The California Recall Is Dangerous

 The Recall Is Dangerous !

The  California recall vote scheduled for Sept 14, is powered by a partisan, Republican coalition of national Republicans, anti-vaxxers, QAnon conspiracy theorists, anti-immigrant activists and Trump supporters. They seek to overturn the California governor’s election and their victory could threaten California’s economic recovery and Covid  control efforts.

From the Los Angeles Times: 

“Allied with radical and extreme elements… includ[ing] groups promoting distrust of government, science and medicine; peddlers of QAnon doomsday conspiracies; “patriots” readying for battle and one organization allied with the far-right extremist group, the Proud Boys.”

POLITICO reported how one of the co-founders and chief organizers of the recall- a former Yolo county deputy sheriff,  suggested it would be a good idea to “microchip” immigrants, and anti-immigrant rhetoric has been central to recall organizers’ appeals to supporters.

In addition to the anti Vaxxer extremism, the recall advocates reveal their anti immigrant  emphasis in the  published  official statement of reasons for the recall.  In the second sentence they say, 

“ Governor Newsom has implemented laws which are detrimental to the citizens of this state and our way of life. Laws he endorsed favor foreign nationals in our country illegally, over that of our own citizens….

And,  in the fourth sentence  they say, “ He has imposed sanctuary state status and fails to enforce immigration laws.”

That is how they argue in public for the record.  On social media they are much more blatant and aggressive. Could they be more clear? These are anti immigrant dog whistles.  And dog whistles work with some voters. 

This campaign is a  dangerous repeat  of the 1994 campaign of California  Prop.187 which initiated over 10 years of anti immigrant repression in the nation.   California  Proposition 187 was a hate crime.  It was a racists law, passed by 2/3 of California voters.  It banned over 600,000 immigrants from receiving needed food stamps, medical care.   Although overturned by a court decision at the state level in 1999, the elements of California  Prop. 187 became national law in 1996 as a part of the Immigration Reform and Control act of 1996 and the bipartisan  " Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193)."  during the Clinton Administration. 

 These laws and policies are included in some of the most punitive and cruel  aspects of our current immigration enforcement system. How did this happen ?  In the Summer of 1993, a failing economy and governmental retrenchment combined to make Republican Governor Pete Wilson the most unpopular governor in recent history.  By November of 1994 Wilson won re-election with over 56% of the vote.  Two factors combined to deliver victory to Wilson; a mean spirited, divisive, and racist campaign directed against Mexican and Mexican Americans, and an inept campaign by Democratic Candidate Kathleen Brown. 

            The voters of California voted 62% to 38% in favor of Proposition 187, the  so called Save Our State initiative to restrict illegal immigration.  A number of groups including FAIR, the Republican Party,  Zero Population Growth and the Perot organization worked together to qualify the initiative. 

            In 1994 California had a population that is 56.3 % White, 26.3 % Latino, 9.4% Asian, 7.4 % African American, and 0.6% other.  However, according to exit polls, the voters in this election were 80% white, 9% Latino, 7 % African American, and 4 % Asian. Exit polls show that Latinos voted against Prop. 187 by 3 to 1, African Americans split their vote 50 -50, and the Anglo electorate, then the majority, passed the proposition by over 60%.

             

            On campuses the Chicano/Latino youth mobilized in unprecedented numbers. School walk outs and protests occurred up and down the state – but campus politics could not match the power of enraged, organized, angry voters.   

            

Make no mistake about it. This was an anti Mexican campaign.  While the Wilson said that he welcomed legal immigrants, the photos, the ads, the letters, the references, and the scapegoating clearly blamed Mexicans for the state’s economic crisis. 

 

The anti Mexican immigrant campaign of 1994  had far reaching  consequences.  For example, Proposition 186 on the same ballot would have provided a single payer health system for California, but it was defeated by the engaged voters.  In following years similar White voter majorities passed Proposition 209 banning Affirmative Action in California, and Proposition 227 banning bilingual education programs among others.

 

            Since Trump, blame the immigrant politics is on the Republican voter mobilization agenda once again. They are using the Covid economic crisis and blaming the current California governor for an endless series of problems related to the pandemic – and they are engaging and motivating the dangerous, armed white militarized organizations.  This agitation grows the white supremacy movement in the state and advances Republican politics- the same people who sought to overthrow the U.S. government on Jan.6, 2020. 

