los Angeles. But he acknowledged its importance for the Latino community.
"This wasn't about me. This was about a great country we live in," he said. "This is about a community that has struggled and contributed to the incredible prosperity that is America. This is about a community that wanted to participate."
The mayor-elect attended the grand opening ceremony for a new headquarters building for the National Council of La Raza, where the group's president, Janet Murguria, said Villaraigosa's victory had reverberated across the country.
"It's historic, it's a landmark; we're very proud of him," she said.
"But more than that, we are excited about the potential for others building similar multicultural coalitions in the future."
Beyond speeches and interviews, Villaraigosa also used the Washington trip to meet with the city's lobbyists to hear about funding and legislative proposals affecting Los Angeles.
In his campaign, the councilman made several promises that probably would require Washington's help, including expanding the police force by 1,000 officers and extending the city's subway system.
Los Angeles has not always fared well in seeking its share of federal assistance. The Rose Institute of State and Local Government issued a report in 2001 that found that Los Angeles ranked eighth out of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County in receiving federal funds.
In response, Hahn hired the Washington lobbying firm Patton Boggs, which has been paid $900,000 in the last few years to supplement the work of the city's lobbyists in Washington.
Villaraigosa emerged from a meeting with the lobbyists saying he would aggressively pursue the city's agenda in Washington. He said he planned to meet with key congressional committee heads soon and would institute a "Los Angeles Day," when the city's leaders would descend on the nation's capital to press their case.
"Obviously, we are going to continue to make funding for homeland security a priority, addressing issues related to the port as well," Villaraigosa told reporters. He said many appropriations for this year have been set, but that he was looking at next year.
Villaraigosa's visit occurred while Congress was in recess, so the mayor-elect was not able to meet with any of Los Angeles' 14 representatives. But those interviewed by The Times as they headed back to their districts predicted that Villaraigosa would have more success than Hahn in getting Los Angeles attention from the federal government.
"We all liked him; most of us endorsed him. And we all want him to succeed," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks). "He has a certain infectious charisma, which has helped him with everything he has tried to accomplish. He should be able to present our case well."
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
Article licensing and reprint options
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Home Delivery | Advertise | Archives | Contact | Site Map | Help
partners:
Villaraigosa Wins Over Crowds in Nation's Capital
By Patrick McGreevy
Times Staff Writer
June 2, 2005
WASHINGTON — Los Angeles' new political celebrity, Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa, took his victory tour to the nation's capital Wednesday, receiving rave reviews for appearances that included a national conference of Democratic activists and a lunch with some of the nation's most influential Latinos.
The city councilman does not take office as mayor until July 1, which limited the substantive opportunities in his daylong swing but not the reaction he earned. Everywhere he went, supporters fawned, many of them asking him to autograph their copies of this week's Newsweek magazine, which bears his smiling face on the cover.
"He represents the future of progressive politics in America," said Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, as he introduced Villaraigosa to an audience of more than 1,000 activists who gave him three standing ovations.
Villaraigosa won over the crowd at the group's Take Back America conference, even as he complained that it was not diverse enough, and that the Democratic Party had not done enough to strike a chord with ordinary Americans. He said neither main political party has made urban issues, including poverty and homelessness, enough of a priority .
"I think we need to look long and hard within our movement," Villaraigosa told the largely white group. "You look at this room today, and you don't see the kind of diversity we need to build a strong movement in America. We are not reaching out enough."
A politician who won by reaching out to conservative San Fernando Valley voters as well as Westside liberals, Villaraigosa told the group he is "an unabashed progressive but I'm not a knee-jerk."
Activists, some of whom were not familiar with Villaraigosa, said they found his speech powerful and refreshing.
"I'm a big fan," said Tony Simone of New York City, who had Villaraigosa sign his copy of Newsweek. "I completely agree with what he says."
Villaraigosa had planned to make the trip even before he won the runoff election against Mayor James K. Hahn two weeks ago, and the event was one of five public appearances and private meetings for him. The whirlwind visit started when he arrived by red-eye flight Wednesday morning. He was scheduled to fly back to Los Angeles on Wednesday night to meet today with the head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Villaraigosa also received an enthusiastic reception at a Latino Leadership lunch attended by 200 influential Latinos, including U.S. Treasurer Anna Escobedo Cabral, deputy assistant to the president Ruben Barrales, ambassadors, city council members, corporate executives and labor leaders, including Linda Chavez Thompson, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO. Many stood in line to tell him how much his victory meant to them.
Jesse Rios, a labor leader from Chicago, said Villaraigosa's victory would open the door for others.
"I'm so proud of him. It's a tremendous victory for Latinos throughout the country," said Rios, who is executive director of the Labor Council for Latino American Advancement.
Villaraigosa's lunch appearance drew a surprise visit from Washington Mayor Anthony Williams, a former Los Angeles resident who had counseled Villaraigosa after his loss to Hahn in the 2001 mayor's race.
"He's going to do an incredible job," Williams told reporters as he and Villaraigosa clasped each other on the shoulders.
Barrales, a Californian who is White House director of governmental affairs, told Villaraigosa the Bush administration would work closely with him.
"The White House is open to you," he said. "We are there to work with you on issues important to Los Angeles and the United States of America."
Villaraigosa, who was accompanied by City Council President Alex Padilla, said he owed his election to support from voters across Los Angeles. But he acknowledged its importance for the Latino community.
"This wasn't about me. This was about a great country we live in," he said. "This is about a community that has struggled and contributed to the incredible prosperity that is America. This is about a community that wanted to participate."
The mayor-elect attended the grand opening ceremony for a new headquarters building for the National Council of La Raza, where the group's president, Janet Murguria, said Villaraigosa's victory had reverberated across the country.
"It's historic, it's a landmark; we're very proud of him," she said.
"But more than that, we are excited about the potential for others building similar multicultural coalitions in the future."
Beyond speeches and interviews, Villaraigosa also used the Washington trip to meet with the city's lobbyists to hear about funding and legislative proposals affecting Los Angeles.
In his campaign, the councilman made several promises that probably would require Washington's help, including expanding the police force by 1,000 officers and extending the city's subway system.
Los Angeles has not always fared well in seeking its share of federal assistance. The Rose Institute of State and Local Government issued a report in 2001 that found that Los Angeles ranked eighth out of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County in receiving federal funds.
In response, Hahn hired the Washington lobbying firm Patton Boggs, which has been paid $900,000 in the last few years to supplement the work of the city's lobbyists in Washington.
Villaraigosa emerged from a meeting with the lobbyists saying he would aggressively pursue the city's agenda in Washington. He said he planned to meet with key congressional committee heads soon and would institute a "Los Angeles Day," when the city's leaders would descend on the nation's capital to press their case.
"Obviously, we are going to continue to make funding for homeland security a priority, addressing issues related to the port as well," Villaraigosa told reporters. He said many appropriations for this year have been set, but that he was looking at next year.
Villaraigosa's visit occurred while Congress was in recess, so the mayor-elect was not able to meet with any of Los Angeles' 14 representatives. But those interviewed by The Times as they headed back to their districts predicted that Villaraigosa would have more success than Hahn in getting Los Angeles attention from the federal government.
"We all liked him; most of us endorsed him. And we all want him to succeed," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks). "He has a certain infectious charisma, which has helped him with everything he has tried to accomplish. He should be able to present our case well."
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
Article licensing and reprint options
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Home Delivery | Advertise | Archives | Contact | Site Map | Help
partners:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)