 

    California politics changed in the decade after the 1994  passing of Proposition 187. The Latino vote grew from about 20% of the electorate to 30 %.  A new younger generation of Latinos have now become active and elected leaders.  The growth of the Latino vote produced a major shift as California “Turned Blue,”  https://newlaborforum.cuny.edu/2020/01/03/the-blue-ing-of-california/ .  However the harmful national legislation that derived from the Proposition 187 campaign was never repealed.  It remains law. 

 

  And, bad race baiting politics did not go away.  In a substantive July 27, 2021, poll, some 47% of likely California voters would vote to recall Newsom, while some 50% oppose the recall.  And, the Republican right is much more engaged  and enthused in the campaign than are the Democrats.  A September election will be a low turnout election, which usually means an increased percentage of White voters. To date, the  effort to defeat the recall has been unimaginative.

 

This  recall campaign could be a decisive turning point similar to the attacks on union workers by then Governor Walker of 2010-2012 in Wisconsin.  With a mobilized  anti immigrant  anti Mexican campaign  a majority of California voters  could turn Republican once again. To avoid this calamity, every union, every progressive organization, every prodemocracy group, and certainly each of the many Latino political organizations should have their members walking precincts, working phone banks, and talking to their neighbors to make certain that a sufficient number of Democrats and independents understand the danger of this recall campaign. 

 

 

It is in each of our interests to unite to defeat this recall.

 

Dr. Duane E. Campbell,

Professor Emeritus. California State U- Sacramento

Co- Chair. Immigrants Rights Working Group,

Democratic Socialists of America

 

 

 

 

Soy De Aqui Y De Allá

 THURSDAY 9/9 — JOIN THE IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS WORKING GROUP FOR MIGRANT REPRESENTATION: SOY DE AQUÍ Y DE ALLÁ (FROM HERE AND FROM THERE)

El pasado 6 de junio México el gobierno izquierdista de MORENA de Andrés Manuel López Obrador aumentó su mayoría. En la Ciudad de México, por primera vez en la historia, se eligieron diputados migrantes al Congreso mexicano. Con esto, los de la Ciudad de México que residen en el exterior están representados en el Congreso Mexicano.

Durante esta elección, nuestro propio copresidente del Grupo de Trabajo de Derechos de los Inmigrantes de DSA, Jorge Mújica, fue elegido Diputado Federal Suplente.

Únase al Grupo de Trabajo sobre Derechos de los Inmigrantes de DSA para un seminario web, Representación de migrantes: soy de aquí y de allá (De aquí y de allá) el Jueves, 9/9 a las 8pm ET/7pm CT/6pm MT/5pm PT. Escucharemos a Jorge sobre la importancia de la representación y participación política.

---

This past June 6th Mexico held its congressional election and the left wing MORENA government of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador increased its majority. In Mexico City, for the first time in history, migrant deputies were elected to the Mexican Congress. With this, those from Mexico City who reside abroad are represented in the Mexican Congress.

During this election, our very own Immigrants’ Rights Working Group co-chair Jorge Mújica was elected as an Alternate Federal Deputy (Diputado Federal Suplente).

Join the Immigrants’ Rights Working Group Thursday, 9/9 at 8pm ET/7pm CT/6pm MT/5pm PT for a webinar, Migrant Representation: soy de aquí y de allá (From Here and From There). We will hear from Jorge about the importance of political representation and participation.

Oppose the Farm Work Force Modernization Act

 This legislation is in the Senate now.

An important issue in the current legislative session.

We had this post from David Bacon.

https://www.dsanorthstar.org/blog/joe-biden-should-roll-back-exploitative-guest-worker-programs

DSA’s Immigrant Rights Work Group endorsed a letter opposing this bill.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScEHOR16DVAyZVNCFkAWJMLI2Cpax6NGj6EFDpsRbRljbrF8w/viewform

For more details, see the webinar  below.

Duane Campbell 

Vermont webinar on immigration reform

Oppose the Republican Recall

 Oppose the California Recall 

The  California recall vote scheduled for Sept 14, is powered by a partisan, Republican coalition of national Republicans, anti-vaxxers, QAnon conspiracy theorists, anti-immigrant activists and Trump supporters. They seek to overturn the California governor’s election and their victory could threaten California’s economic recovery and Covid  control efforts.

From the Los Angeles Times: 

“Allied with radical and extreme elements… includ[ing] groups promoting distrust of government, science and medicine; peddlers of QAnon doomsday conspiracies; “patriots” readying for battle and one organization allied with the far-right extremist group, the Proud Boys.”

POLITICO reported how one of the co-founders and chief organizers of the recall- a former Yolo county deputy sheriff,  suggested it would be a good idea to “microchip” immigrants, and anti-immigrant rhetoric has been central to recall organizers’ appeals to supporters.

In addition to the anti Vaxxer extremism, the recall advocates reveal their anti immigrant  emphasis in the  published  official statement of reasons for the recall.  In the second sentence they say, 

“ Governor Newsom has implemented laws which are detrimental to the citizens of this state and our way of life. Laws he endorsed favor foreign nationals in our country illegally, over that of our own citizens….

And,  in the fourth sentence  they say, “ He has imposed sanctuary state status and fails to enforce immigration laws.”

That is how they argue in public for the record.  On social media they are much more blatant and aggressive. Could they be more clear? These are anti immigrant dog whistles.  And dog whistles work with some voters. 

This campaign is a  dangerous repeat  of the 1994 campaign of California  Prop.187 which initiated over 10 years of anti immigrant repression in the nation.   California  Proposition 187 was a hate crime.  It was a racists law, passed by 2/3 of California voters.  It banned over 600,000 immigrants from receiving needed food stamps, medical care.   Although overturned by a court decision at the state level in 1999, the elements of California  Prop. 187 became national law in 1996 as a part of the Immigration Reform and Control act of 1996 and the bipartisan  " Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193)."  during the Clinton Administration. 

 These laws and policies are included in some of the most punitive and cruel  aspects of our current immigration enforcement system. How did this happen ?  In the Summer of 1993, a failing economy and governmental retrenchment combined to make Republican Governor Pete Wilson the most unpopular governor in recent history.  By November of 1994 Wilson won re-election with over 56% of the vote.  Two factors combined to deliver victory to Wilson; a mean spirited, divisive, and racist campaign directed against Mexican and Mexican Americans, and an inept campaign by Democratic Candidate Kathleen Brown. 

            The voters of California voted 62% to 38% in favor of Proposition 187, the  so called Save Our State initiative to restrict illegal immigration.  A number of groups including FAIR, the Republican Party,  Zero Population Growth and the Perot organization worked together to qualify the initiative. 

            In 1994 California had a population that is 56.3 % White, 26.3 % Latino, 9.4% Asian, 7.4 % African American, and 0.6% other.  However, according to exit polls, the voters in this election were 80% white, 9% Latino, 7 % African American, and 4 % Asian. Exit polls show that Latinos voted against Prop. 187 by 3 to 1, African Americans split their vote 50 -50, and the Anglo electorate, then the majority, passed the proposition by over 60%.

             

            On campuses the Chicano/Latino youth mobilized in unprecedented numbers. School walk outs and protests occurred up and down the state – but campus politics could not match the power of enraged, organized, angry voters.   

            

Make no mistake about it. This was an anti Mexican campaign.  While the Wilson said that he welcomed legal immigrants, the photos, the ads, the letters, the references, and the scapegoating clearly blamed Mexicans for the state’s economic crisis. 

The anti Mexican immigrant campaign of 1994  had far reaching  consequences.  For example, Proposition 186 on the same ballot would have provided a single payer health system for California, but it was defeated by the engaged voters.  In following years similar White voter majorities passed Proposition 209 banning Affirmative Action in California, and Proposition 227 banning bilingual education programs among others.

 

            Since Trump, blame the immigrant politics is on the Republican voter mobilization agenda once again. They are using the Covid economic crisis and blaming the current California governor for an endless series of problems related to the pandemic – and they are engaging and motivating the dangerous, armed white militarized organizations.  This agitation grows the white supremacy movement in the state and advances Republican politics- the same people who sought to overthrow the U.S. government on Jan.6, 2020. 

 

    California politics changed in the decade after the 1994  passing of Proposition 187. The Latino vote grew from about 20% of the electorate to 30 %.  A new younger generation of Latinos have now become active and elected leaders.  The growth of the Latino vote produced a major shift as California “Turned Blue,”  https://newlaborforum.cuny.edu/2020/01/03/the-blue-ing-of-california/ .  However the harmful national legislation that derived from the Proposition 187 campaign was never repealed.  It remains law. 

 

  And, bad race baiting politics did not go away.  In a substantive July 27, 2021, poll, some 47% of likely California voters would vote to recall Newsom, while some 50% oppose the recall.  And, the Republican right is much more engaged  and enthused in the campaign than are the Democrats.  A September election will be a low turnout election, which usually means an increased percentage of White voters. To date, the anti recall campaign has been unimaginative.

 

The recall campaign could be a decisive turning point similar to the attacks on union workers by then Governor Walker of 2010-2012 in Wisconsin.  With a mobilized  anti immigrant  anti Mexican campaign  a majority of California voters  could turn Republican once again. To avoid this calamity, every union, every progressive organization, every prodemocracy group, and certainly each of the many Latino political organizations should have their members walking precincts, working phone banks, and talking to their neighbors to make certain that a sufficient number of Democrats and independents understand the danger of this recall campaign. 

 

 

It is in each of our interests to unite to defeat this recall.

 

Dr. Duane E. Campbell,

Professor Emeritus. California State U- Sacramento

Co- Chair. Immigrants Rights Working Group,

Democratic Socialists of America

 

 

 

 

The Reality Check: LIVING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE IN FARMWORKER COMMUNITIES

The Reality Check: LIVING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE IN FARMWORKER COMMUNITIES: LIVING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE IN FARMWORKER COMMUNITIES Photoessay by David BacoN Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, August 3, 2021 https://rosalux.nyc/l...

STOP THE REPUBLICAN RECALL

 

The recall is powered by a partisan, Republican coalition of national Republicans, anti-vaxxers, QAnon conspiracy theorists, anti-immigrant activists and Trump supporters. They want to overturn Governor Newsom’s election, and their victory could threaten California’s efforts to fight COVID-19.

From the Los Angeles Times: 

“Allied with radical and extreme elements… includ[ing] groups promoting distrust of government, science and medicine; peddlers of QAnon doomsday conspiracies; “patriots” readying for battle and one organization allied with the far-right extremist group, the Proud Boys.”

POLITICO reported how one of the co-founders and chief organizers of the recall suggested it would be a good idea to “microchip” immigrants, and anti-immigrant rhetoric has been central to recall organizers’ appeals to supporters.

National Republicans like Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee and Devin Nunes have all backed the recall effort. The Republican National Committee has even cut the recall a $250,000 check.

Instead of fighting COVID-19, Republicans are pulling a page from the Trump playbook and attacking Californians. In fact, a Republican recall will cost the state $100 million – money that could be used to help vaccinate our communities.

Whistleblower Says Fort Bliss Migrant Facility Felt Like A “Prison” For ...

Texas Governor Seeks to make it Illegal to assist Mirgrants.

ed. This is developing as a center piece of the Republican campaign for 2022 against immigrants,

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday threatened the governor of Texas with legal action over a new order from the governor’s office prohibiting non-law enforcement officers from driving undocumented people anywhere. 

“The Order violates federal law in numerous respects, and Texas cannot lawfully enforce the Executive order against any federal official private parties working with the United States,” Garland wrote to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R). 

If Abbott does not rescind the order, Garland concluded, “the United States intends to pursue all appropriate legal remedies to ensure that Texas does not interfere with the functions of the federal government.” 

Abbott’s order prohibited anyone except federal, state or local law enforcement from providing ground transportation “to a group of migrants who have been detained by CBP for crossing the border illegally or who would have been subject to expulsion under the Title 42 order.” 

Title 42, first invoked during the Trump administration, allows the government to immediately expel undocumented migrants, even those seeking asylum, due to the pandemic. The Biden administration has exempted unaccompanied minors from the expulsion authority, but it’s continued to expel adults and families.

Abbott directed state troopers to “stop any vehicle upon reasonable suspicion of a violation of paragraph 1, and to reroute such a vehicle back to its point of origin or a port of entry if a violation is confirmed.” The order authorized state law enforcement to impound vehicles that violated its first two paragraphs.

The governor said he was issuing the order in light of the pandemic, but as local media noted, Abbott has prohibited mask mandates in the state, even in schools, and Texas has vaccinated less of its population than most other states in the nation. 

Immigration advocates criticizing the order said it would only heighten chaos at migrant shelters, and that it would encourage racial profiling from law enforcement.  

Multiple non-law-enforcement actors, including non-profits, state health authorities and others help undocumented people move around Texas and the nation after they initially cross the border, as they await court dates. 

Garland said the order would endanger law enforcement, exacerbate crowding in shelters and interfere with with court dates for undocumented people. He cited several paragraphs of legal precedent. 

“Texas cannot lawfully enforce the Executive Order against any federal official or private parties working with the United States,” he wrote, adding later that “Texas cannot regulate the operations of private parties performing tasks on behalf of the United States.” 

“Moreover,” he added, “Texas has no authority to interfere with the United States’ ‘broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration’ by impairing the United States’ release of individuals and the ability of those individuals to comply with federal immigration law.” 

In short, Garland concluded before issuing his threat of legal action, “the Order is contrary to federal law and cannot be enforced.” 

36

 

 

Matt Shuham  (@mattshuham)  is a reporter in TPM’s New York office. Prior to joining TPM, he was associate editor of The National Memo and an editorial intern at Rolling Stone.

  

People of Color History in DSA

Two comrades in Sacramento have written a four part history of  people of color work in DSA. We congratulate them on their work and recommend it.

https://sacdsa.org/blog/2020/07/06/a-people-of-color-s-history-of-dsa-part-4-DSA-Looks-Inward/

 

At the same time, we must insist that the story of people of color in DSA is not only the story of African American participation. While mentioned in part two of the series, after that the work of the Anti Racism Commission and the Latino Commissions in DSA  disappear.   There needs to be a part five and six at least.  On our blog post  is a supplement to the four part series people of color history. The current  history of DSA as presented by the Sacramento writers  David Roddy and Alyssa De La Rosa  misses this important work. 

 

On our blog.

 

https://www.dsanorthstar.org/blog/people-of-color-history-of-dsa

 

Why is this important?

For the 2021 convention resolution # 36 calls for the rebuilding of an effort of Latino Organizing within DSA by chartering a Latino Socialistas Working Group. 

 

Here is that resolution.

https://convention2021.dsausa.org/files/sites/23/2021/05/2021-DSA-Convention-Resolutions-for-Secondary-Amendment-Review.pdf#page=126

The sections of the resolution explain well why DSA needs a Latino Socialist Working Group.  

Having spent my political career organizing along side the Latino community, and currently doing Immigrants rights work,  I find this resolution very important.  Of course a  Latino  agenda goes far beyond immigration issues,. Please support resolution 36.  

 

Posted by Duane Campbell 

 

 

 

 

Equal Rights for Migrant Workers

Equal Rights for Migrant Workers! Stop the Farm Workforce  Modernization Act! Register here. Many expected Joe Biden to make immigrant rights a top priority for his administration. While he has reversed some of the worst of Trump’s executive orders, he has kept the border closed, expelled hundreds of thousands of people, jailed thousands in detention facilities, and abandoned his immigration reform bill that would have at least opened some paths to legalization.  Instead, he is pushing for the Farm Workforce Modernization Act (FWMA) that would further criminalize migrant workers in the interests of big agribusiness. Join this webinar to learn about the FWMA, strategize about how we can pressure our congressional delegation to stop its passage, and encourage them to stand up for equal rights for migrants.  Speakers will include: Representatives of Migrant Justice Representatives of Vermont Interfaith Action Liz Kessler, Community Voices for Immigrant Rights And more to be announced.  Register here.

Mijente Organizes for Power

 BUILDING LATINX POWER AND WHAT’S NEXT UNDER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION

On June 24, 2021, Mijente gathered with donors and supporters to share the roots of Mijente and our latest strategies and tactics to build justice on the local and federal level in today’s new political climate. 

We spoke with Mijente’s Co-Founder and Director Marisa Franco, Senior Campaign Organizer Jacinta González, and Lane Santa Cruz, Council Member, Ward 1, City of Tucson, Arizona.

Mijente’s Roots: Contesting Power on All Fronts

Mijente’s Director Marisa opened up the event sharing that Latinx communities are one of the fastest growing populations in the United States. And any incredible demographic and social change in American history has been met with swift violence — “it’s as American as apple pie”. 

This means that Latinx people have a target on our backs. While our numbers might be growing, we still have unequal power as we continue to be criminalized more than ever before. 

Mijente was born to counteract this and build a grassroots organizing structure for Latinx people to come together, using multiple strategies and tactics, and contest power on all fronts. 

This means developing the people’s power to target corporations and governments, mobilize voters and impact elections, and develop community-led, autonomous efforts that give our people the resources we need for freedom. 

Contesting power on all fronts became especially important with the continued rise of the right and with Trump bombarding our communities through cruel policies. To fight this, working in electoral politics became one of Mijente’s newest strategies in 2020. 

Our goal was simple: make Trump a one-term president. 

To do this, Marisa spoke of needing to build an unprecedented movement to deliver the wins we need. Mijente mobilized our members, staff, and volunteers to canvass over 1 million people in the presidential election; reached 2-5 million people through social media, knocked on every single Latino door in the Georgia Senate run-off; and won key sheriff races in counties with long anti-immigrant histories. 

Listen to what Marisa has to share on the direction of Mijente: here

Mijente’s Next Priorities: Balancing Rapid Response and Long Term Strategy

Marisa further explained that today’s reshuffled political deck is as equally urgent as before. On one hand, we see the threat of the right’s powerful organizing. On the other, a fractious alliance with drastically different ideas about how to move forward.

And after such an exhausting year of loss and uncertainty, our communities deserve more. 

Which is why, moving forward, we are taking the time to invest in: 

• Developing our first ever strategic blueprint to remain an adaptable and nimble rapid response organization but also develop long term plans for the sustainability of our organization. 

• Strengthening our organizing muscles by developing new organizing and educational programming to bring more people into our movements. 

• Expanding our work further in the Southeast and Southwest over the next several election cycles; our work has shown that we can win red states.

Most Impacted Communities Will Speak with DHS Secretary Mayorkas 

Mijente’s Senior Campaign Organizer Jacinta then spoke to our work under the new Biden administration. 

She said, “Biden ran on a platform of ‘I’m not Trump’ and we knew that wasn’t enough for our community to actually have safety and dignity. It’s not enough to not be Trump. You have to go farther to dismantle this infrastructure that’s created so much harm in our communities.”

Mijente responded to the Biden win by following up on long outstanding demands. Within Biden’s first 100 days, we organized a sprint of “Eyes on ICE: Truth and Accountability Forums”, 30 events across the country where 150 people testified about the horrors of the U.S. immigration system and the policy solutions we need. This has resulted in Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accepting our invitation to meet with our most impacted community members to hear our stories and put forth our demands. We are in the process of scheduling this meeting as soon as possible. 

Listen to Jacinta’s perspective on our immigration work: here

Influencing ICE’s Enforcement Guidelines to Be Tools for Organizers 

Another opportunity Mijente has assessed as a key place to fight is ICE’s enforcement guidelines. DHS is developing these enforcement guidelines, which are essentially rules for how ICE agents act in the field, who they can arrest, and how long they can detain people, etc.

We, along with partner immigrant rights organizations, are working to be part of developing and influencing these guidelines to provide organizers, advocates, and lawyers a tool to empty our detention centers and close them down. 

People and Elected Officials Leading Together

Council Member Lane Santa Cruz of Ward 1 in Tucson, Arizona then spoke to us about how she decided to run for office and the role local politics can play in base building and organizing. 

Born and raised in Tucson, Lane recalls being very disconnected and not understanding local politics before running for office. It wasn’t until she experienced her own family shaken from the devastating loss of her older brother to a fentanyl overdose that she saw the structural ways we fail our communities. 

Lane decided then that she wanted to put her granito de arena to change her community. 

As a city council member, Lane works with Mijente to involve more community members in local politics through an experiment of co-governance. Co-governance is when elected officials listen to their constituents, rather than corporate lobbyists, and, together, they push forward policies that benefit the community. Mijente and Lane are using multiple strategies, such as canvassing 10,000 doors by the end of summer to find out people’s biggest priorities and inviting community members to join or start new neighborhood associations. 

Listen to more of Lane’s work and analysis: here

Through national and local organizing, from taking on ICE to building power in our communities, we are looking ahead to a year of solidifying our structure and being prepared to take our shot when the time comes.

Justice for Farmworkers

 

Nearly half of all U.S. farmworkers lack legal status. The average farm wage was $13.99 an hour as of 2019, roughly 60% of the average non-farm wage.

Washington state farmworker and labor leader Edgar Franks, pictured, says the state's new overtime protections for farmworkers will allow parents to spend more time with their families and address longstanding racial inequities., Courtesy of Edgar Franks

Oregon state Rep. Ricki Ruiz grew up the son of two farmworkers, and he remembers his family’s struggles vividly. “We almost faced eviction five times because we didn't have enough money for rent,” said Ruiz, a first-term Democrat. “We didn't go to the grocery store; we went to the food bank. We didn’t have extra clothes.” Ruiz hopes to change that situation for farmworkers in Oregon. He sponsored a bill that will mandate that farmworkers be paid overtime for any work beyond 40 hours a week. “If this legislation was passed when I was a kid, we would have had less stress in our family and my parents wouldn't have had to work 80 hours a week,” he said. “This will be life-changing for farmworkers. They will be able to make a living wage and support their families.” The effort in Oregon follows bills passed earlier this year in Washington and Colorado to grant overtime pay to farmworkers. Lawmakers in Maine are considering a similar measure. Currently, federal and most state laws exempt farmworkers from the overtime protections guaranteed to most other workers. Labor advocates say that precedent was set by the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, which was written to exclude Black field workers in order to win the support of Southern Democrats. Today, 83% of the nation’s farmworkers are Hispanic, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey. “The exclusion of farmworkers was rooted in racism and made possible by the feeling that it wasn't necessary to protect African Americans,” said Bruce Goldstein, president of Farmworker Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy and support group. “It's hard to believe that the exclusions of farmworkers from overtime pay and labor rights would continue if the majority of farmworkers were Caucasian.” Nearly half of all U.S. farmworkers lack legal status, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Just more than a quarter of farmworkers are U.S.-born, according to the agency's numbers. The Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning research think tank based in Washington, D.C., estimates about 10% are foreign workers in the United States on H-2A temporary visas. The average farm wage was $13.99 an hour as of 2019, roughly 60% of the average non-farm wage. Some lawmakers interviewed by Stateline said the overtime bills they sponsored would apply to workers on H-2A visas, while others said theirs would not. The disparate rules in federal and state laws show the need for federal action, farmworker activists say. Some lawmakers also have proposed whistleblower protections because undocumented workers are unlikely to report wage theft if they fear retaliation. Edgar Franks, a labor leader who picks raspberries and blueberries in Washington state, said overtime protections would not only boost wages, but also would keep families together. “A lot of us grew up with our parents at work all day and our older family members taking care of us,” said Franks, political director for Familias Unidas por la Justicia, a farmworker union. Last year brought renewed attention to racial justice and the frontline workers who face health risks in order to provide essential services. In several states, that spotlight led to the recognition of the plight of farmworkers, who advocates say are among the most vulnerable groups in the country. Lawmakers’ push to end inequities in overtime law has drawn support from President Joe Biden. But they’re up against the politically powerful agriculture industry, which asserts that new wage requirements would devastate farmers. “Incremental change for farmworkers, who are the most devalued human lives in our country, has always been an uphill battle,” said Elizabeth Strater, director of strategic campaigns with United Farm Workers, the labor union founded by Cesar Chavez and other organizers. “But no industry should feel entitled to use up a human body at a rate it's not meant to endure.” Agriculture industry groups say that farmers operate on thin margins, and they compete against other states and countries that grow the same products with less labor costs. They also note that farm work is seasonal, and requires immense amounts of work during harvest and planting times, which they believe is grounds for the longstanding farm work overtime exemption. “Overtime requirements, especially a blanket, standardized mandate when there is nothing standard about farm work, would make it increasingly difficult for farmers to remain competitive, leading to small farms going out of business,” wrote Allison Crittenden, congressional relations director at the American Farm Bureau Federation, in a statement provided after a Stateline request for an interview. Washington’s Law Earlier this year, Washington state lawmakers passed a bill that will grant farmworkers time-and-a-half overtime pay, phasing in a 40-hour threshold by 2024. The new law was a response to a state Supreme Court ruling in 2020 that required dairy workers to be paid overtime. “The deep-seated bias in agriculture is that labor needs to be as close to slavery as you can get it,” said Rosalinda Guillen, an activist with Community to Community Development, a Washington-based organization that focuses on food sovereignty and immigrant rights issues. “The court recognized the racist structure of the agriculture industry.” Agribusiness groups expected the court to rule similarly for other farmworkers, and they feared farmers would be required to pay workers retroactively for overtime worked in years past. The result was a bill that established overtime pay while protecting farmers from retroactive claims. It was a long-awaited win for farmworkers and progressive activists, supported—albeit begrudgingly—by the agriculture industry and its Republican allies. “Knowing that the court was very likely to impose this on us, we were open to a discussion on this being legislatively applied, as long as it was not done overnight,” said Jon DeVaney, president of the Washington State Tree Fruit Association. Washington state Sen. Curtis King, the Republican who sponsored the overtime bill, said he did so to protect farm owners from retroactive payments, though he disagreed that the previous state law, passed in 1959, was evidence of systemic racism. Despite sponsoring the bill, King still fears the overtime requirement could make it difficult for Washington farmers to compete with producers from other states or overseas. “We can sit here all day long and say the going wage ought to be such and such for farmworkers,” he said. “You go try and pay it and stay in business and see what happens.” Movement Elsewhere At present, only six states—California, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Minnesota and now Washington—offer any overtime coverage for farmworkers. Some of those states offer overtime only after 60 hours; California will phase in a 40-hour threshold by 2022. Even though Washington’s law was forced by a court decision, farmworker advocates say it has renewed momentum for efforts in other states. Earlier this week, Colorado lawmakers passed the Farmworker Bill of Rights, which will give minimum wage and overtime rights to the state’s farmworkers. The measure also will allow workers to join labor unions, mandate rest and eating breaks, and offer whistleblower protections to workers who report unsafe conditions. “The rights this bill will restore to these workers are rights that are enjoyed by almost every other worker in the state,” said Colorado state Sen. Jessie Danielson, the Democrat who sponsored the bill. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, has indicated he will sign the bill. In Oregon, Ruiz’s bill is still in committee, but he’s hopeful it will advance this session, aligning the state’s policy with neighboring West Coast states. “There's a majority of people of color working in the fields, and they're the ones being excluded from these resources,” Ruiz said. “I believe folks are going to appreciate that this region is honoring farmworkers. It will attract more workers and keep current workers.” Ag industry groups disagree. They say agribusinesses won’t be able to afford the extra wages, and the law will cause them to limit hours, split shifts and increase mechanization—forcing farmworkers to take on multiple jobs just to make the same money as before. “We heard from hundreds of farmers saying they would not be able to afford the bill as it was proposed, and ultimately it would result in a tremendous amount of job loss and wage reduction,” said Samantha Bayer, policy counsel with the Oregon Farm Bureau, which opposes the bill. “It’s a false promise that this would result in more wages.” Farm groups across the country have made similar predictions about overtime proposals in different states. Labor advocates view them as a threat to punish farmworkers. “‘The food system will be destroyed, the agriculture industry will be destroyed’—they say that about every single benefit that is given to farmworkers,” said Guillen, the Washington activist. “They have essentially said that if they have to pay farmworkers overtime, they’ll cut their hours and pay them less. That is insidious racially biased behavior.” Maine state Rep. Thom Harnett, a Democrat who has sponsored his own farmworker overtime bill, acknowledged that farming is a challenging industry. “There's a great deal of empathy for that industry, and I share that,” he said. “I just don't share putting it on the backs of the workers to be the ones who suffer the most. Because of these exceptions, we have farmworkers who have been stuck in poverty for generation after generation.” Farming groups say that overtime doesn’t make sense in an industry that requires immense amounts of work during seasonal periods such as planting and harvest time. To account for this, Hawaii’s law, for example, has a seasonality clause, which raises overtime thresholds during certain periods of the year. Farmers in Washington sought unsuccessfully to include a similar provision in their state’s bill. “In agriculture, there are seasonal activities where you can safely work more for short bursts of activity,” said DeVaney, the fruit tree farming advocate. “There are periods of the year where we have longer hours worked, and the work is by nature physically demanding.” Harnett noted that many itinerant farmworkers don’t get a reprieve from those cycles. Some laborers travel among states to find work in different regional growing seasons, often living in employer-provided housing. “We hear that farming is a unique business, because there's this intense period of planting and harvest,” he said. “For the farmworker, their life is that intense period over and over again.” Harnett’s bill has passed through a House committee but has not yet received a vote before the full House. National Efforts Activists were encouraged last month when Biden issued a statement praising Washington’s farmworker overtime bill. “For too long—and owing in large part to unconscionable race-based exclusions put in place generations ago—farmworkers have been denied some of the most fundamental rights that workers in almost every other sector have long enjoyed,” Biden said. U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who has been a leading voice on the issue, reintroduced the Fairness for Farm Workers Act last month, which would end federal overtime and minimum wage exemptions for farmworkers, although it would not apply to those on H-2A visas. The bill is included in the Biden administration’s immigration plan. Alex Brown covers environmental issues for Stateline. Prior to joining Pew, Brown wrote for The Chronicle in Lewis County, Washington state. He’s won awards for investigative reporting and feature writing from the Pacific Northwest Newspaper Association. In 2017, Brown thru-hiked the 2,650-mile Pacific Crest Trail, which traverses mountain ranges from the Mexican border to the Canadian border. He previously was a congressional correspondent for National Journal, where he covered energy and environment, technology and campaigns. Brown graduated from Union University and is a native of Michigan. Stateline provides daily reporting and analysis on trends in state policy. Since its founding in 1998, Stateline has maintained a commitment to the highest standards of nonpartisanship, objectivity, and integrity. Its team of veteran journalists combines original reporting with a roundup of the latest news from sources around the country. Sign up for email newsletters from The Pew Charitable Trusts. You'll get our latest findings and recommendations—plus opportunities to advocate for the issues you care about.